On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> 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+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.
