Hi Andreas, > Gesendet: Dienstag, 07. Oktober 2014 um 18:15 Uhr > Von: "Andreas Tille" <[email protected]> > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: GSoC 2015 - should there be a Debian Med / Blend proposal > separate from Debian? > > Hi Steffen, > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:13:06PM +0200, "Steffen Möller" wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The projects of Debian for the Google Summer of Code > > http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/homepage/google/gsoc2015 > > have their focus on the Debian infrastructure. It was quite some earning > > experience for me, but eventually I have grasped that this was a good thing. > > However, my personal ambition for Debian comes for a good part from the > > practical side of it all - it is my Bioinformatics desktop and/or server - > > and > > I want that helped by a GSoC, too. > > > > Now Debian is good (best?) with sharing libraries between otherwise > > independent software packages, but we are yet doing little to help > > with the inter-operability of those packages. And beyond our Wiki there > > is nothing that informs others about how to address our daily routine. > > This GSoC could help Debian (as a whole, not just "Med") to strengthen > > its ties with upstream and foster developments to help with the > > interaction of tools and the promotion of such workflows. > > > > While I see naturally quite some opportunities in Bioinformatics, I > > am highly interested to see our other blends address such workflows, > > too. So this could be a Debian Blend Project. Here some ideas: > > > > * Get Gentle (molecular cloning) dissected into several interoperating > > small command line tools and combine it with a workflow environment > > > > The reason for that is that molecular cloning is an iterative process > > and Gentle (like all other tools for molecular cloning I looked at, > > correct me if I am wrong) are dysfunctional with a representation of > > the steps taken to yield a particular amplicon. The workflow is the > > recipe to pass to the technical assistant. The workflow engine could > > be Taverna as a start, which is offered as a Debian package by upstream > > and ... well ... some day my package for it will work, there may be > > others. > > > > * Functional Tutorials > > > > We started to look at Youtube to learn about how to use any particular > > software. This hurts. Just a bit. I would very much like to see something > > in the lines of how Docker or VIM introduces itself as a template for > > biological sequence analysis. > > > > * Unit Tests > > > > Andreas has already been much at it. There should be more. And more. > > This GSoC could help. I reckon that we could also come up with new ideas > > about what such tests could work like, for instance when there is > > no perfect answer to a problem, as in the assembly of complete genomes > > from short sequences. > > > > * FPGA for application acceleration > > > > It was amazing to see how quickly the BitCoin folks jumped from GPUs > > to FPGA to ASICs. There is quite a number of affordable FPGA boards > > now available that would be good to have closer to our distribution > > to prepare for application acceleration. This fancy Open Source Laptop > > https://www.crowdsupply.com/kosagi/novena-open-laptop > > even has an FPGA within - albeit quite a small one. I would very > > much like to see something happening to help sharing Open Source > > hardware descriptions between such devices. > > > > ... > > > > There is more. Much more. But how is your feeling about it all? Is it a > > good idea to have this organised in parallel to what the core of Debian > > is doing? Are such worthwhile projects in the first place? Are there > > other GSoC organisations that are likely to care for them? > > I agree that there are several interesting points but I for myself > regard the pure time spent into the mentoring itself as long enough. I > do not want to spent it in the additional bureaucratic stuff. So I will > not stop anybody with an honest attempt to do it but we probably need to > be prepared to answer the question why a Debian subgroup wants to > register as extra organisation. If I where in charge from the Google > side of GSoC I would ask this question.
They should ask, indeed. I would not bother you with the admin but would be unhappy if you would not mentor a project. Concerning the need of a separation, well, this is deeply buried in my mailbox. I can say so much that the "Gentle" project was proposed in 2010 IIRC and turned down by the Debian GSoC admins at the time - even though it had passed the threshold and found a student. > Moreover your description of projects above IMHO fits to some extend > to the general policy Debian has for GSoC. This would be nice. Must have changed, then. The FPGA one would be a prime candidate for the regular Debian GSoC, but this is more on FPGA than on Debian and I had unfortunate experiences with such non-Debian-centric projects in the past. > BTW I would have expected something for Outreach Program for Women. I > personally have put all my forces to make sure that all our packages are > migrating to testing (Steffen, you remember that I asked for somebody > else filing the needed ROM bug for mgltools-sff, right (hint, hint)) and :) I do not . I'll look at it. > so I was not really up for finding a proper project description. Any > volunteer for this? The student assigned for the Gentle project back then was female :) Feel free to reuse that. I like the introductions to various topics the OPW produced, maybe also the living tutorials is something that could be addressed - I would just prefer to have myself concentrate on the content parts of the mentoring for that, though. If there are no other positive votes to run a DeibanMed-GSoC, then this kills it, obviously :) Many greetings Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/trinity-eef09c9f-e0aa-4277-9394-73dfa4f7314a-1412761103689@3capp-gmx-bs33
