All these comments are excellent and are great things
to say. But Andy asked us to include examples of open source
math software. It is very hard to do that in 800 words and
still make some point. Maybe the best thing to do is to
advertise the longer (18 pages or so) version which has
the Jane example and everything Chris said too. (The longer version
will appear in CCA/SIGSAM Bull and is posted at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/research/oscas-nsf-white-paper9.pdf)
My feeling is that we are really lucky to get some press in the
Notices, and when the editor gives us guidance we should follow it
and be very grateful. That's really I'm trying to do.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 8/4/07, Craig Citro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've just looked at the two versions of this (the one William posted
> yesterday, and the one David posted today). As a quick note before I
> forget, there's a sentence that's duplicated in David's version today
> ("The following is an alphabetical list ...").
>
> I like the succinctness of David's version, but I feel like the
> exclusion of the long example (about Jane and her theorem) is a
> significant flaw. Think about the audience here: if someone reads the
> Notices, chances are, they're at a large US institution. In the
> second version, it seems like the main argument being made for open
> source software is an economic one. This is an important one, but
> most professors can get their departments (especially at large
> research universities) to purchase software for them, so in the end,
> it's a somewhat abstract issue, one that probably doesn't affect
> their livelihood. On the other hand, the example about Jane and her
> theorem is wildly relevant to them. This isn't just an abstract issue
> -- William and Mark Watkins found an example of a theorem in group
> theory this week at AIM where the proof depends quite heavily on
> computation, and they don't even pretend to tell you anything about
> it. How can you believe their theorem if there's no code, and what
> they did write involves proprietary software that only runs on
> hardware ten years out of date? I think this point is much more
> relevant, and much more likely to get serious research professors --
> even those who don't use computing in their work -- to understand the
> importance of open source.
>
> Given that there's a word limit, I think the section about SAGE
> should be trimmed down to make this point. After all, we're trying to
> convince them that open source is the right model, not that SAGE is
> the right program for them. (Obviously we need to convince them of
> that, too.) As it stands now, though, the article feels much more
> like an advertisement for SAGE, and less about why open source is
> important for mathematicians.
>
> I guess the real issue is this: in the first version, I think the
> article is selling professors at top research schools on the idea of
> open source. In the second version, I feel like we're selling
> professors at smaller schools (with smaller budgets) on SAGE as a
> good alternative to other, proprietary systems. Which is our goal?
> More to the point, which of those two audiences has a stronger
> influence on AMS and NSF funding decisions? My guess is the first
> group, since we're talking about *research* money. Of course, I could
> be completely wrong. Similarly, if we're trying to sell them on using
> SAGE, just direct them to a public notebook server, with a few chunks
> of hand-picked examples already in worksheets; SAGE speaks for itself.
>
> -cc
>
> On Aug 4, 2007, at 1:48 PM, David Joyner wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > William Stein and I have written a draft
> > http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/research/oscas-ams-
> > notices4.pdf
> > which seems suitable (based on suggestions and criteria given to us by
> > the editor
> > Andy Magid). Thoughts anyone?
> >
> > - David Joyner
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
