On Saturday, 30 August 2014 11:49:10 UTC+2, Viviane Pons wrote: > > From what I understand, nobody here is saying what *should* be but more > how it is. I think the debate on whether people support one way or another > is mostly irrelevant here, even so, I do understand the frustration and I > do think myself that all this national stuff is quite stupid. >
Well, my opinion is irrelevant, but I personally think you get it. > > Anyway, here's my point of view on "why Europe should support Sage for > pro-Europe reason" and I would like the opinion of some of you here who > seem to know more on how these fundings work. > > Sage is definitely NOT a American project. It is not own by any American > university, it is used and constructed by many researcher in world, > especially by many European people. To support that fact, we have indeed > the many Sage days which have been organized in Europe with European funds. > I understand from your comments that we really have to emphasize this. > Right. > So Sage is needed and used by many European researchers. If Europe is not > funding Sage, then those researcher rely on Amercian fundings to go to Sage > days, to use servers etc. European funds could be used for opening a Sage > service on some servers, just as SMC in Washington. > Yes. > (Nothing against SMC but it would make sense to have our own service in > Europe that does not depend on an American university). > Ah. > My point here is mostly: if Europe don't fund Sage then Sage is becoming > de-facto an American project (through funding) and it should not be this > way... > Ah. > > I don't really have time to develop that here, but I'd like to know if > emphasizing this necessity for Europe to fund Sage sound like a good > strategy. There is no "European-Sage" that should be developed against the > "American-sage", there's a "International-Sage" and Europe should be part > of it. > I agree fully. There definitely should not be an American Sage or European Sage. That would be a disaster. > > I must say that this national way of thinking is not natural for me or for > any of the Sage developers who are going to write this application. We have > to find a way to defend the utility of Sage for Europe without being too > much in a contradiction with own beliefs in open-source and border-free > development models. > I agree with your sentiments exactly. I actually wrote a long list of suggestions. But I decided to delete it. I don't really have time to defend any of the suggestions or be involved myself. And I've never applied for one of these things. Better to contact some people who have been successful with these things. But my suggestions can be summarised anyway, as follows: * think big, really big, double it, triple it, triple it again * identify a specific core goal of the project, e.g. an innovation you have prototyped and want to bring to fruition. This should have broad application. * get numerous beneficiary organisations on board with the project and identify precisely how your innovation will benefit them * get numerous contributing organisations on board with the project and identify precisely how you will leverage their expertise and how they will contribute and why * identify how your project or innovation will impact the economy: a spin off company based around the innovation is a pretty good way * build a network of scientists who will support the proposal in real terms, including some big names if possible * if you want it to be an international project rather than European, identify international partners and what they will contribute * figure out how your project is leveraging existing European expertise, infrastructure and assets (especially scientific ones) * leave out personal, pet projects that have no broad application * identify a realistic strategy for meeting *all* the goals, including a timeline (this should include details of what and when partners will contribute) * don't name drop organisations and individuals that are not an integral part of your strategy or who won't really benefit (please) I wish you the best of luck. Bill. > 2014-08-30 10:46 GMT+02:00 William A Stein <wst...@uw.edu <javascript:>>: > >> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Bill Hart <goodwi...@googlemail.com >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Saturday, 30 August 2014 00:35:01 UTC+2, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Bill Hart <goodwi...@googlemail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Friday, 29 August 2014 13:17:40 UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> First of all, it always saddens me when the ugly head of nationalism >> >> >> rears >> >> >> its head. I thought the time where we only support German science >> were >> >> >> over... >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> > You have misunderstood. When applying for German funding, the rules >> will >> >> > naturally state that the project must benefit the people paying for >> the >> >> > work, namely German companies and Mutter und Vater taxpayer. >> >> > >> >> > When applying for European funding, the rules will naturally state >> that >> >> > the >> >> > funding must benefit the people paying for the work, namely the >> European >> >> > Union members. >> >> >> >> I would say that the beneficiaries are (1) those funded to do the work >> >> and (2) all users of the work. It's not like the money would go to the >> >> US or even "the project." >> > >> > >> > Then the grant would be rejected. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The idea that European funds should be used primarily to support an >> >> > international project *with no direct benefit to European projects* >> >> > invoked >> >> > in the grant is patently a non-starter. That's just as bad, in my >> >> > opinion, >> >> > as taking public funds to work on a closed source mathematical >> system! >> >> >> >> You're a big fan of Julia. However, would you argue that European >> >> funds should not be used to support it because it's not a "European >> >> Project?" >> > >> > >> > Yes. >> >> Would you argue that American funds should not be used to support >> Pari, Singular, GAP, etc., etc., because they are not "American >> Projects"? >> >> >> I'd say the criteria would be whether Europeans benefit from >> >> Julia (and I one could argue from a protectionist economic perspective >> >> whether Europeans are the ones being paid to do the work, though I'd >> >> just rather pay the best available person). >> >> >> >> Sadly, if the people judging these grants have this perspective, one >> >> might have to sell efforts like "sage-combinat" as a "European >> >> project" rather than part of Sage. >> > >> > >> > Yes. >> >> Would you argue that American funds should not be used to support >> sage-combinat? (In fact, the NSF has directly funded sage-combinat >> [1].) >> >> Or do you apply a double standard for European funds versus outside funds? >> >> And most importantly when you say "should" above, do you mean: >> >> [ ] you think this is the way it *should* be, or >> >> [ ] you simply mean that you believe -- via your reading of the EU >> grant guidelines -- that this is how it *is* right now. There's an >> enormous difference between these two choices. >> >> ---- >> >> [1] Linked NSF grant funding sage-combinat >> ( >> http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/advancedSearchResult?QueryText=sage-combinat&ActiveAwards=true&#results >> ): >> >> Collaborative Research: SI2-SSE: Sage-Combinat: Developing and Sharing >> Open Source Software for Algebraic Combinatorics >> Award Number:1147161; Principal Investigator:Gregg Musiker; >> Co-Principal Investigator:; Organization:University of Minnesota-Twin >> Cities;NSF Organization:ACI Award Date:06/01/2012; Award >> Amount:$195,688.00; Relevance:48.77; >> >> Collaborative Research: SI2-SSE: Sage-Combinat: Developing and Sharing >> Open Source Software for Algebraic Combinatorics >> Award Number:1147802; Principal Investigator:William Stein; >> Co-Principal Investigator:; Organization:University of Washington;NSF >> Organization:ACI Award Date:06/01/2012; Award Amount:$97,114.00; >> Relevance:48.77; >> >> Collaborative Research: SI2-SSE: Sage-Combinat: Developing and Sharing >> Open Source Software for Algebraic Combinatorics >> Award Number:1147463; Principal Investigator:Daniel Bump; Co-Principal >> Investigator:; Organization:Stanford University;NSF Organization:ACI >> Award Date:06/01/2012; Award Amount:$143,700.00; Relevance:48.77; >> >> Collaborative Research: SI2-SSE: Sage-Combinat: Developing and Sharing >> Open Source Software for Algebraic Combinatorics >> Award Number:1147247; Principal Investigator:Anne Schilling; >> Co-Principal Investigator:; Organization:University of >> California-Davis;NSF Organization:ACI Award Date:06/01/2012; Award >> Amount:$216,626.00; Relevance:47.98; >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I, personally, don't see Sage as belonging to Europeans, it belongs to >> >> Mathematicians. >> >> >> >> > One of the biggest things European software projects like Pari, Gap, >> >> > Singular need is contributions. I congratulate Peter Bruin on >> announcing >> >> > that he is writing a power series module for Sage based on Pari >> instead of >> >> > on polynomials. However, in a project like that, I hope that when >> some >> >> > functionality (mathematical or otherwise) is perceived to be missing >> from >> >> > Pari, that it will be contributed *to the Pari project directly*. >> And I >> >> > don't mean as a set of Sage build patches or bug reports. I mean as >> a set of >> >> > Pari contributions, to their code base, in their coding style, >> instead of >> >> > writing more code in Sage directly! >> >> >> >> I strongly disagree that the best (or only) way to contribute to Sage >> >> is to contribute to some of its component projects, >> > >> > I didn't say it was. >> > >> >> and writing more >> >> code in Sage directly should be discouraged. Sage is *much* more than >> >> just glue, >> > >> > I didn't say that. >> > >> >> [...] attitude that all new work should be done in sub-projects and >> wrapped >> >> by Sage is not the best approach, or in my opinion the best way to >> >> make a good product. >> >> >> > >> > I didn't say that. >> > >> >> I hope you'll forgive Robert for evidently mis-interpreting what you >> said. Perhaps you can clarify what you actually meant when you wrote >> the following: "I hope that when some functionality (mathematical or >> otherwise) is perceived to be missing from Pari, that it will be >> contributed *to the Pari project directly*. And I don't mean as a set >> of Sage build patches or bug reports. I mean as a set of Pari >> contributions, to their code base, in their coding style, instead of >> writing more code in Sage directly!" >> >> The above statement seems -- based on the asterisks and explanation >> points -- to be suggesting some sort of uniform policy that you would >> endorse in all cases (and not just for Pari). I agree that there are >> cases where encouraging people to add something directly to Pari makes >> sense, but Robert also listed numerous good reasons that such a policy >> would be technically counterproductive in general. Of course, he's >> listing social and technical reasons, not political reasons (I *hate* >> making technical decisions based on politics). >> >> >> >> As you mention, the primary form of contribution is unpaid developer >> >> contributions. Likely the next largest source of "funding" is hosting >> >> Sage Days (which are typically sponsored and funded by the hosting >> >> organization), only half of which have been in the US. I don't have >> >> numbers myself, but I would be extremely surprised if the money >> >> handled by UW through the Sage Foundation (outside of that for local >> >> Sage Days funding) is not tiny compared to those two largely >> >> international sources of support. >> >> For what it is worth -- during the last few years the vast majority of >> the Sage foundation money supports specific things the funders >> requested, with the majority being the "Women in Sage" Sage Days >> workshops. A little more goes the Spies prize. >> >> > What you don't understand is that in order to *get* European funding, >> you >> > have to satisfy certain criteria. Arguing that Sage is this or that >> doesn't >> > help you *get* the funding. >> >> The basic issue is that you actually seem to keep boldly saying that >> you agree with and support a political/nationalistic restriction >> regarding funding. It doesn't make any sense to me that you, or any >> mathematician, would support such things. It's entirely a different >> matter to say "to get funding in Europe you have to do X" and "I >> strongly support the political decision that to get funding in Europe >> you have to do X". >> >> -- william >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "sage-devel" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
