On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: > In ... > http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.math.symbolic/2005-12/msg00096.html > > almost 10 years ago I asked the question, > > "If SAGE weren't free, would anyone pay for it?" (SMc -- a few?) > > and I pointed out > > " Government funding for people or projects > > will be a small percentage of the funding for pure mathematics. > That's not much. And the future is pretty grim." > > > William's summary of his NSF review (which undoubtedly had more > > details, but they may be irrelevant).. > > > ... There were many [presumably more] qualified applicants... > > > is likely a reflection of the NSF math program reviewers prejudices > > about what they deem "important". I think that we would > > generally assume that there are not a whole bunch of NSF > > proposals comparable to William's ... > > Persons X, Y, Z, and William are proposing to Enhance SAGE, and of > > these, the others are more qualified, or wrote better proposals. > > > So it is lack of enthusiasm for William's specific idea, > > which I am guessing might something like this .. > > > I'm going to investigate X and Y and Z mathematical questions which will > > be done on a computer system SAGE which needs to be developed and > > supported. [This tack has worked in the past] > > > or > > > SAGE is a great system used by many people (show evidence) and it > > should be supported because system support and development costs money. > > [Which traditionally doesn't fly -- NSF/math probably wants to support > > otherwise-starving mathematicians, not so much computers.] > > > (There are occasionally other reasons for turning down an NSF proposal such > as > > "the proposers are not qualified". I think these are irrelevant for > William.) > > > Should this proposal have been run past the computer science people at NSF? > > (Perhaps it was?) I don't think either of the two hypothetical proposals > > would fly there, but maybe for reasons that are not so obvious to readers > here. > > > Historically, at least, computer algebra system-ish proposals have been > > evaluated in a panel where a small minority (maybe 0) have sympathy > > for the topic. Instead the panelists would be keen on numerical computing, > > graphics, parallel/vector/network/super computing. Or possibly another > > panel with interests in asymptotic complexity theory, quantum computing, > > security, cryptography... > > > The way the panelists view their obligations and the way they actually > > behave may be different. They view their obligations as choosing the > > best proposals. Being human, they are fallible. > > > The reality is they may succumb to three temptations, perhaps unconsciously. > > > (1) favoring proposals in areas that they are most familiar with, feeling > > more confidence in their judgments. Dismissing other areas as of course > > uninterested and therefore the proposals necessarily less qualified. > > > (2) disqualifying proposals that are too close to some panelist's own > personal > > expertise on the grounds that he/she (the panelist) could write a better > > proposal on the same topic, and perhaps next year he will, thanks to > > seeing this half-baked proposal on an idea that is so close to one of > > his own that he should have thought of it ... [rivalry? revenge?] > > > (3) favoring proposals by famous / previously well-funded people or groups > > or laboratories or schools ... > > even if the specific proposal is more yada yada. Perhaps because dropping > > support from such a group would be an admission that previous heavy funding > > was a mistake, and they are really a bunch of losers, and who wants to admit > > that. > > > Panelists are mostly drawn from recipients of previous NSF grants, but who > of > > course are not in the current competition. > > > I have served on panels a number of times. Perhaps William has, also? Or > maybe > > the math people handle proposals differently. > > > I am aware that other people share the views expressed above, but I haven't > > successfully googled really on-point comments. There is this, though.. > > > http://mybiasedcoin.blogspot.com/2007/11/service-and-nsf.html > > > My sympathies go out to people who have proposals rejected.
Thanks for sharing your sympathies and thoughts. (Yes, I've been on NSF panels.) -- William -- William (http://wstein.org) -- 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.
