To be fair, in context, you were talking about nationalism and objecting to me apparently characterising Sage as a US project. The *mathematical* diversity of the contributors is completely tangential to that argument.
I think I made my argument transparent enough. You aren't going to help European mathematical software projects, such as the ones listed, by applying for money to work directly on Sage. Referees will see through it immediately if you try to make that claim. To my knowledge, the European Union funding agencies did not have a significant stake in the origin and development of Sage, but the NSF and other US institutions did. From the point of view of the European Union, as far as I can tell, Sage is a US originating project. As such, you aren't going to have a chance of convincing them that development of Sage is funding a European software project! On the other hand, a European software project, which is focused on cooperation (at the technical and professional level) of existing European mathematical software projects, *whether or not* making use of Sage, can be sold to referees and stakeholders. Then, as was pointed out by someone else, you make the case that Sage is an *international collaboration*, not a US project. At that level, Sage is not a US project. But any European project must really and substantially benefit European software projects and the primary impact should be to the European economy! My very first sentence was "Nicolas, I wish you the best with a European grant based on Sage." Indeed, I hope a large scale European software project based on Sage is successful. But it needs to directly address the issue of how it helps mathematical software developed here in Europe. I hope it is also clear from those words that I was fully anticipating that Nicolas did have have in mind something of great benefit to those of us in Europe working on libraries and software projects used by Sage! It's difficult to come up with an example that makes the European situation clear, since for example Magma has received substantial funding from the US, precisely because it benefits US stakeholders. That in spite of the fact that most of its IP belongs to USyd. However, the argument would be similar if I applied for money from the EU to develop Magma on account of it having a numerous developers in Europe and that it uses European developed software libraries. Obviously the primary beneficiaries in such an arrangement would be Australian taxpayers and certainly not those European software projects! Referees just aren't going to go for that. That doesn't mean that Magma can't be part of the overall strategy of such a grant, as I'm sure is the case for a number of projects funded from within the EU currently. But it can't be the focus of such a grant. Anyway, we've drifted way off topic. I merely wanted to encourage Nicolas, to mention some of the things that I personally think might be factors in such a proposal being successful in Europe, and to vaguely bring his attention to other similar efforts, without getting deeply involved myself (I'm just a lowly postdoc and have no say in these matters). I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in the first instance. I hope I'm being clear now. Bill. On Friday, 29 August 2014 17:10:53 UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote: > > On Friday, August 29, 2014 1:03:06 PM UTC+1, Bill Hart wrote: >> >> What sets Sage apart from GAP/Singular (and, I dare say: Flint) is the >>> scale and the diversity of its contributors. >>> >> >> No, what sets it apart is the number of contributors. Flint has had >> contributors from all over the world. I would say from every continent >> except Africa and Antarctica. >> > > No, it is NOT just the number of contributors. Sage is nothing like Fint > with 20x the number of programmers. In fact, all of your posts generally > come from that assumption, but it couldn't be further from the truth. > > When I said "diversity", I meant diversity in mathematical interests of > course. Not geographical diversity or color of the skin. > > There is no single person that understands all of the algorithms in Sage, > or would be qualified to implement them across disciplines. Instead, there > are many people taking on leadership roles in their respective field of > research. Sage is very much a collaborative effort where no single person / > university decides on where to go. > -- 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.
