Re: [sage-devel] RFC: Grant acknowledgement

2014-05-19 Thread William Stein
On May 19, 2014 2:52 AM, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:

 Since my review request for the urgent bugfix for this:

 sage: RLF(0)  oo
 False

 has been hijacked by an open-ended discussion about and whether grants
ought to be acknowledged in the source tree, I'd like to break out that
discussion into a separate thread.

 Questions:
 * Should sources contain acknowledgements at all
 * If a Sage release gets a DOI, are we required by some funding agency to
acknowledge grants in it?
 * Do the people writing the rules at the funding agency have a policy? a
clue?

 My proposal:

 Create a top-level Acknowledgements.txt file, and put them in there if
you must.



+1 to this as long as we can autogenerate the website ack page from this.


 --
 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.

-- 
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.


Re: [sage-devel] RFC: Grant acknowledgement

2014-05-19 Thread mmarco
I definitely am against the acknowledgements in the source code. It could 
be necessary to have some way of acknowledgement (at the end, we would like 
the community to consider that writing code for sage is not a minor task 
compared to publishing papers), but that should be somewhere else. I 
proposed either a comment in the trac ticket or the commit message, but the 
file with the acknowledgements is better. But one thing that is important 
from my point of view is to keep clear which code was funded by which grant 
(i.e., specify the commits in the acknowledgement). 

El lunes, 19 de mayo de 2014 13:47:22 UTC+2, William escribió:


 On May 19, 2014 2:52 AM, Volker Braun vbrau...@gmail.com javascript: 
 wrote:
 
  Since my review request for the urgent bugfix for this:
 
  sage: RLF(0)  oo
  False
 
  has been hijacked by an open-ended discussion about and whether grants 
 ought to be acknowledged in the source tree, I'd like to break out that 
 discussion into a separate thread.
 
  Questions:
  * Should sources contain acknowledgements at all
  * If a Sage release gets a DOI, are we required by some funding agency 
 to acknowledge grants in it?
  * Do the people writing the rules at the funding agency have a policy? a 
 clue?
 
  My proposal:
 
  Create a top-level Acknowledgements.txt file, and put them in there if 
 you must.
 


 +1 to this as long as we can autogenerate the website ack page from this.

 
  -- 
  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.comjavascript:
 .
  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.