Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Chris Barker - NOAA Federal]

Thanks for the update — this is great stuff!

-CHB

On May 3, 2019, at 3:13 PM, Joe Harrington  wrote:

Just to keep people in the loop, Ralf and I are in discussion with people
at NASA HQ about a funding stream for core development.� Ralf has put
together a short description of the development and funding model (5 core
projects, 10-20 core developers each, nearly all volunteer now, how
NumFOCUS fits in, what we hope to establish from NASA vs. from other
agencies, industry, other countries' science entities, etc.).� That will
circulate within the agency, to see what can be scraped together.�
Program managers in NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) gave
quite-positive feedback on how vital the Python ecosystem is to NASA's
mission.� We're emphasizing the need for both new functionality and
maintenance (e.g., docs, web site, bug fixing).� If this is ultimately
successful, it can be a model for approaching other agencies in the US and
elsewhere.

To Steve's point, regarding how hard it is for Civil Servants to contribute
to OSS (due to NASA's lengthy internal review process for releasing
software), this problem was clearly called out in the Academies report.�
We proposed some solutions to streamline things.� What's needed now is
for NASA Civil Servants to take that report and the relevant white papers
(cited in the report and posted online) to their center's senior
management, and to NASA HQ, and similarly for others in government
agencies.� You may wish to start from NASA's (or your agency's) mission,
which includes sharing technology openly to boost the economy, and how you
are encountering unreasonable barriers to that goal.� This is mandated by
the National Air and Space Act of 1958.

For example, there is little reason to conduct an export-control review
with lawyers looking at code emerging from a group that has nothing to do
with anything near an export-controlled topic.� Universities and
contractors are subject to the same export-control laws as NASA, and they
have not routinely conducted similar reviews of every line of code
released.� This has not led to a pattern of export violations.�
(Whether there is any benefit at all to the export control laws as applied
to software is debatable, since it's usually easy for coders elsewhere to
write the same codes, but the law is the law.)

--jh--
On 5/3/19 12:48 PM, numpy-discussion-requ...@python.org wrote:

Subject:
Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects
(rejected)

From:
Mark Mikofski  

Date:
5/3/19, 12:47 PM

To:
Discussion of Numerical Python 

Sorry, that last attachment was just a slide show of the topic 3 recording,
here is the full funding opportunity announcement - letter with 200 word
abstract are due May 7th

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:40 AM Mark Mikofski  wrote:

> Hi Ralf, and others,
>
> Sorry for the late notice, but there is are several funding opportunities
> in solar, including one for $350,000 to develop open source software to
> lower soft costs of solar.
> https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/#FoaId45eda43a-e826-4481-ae7a-cc6e8ed4fdae
> �
> see topic 3.4 specifically in attached PDF - also note to view the
> recording the password is "*Setofoa2019"*�it's about 30 minutes long.
>
> I know that this is a extremely niche, but as a few others have said, [the
> DOE] grants tend to be very specific, but perhaps we can creatively think
> of ways to channel funds to NumPy and SciPy.
>
> Also there is a cost share that is typically 20%, which would be a
> non-starter for volunteer projects.
>
> But here's an idea, perhaps partnering with a company, like mine (DNV GL)
> who is applying for the grant, and who uses NumPy,and could pay the cost
> share, and then we collaborate on something that is required to complete
> the�project, which is contributed to NumPy (or SciPy) - but we would have
> to figure what we could align on.
>
> Seems like NumFOCUS, Quantsight, or some other company in the OSS space
> could figure out ways to help connect companies, OSS projects, and funding
> opportunities like these, where there's a possibility of alignment and
> mutual benefit?
>
> The full list of funding opportunities is here:
> https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/�
>
> Best Regards,
> Mark�
> �
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> P.S.� If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
>>> I will be there (on my own nickel!� ;) ...
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you at SciPy'19!
>>
>> Ralf
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>>
>>> On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, 

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Chris Barker - NOAA Federal]

On May 4, 2019, at 9:00 AM, Ralf Gommers

Okay never mind, this is apparently happening already:
https://hackmd.io/YbxTpC1ZT_aEapTqydmHCA. Please jump in there instead:)


Slightly different focus than I had in mind, but yes, it makes sense to
join that effort.

-CHB



Ralf


>  Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>>
>> -CHB
>>
>> --
>>
>> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
>> Oceanographer
>>
>> Emergency Response Division
>> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
>> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
>> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>>
>> chris.bar...@noaa.gov
>>
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing 
>> listNumPy-Discussion@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>>
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
> ___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Ralf Gommers]

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 12:24 PM Ralf Gommers  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:55 PM Stephen Waterbury 
> wrote:
>
>> Sure, I would be interested to discuss, let's try to meet up there.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 5/3/19 12:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <
>>> water...@pangalactic.us> wrote:
>>>
 P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
 I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...

>>>
>> So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)
>>
>> Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government
>> support for SciPY Stack development?
>>
>> That would be very useful. Would you be interested to co-organize this
> Chris?
>

Okay never mind, this is apparently happening already:
https://hackmd.io/YbxTpC1ZT_aEapTqydmHCA. Please jump in there instead:)

Ralf


>  Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>>
>> -CHB
>>
>> --
>>
>> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
>> Oceanographer
>>
>> Emergency Response Division
>> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
>> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
>> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>>
>> chris.bar...@noaa.gov
>>
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing 
>> listNumPy-Discussion@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>>
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Ralf Gommers]

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:49 PM Mark Mikofski  wrote:

> Sorry, that last attachment was just a slide show of the topic 3
> recording, here is the full funding opportunity announcement - letter with
> 200 word abstract are due May 7th
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:40 AM Mark Mikofski 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ralf, and others,
>>
>> Sorry for the late notice, but there is are several funding opportunities
>> in solar, including one for $350,000 to develop open source software to
>> lower soft costs of solar.
>>
>> https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/#FoaId45eda43a-e826-4481-ae7a-cc6e8ed4fdae
>>
>> see topic 3.4 specifically in attached PDF - also note to view the
>> recording the password is "*Setofoa2019"* it's about 30 minutes long.
>>
>
Thanks for bringing up this opportunity Mark.


>> I know that this is a extremely niche, but as a few others have said,
>> [the DOE] grants tend to be very specific, but perhaps we can creatively
>> think of ways to channel funds to NumPy and SciPy.
>>
>
I think I prefer to pass on this one. Not only because abstracts are due in
3 days, but mainly because it's not the best fit. Perhaps we'll be forced
to partner with others on application-specific grants and goals at some
point. However it would be much better (as I've said before) to obtain
funding for what we really want and need rather than channeling some some
proportion of a grant meant for something different into development of our
projects.

My main goal at this point is getting clearer (also in written form)
exactly what we need, then asking for exactly that. Format TBD - Chris'
proposal of a BoF at SciPy may be a good forum to discuss.

Cheers,
Ralf


>> Also there is a cost share that is typically 20%, which would be a
>> non-starter for volunteer projects.
>>
>> But here's an idea, perhaps partnering with a company, like mine (DNV GL)
>> who is applying for the grant, and who uses NumPy,and could pay the cost
>> share, and then we collaborate on something that is required to complete
>> the project, which is contributed to NumPy (or SciPy) - but we would have
>> to figure what we could align on.
>>
>> Seems like NumFOCUS, Quantsight, or some other company in the OSS space
>> could figure out ways to help connect companies, OSS projects, and funding
>> opportunities like these, where there's a possibility of alignment and
>> mutual benefit?
>>
>> The full list of funding opportunities is here:
>> https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ralf Gommers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <
>>> water...@pangalactic.us> wrote:
>>>
 P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
 I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...

>>>
>>> Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you at SciPy'19!
>>>
>>> Ralf
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve

 On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:

 I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
 yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
 Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
 it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
 projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
 code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
 on, but it's a fact.

 Cheers,
 Steve Waterbury

 (CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
 THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
 address. :)

 On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

 Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess
 someone at NASA would need to step up.

 I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA.

 But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

 -CHB

 On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers 
 wrote:



 On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington 
> wrote:
>
>
>> 3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in
>> which
>> you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL
>> or
>> Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that
>> costs
>> less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and
>> few
>> people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did
>> discuss
>> them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we
>> could
>> get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
>> approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at
>> NASA
>> have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to
>> its
>> logical end to see if it's viable.
>>
>
>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Ralf Gommers]

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:55 PM Stephen Waterbury 
wrote:

> Sure, I would be interested to discuss, let's try to meet up there.
>
> Steve
>
> On 5/3/19 12:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
>>> I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...
>>>
>>
> So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)
>
> Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government
> support for SciPY Stack development?
>
> That would be very useful. Would you be interested to co-organize this
Chris?

 Cheers,
Ralf

>
> -CHB
>
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>
> chris.bar...@noaa.gov
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing 
> listNumPy-Discussion@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Joe Harrington]

Just to keep people in the loop, Ralf and I are in discussion with 
people at NASA HQ about a funding stream for core development.  Ralf has 
put together a short description of the development and funding model (5 
core projects, 10-20 core developers each, nearly all volunteer now, how 
NumFOCUS fits in, what we hope to establish from NASA vs. from other 
agencies, industry, other countries' science entities, etc.).  That will 
circulate within the agency, to see what can be scraped together. 
Program managers in NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) gave 
quite-positive feedback on how vital the Python ecosystem is to NASA's 
mission.  We're emphasizing the need for both new functionality and 
maintenance (e.g., docs, web site, bug fixing). If this is ultimately 
successful, it can be a model for approaching other agencies in the US 
and elsewhere.


To Steve's point, regarding how hard it is for Civil Servants to 
contribute to OSS (due to NASA's lengthy internal review process for 
releasing software), this problem was clearly called out in the 
Academies report.  We proposed some solutions to streamline things.  
What's needed now is for NASA Civil Servants to take that report and the 
relevant white papers (cited in the report and posted online) to their 
center's senior management, and to NASA HQ, and similarly for others in 
government agencies.  You may wish to start from NASA's (or your 
agency's) mission, which includes sharing technology openly to boost the 
economy, and how you are encountering unreasonable barriers to that 
goal.  This is mandated by the National Air and Space Act of 1958.


For example, there is little reason to conduct an export-control review 
with lawyers looking at code emerging from a group that has nothing to 
do with anything near an export-controlled topic. Universities and 
contractors are subject to the same export-control laws as NASA, and 
they have not routinely conducted similar reviews of every line of code 
released.  This has not led to a pattern of export violations.  (Whether 
there is any benefit at all to the export control laws as applied to 
software is debatable, since it's usually easy for coders elsewhere to 
write the same codes, but the law is the law.)


--jh--

On 5/3/19 12:48 PM, numpy-discussion-requ...@python.org wrote:

Subject:
Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python 
projects (rejected)

From:
Mark Mikofski 
Date:
5/3/19, 12:47 PM

To:
Discussion of Numerical Python 


Sorry, that last attachment was just a slide show of the topic 3 
recording, here is the full funding opportunity announcement - letter 
with 200 word abstract are due May 7th


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:40 AM Mark Mikofski <mailto:mikof...@berkeley.edu>> wrote:


Hi Ralf, and others,

Sorry for the late notice, but there is are several funding
opportunities in solar, including one for $350,000 to develop open
source software to lower soft costs of solar.
https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/#FoaId45eda43a-e826-4481-ae7a-cc6e8ed4fdae

see topic 3.4 specifically in attached PDF - also note to view the
recording the password is "*Setofoa2019"* it's about 30 minutes long.

I know that this is a extremely niche, but as a few others have
said, [the DOE] grants tend to be very specific, but perhaps we
can creatively think of ways to channel funds to NumPy and SciPy.

Also there is a cost share that is typically 20%, which would be a
non-starter for volunteer projects.

But here's an idea, perhaps partnering with a company, like mine
(DNV GL) who is applying for the grant, and who uses NumPy,and
could pay the cost share, and then we collaborate on something
that is required to complete the project, which is contributed to
NumPy (or SciPy) - but we would have to figure what we could align on.

Seems like NumFOCUS, Quantsight, or some other company in the OSS
space could figure out ways to help connect companies, OSS
projects, and funding opportunities like these, where there's a
possibility of alignment and mutual benefit?

The full list of funding opportunities is here:
https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/

Best Regards,
Mark


On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ralf Gommers
mailto:ralf.gomm...@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury
mailto:water...@pangalactic.us>> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy
2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you
at SciPy'19!

Ralf


Steve

On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:


I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now
say you know
ye

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Chris Barker]

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:56 AM Stephen Waterbury 
wrote:

> Sure, I would be interested to discuss, let's try to meet up there.
>
> OK< that's two of us :-)

NumFocus folk: Should we take this off the list and talk about a BoF or
something at SciPy?

-CHB





> Steve
>
> On 5/3/19 12:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
>>> I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...
>>>
>>
> So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)
>
> Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government
> support for SciPY Stack development?
>
> -CHB
>
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>
> chris.bar...@noaa.gov
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing 
> listNumPy-Discussion@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>


-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Stephen Waterbury]

Sure, I would be interested to discuss, let's try to meet up there.

Steve

On 5/3/19 12:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers > wrote:


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury
mailto:water...@pangalactic.us>> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)

Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on 
Government support for SciPY Stack development?


-CHB
--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov 

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Chris Barker]

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers  wrote:

> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury 
> wrote:
>
>> P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
>> I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...
>>
>
So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)

Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government
support for SciPY Stack development?

-CHB

-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Ralf Gommers]

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury 
wrote:

> P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
> I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...
>

Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you at SciPy'19!

Ralf


Steve
>
> On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
>
> I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
> yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
> Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
> it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
> projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
> code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
> on, but it's a fact.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Waterbury
>
> (CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
> THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
> address. :)
>
> On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:
>
> Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone
> at NASA would need to step up.
>
> I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA.
>
> But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.
>
> -CHB
>
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
>>> you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
>>> Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
>>> less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
>>> people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
>>> them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
>>> get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
>>> approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
>>> have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
>>> logical end to see if it's viable.
>>>
>>
>> I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.
>>
>
> It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings
> contracts. The closest thing I found is this:
> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and
>
> It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by
> something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment
> on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth
> following up on, that would be very helpful.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing 
> listNumPy-Discussion@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Stephen Waterbury]

I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess 
someone at NASA would need to step up.


I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA.

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote:





On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers > wrote:




On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington
mailto:j...@physics.ucf.edu>> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at
NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of
licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product
that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are
rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee
did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate. I've always felt that
we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find
that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk
to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued
it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.


I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.


It seems to be hard to find any information about these 
share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and


It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by 
something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can 
comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether 
this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.


Cheers,
Ralf

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Stephen Waterbury]

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...

Steve

On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:


I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess 
someone at NASA would need to step up.


I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA.

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote:





On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers 
mailto:ralf.gomm...@gmail.com>> wrote:




On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington
mailto:j...@physics.ucf.edu>> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at
NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of
licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that
product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are
rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee
did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate. I've always felt
that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find
that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk
to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued
it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.


I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.


It seems to be hard to find any information about these 
share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and


It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by 
something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can 
comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether 
this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.


Cheers,
Ralf

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion





___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Chris Barker - NOAA Federal]

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone
at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA.

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington 
> wrote:
>
>
>> 3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
>> you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
>> Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
>> less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
>> people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
>> them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
>> get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
>> approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
>> have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
>> logical end to see if it's viable.
>>
>
> I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.
>

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings
contracts. The closest thing I found is this:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by
something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment
on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth
following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Ralf Gommers]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington 
> wrote:
>
>
>> 3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
>> you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
>> Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
>> less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
>> people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
>> them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
>> get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
>> approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
>> have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
>> logical end to see if it's viable.
>>
>
> I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.
>

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings
contracts. The closest thing I found is this:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by
something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment
on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth
following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Ralf Gommers]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington  wrote:

> Hi Ralf,
>
> The rejection is disappointing, for sure.  Some good ammo for next time
> might be the recommendations in this report from the US National
> Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine:
>
> http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/SSB_178892
>
> https://www.nap.edu/read/25217/chapter/1#ii


Thanks, very useful!


>
> You can download a free PDF if you click around and give them an email
> address.  There is some code on the cover that might raise a smile.
>
> Lorena Barba, Kelle Cruz, and many other community members contributed,
> both as committee members and as white-paper authors.  While it's a
> report for NASA, the conclusions are strong and there is explicit
> support of investment in community resources like numpy, scipy, astropy,
> matplotlib, etc.  Other agencies are asking similar questions, so I
> expect the report to get somewhat of a look at NSF, etc.
>
> A note on the Academies' process: A consensus study report must only
> include statements that no single member of the committee objects to,
> and the committee generally only includes senior members or people with
> a lot of relevant experience.  There were stakeholders from some large
> modeling shops for whom openness might be a threat to their business
> model, in their eyes, and some of the senior members had never
> experienced the open-source environment and had bad experiences sharing
> software.  This made for an interesting social dynamic, and prevented an
> all-out recommendation to forcibly open everything immediately.  Given
> all that, I was ultimately pleased that we got full agreement on the
> recommendations we did make.
>
> So, some general thoughts on fundraising, not specific to this proposal:
>
> 1. Try NASA.  The Administrator for Space Science, Thomas Zurbuchen, is
> pushing "open" very hard, given the success of open data in NASA Earth
> Science, and its positive impact on the economy in fields like
> agriculture and weather forecasting.  He paid for the study above.  Many
> grant programs specifically solicit proposals for open-source tools.
> There are also technology development programs in other parts of NASA
> than the Science Mission Directorate.  Try contacting Dr. Michael New,
> who is Zurbuchen's deputy, and could direct you to appropriate programs.
> (Please, let's be coordinated and not all deluge the guy.)
>

I agree. NASA is the agency that probably understands our importance and
needs the best of any agency, and we have a lot of things to point to that
are important to them.


> 2. As suggested in another message, it's often easier to get support for
> a specific, targeted item as part of a big project or institute using
> that item, such as LSST or the black-hole group. There's a certain way
> to wend into those projects, usually originating from within.  STScI has
> long devoted programmer resources, for example.
>

Maybe that is indeed the way to go. The real goal is maintenance/evolution
though, so it's a bit of a stretch. The strategy does work, see Dask &
Pangeo, however it would be nicer not to have to spend 80-90% of a budget
on things we can sell to get the 10-20% of funding for the things we think
are most important to do 


> 3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
> you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
> Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
> less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
> people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
> them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
> get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
> approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
> have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
> logical end to see if it's viable.
>

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.


> 4. I mostly lurk here, since being more actively involved in the early
> days of numpy docs,


I remember, that's what got me involved in the first place - thanks again
for that:)

so maybe this one  has been tried already, or is in
> the works.  My apologies if so.
>

No we haven't tried it, perhaps we should.


> Think of development as a product to buy.  You could put chunks of
> development up for sale, advertise them, and coordinate one or more
> groups buying them together.  For something like an efficiency boost,
> you could price it according to the avoided cost of CPU resources for a
> project of a given size (e.g., somewhat below the net present value of
> avoided future AWS cycles for the projects buying it).  It would be like
> buying a custom-built data pipeline, except that once you buy it,
> everyone gets it.  This might mean scoping out a roadmap of
> improvements, packaging them into fundable projects with teams ready to
> 

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Ralf Gommers]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 5:27 PM Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ralf,
>

Thanks for the feedback Marten, it's very valuable. We've gotten some more
feedback from people experienced with applying for or reviewing NSF (and
DOE, NASA, NIH) grants, it helps a lot in figuring out what to do next.


> I'm sorry to hear the proposal did not pass the first round, but, having
> looked at it briefly (about as much time as I would have spent had I been
> on the panel), I have to admit I am not surprised: it is nice but nice is
> not enough for a competition like this.
>
> Compared to what will have included some really exciting, novel proposals,
> most damning will likely have been the modest, incremental goals (for a
> large sum of money):
>

I'm very aware that's how reviewers will look at it. I don't agree it's
true though (not sure if you think that) - the impact on the science NSF
supports of spending on the order of 10 million dollars on the SciPy
ecosystem will be way higher than of building some new facility, or
supporting one more supercomputer, or whatever else will have been proposed.

Another thought, and this does make our job harder, is that it's very
difficult to claim to do really novel things. Because whatever we do must
in the end pass review from and be accepted by the core teams of each
project and the community. Proposing really novel things will mean starting
new projects; which is just a different kind of proposal - more easy to
sell, likely a lot less impactful.

performance improvements, but without any actual sense of what would now
> become solvable (how does it beat throwing more computers at a problem,
> which is cheap?); better implementations of things that exist (arrays with
> units, sparse arrays); better GPU support (feels like something everybody
> and their brother was excited about a decade ago); etc.  I also think any
> panel would expect some concrete examples of facilities that would now be
> helped: e.g., how is this going to help LSST analyze its 20TB/night of data?
>

You're completely right - we should have focused more on this, trying to be
more concrete. Note that it's very hard to come up with provable statements
like "this is what we can do after this proposal that we can't do now", but
we must do better here. If anyone has references that we can use that would
be very helpful; things like the Decadal Survey in astronomy that state
something about the SciPy ecosystem). What we can also do is better
elaborate the impact of not maintaining/evolving our projects.


> Going forward, best may be to explicitly involve the facilities that use
> python - within astronomy, that would include LIGO and LSST,
>

We did, both of those. We also had a senior LIGO person as co-PI, and
includes a quote from a LIGO spokesperson about this being critical
infrastructure for them.

but certainly also STScI (and other NASA institutes), which actually
> supports SPE already. It would be good especially to show how much money it
> would save them when this is implemented, so that it becomes clear this is
> a net win.
>

I like that idea.

Indeed, for any future proposal, I'd suggest to involve (or at least ask
> for advice) some more senior people who have been successful before (within
> astronomy, the likes of Steve Kahn, the LSST director; he was at Columbia
> for most of his career, so there is a connection).
>

We also did that, got advice and a full draft proposal review several times
from a former NSF program manager. As well as from the likes of Fernando
Perez and Brian Granger at the start and Ryan Abernathy at the end.

Your advice about the kinds of people to get involved is all true, but I
don't think this was our main issue because we did all that. Also talking
to the PMs, we know that's critical and did that (the government shutdown
didn't help here though).

Cheers,
Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Marten van Kerkwijk]

Very much second Joe's recommendations - especially trying NASA - which has
an amazing track record of open data also in astronomy (and a history of
open source analysis tools, as well as the "Astrophysics Data System").
-- Marten
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Joe Harrington]

Hi Ralf,

The rejection is disappointing, for sure.  Some good ammo for next time 
might be the recommendations in this report from the US National 
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine:


http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/SSB_178892

https://www.nap.edu/read/25217/chapter/1#ii

You can download a free PDF if you click around and give them an email 
address.  There is some code on the cover that might raise a smile.


Lorena Barba, Kelle Cruz, and many other community members contributed, 
both as committee members and as white-paper authors.  While it's a 
report for NASA, the conclusions are strong and there is explicit 
support of investment in community resources like numpy, scipy, astropy, 
matplotlib, etc.  Other agencies are asking similar questions, so I 
expect the report to get somewhat of a look at NSF, etc.


A note on the Academies' process: A consensus study report must only 
include statements that no single member of the committee objects to, 
and the committee generally only includes senior members or people with 
a lot of relevant experience.  There were stakeholders from some large 
modeling shops for whom openness might be a threat to their business 
model, in their eyes, and some of the senior members had never 
experienced the open-source environment and had bad experiences sharing 
software.  This made for an interesting social dynamic, and prevented an 
all-out recommendation to forcibly open everything immediately.  Given 
all that, I was ultimately pleased that we got full agreement on the 
recommendations we did make.


So, some general thoughts on fundraising, not specific to this proposal:

1. Try NASA.  The Administrator for Space Science, Thomas Zurbuchen, is 
pushing "open" very hard, given the success of open data in NASA Earth 
Science, and its positive impact on the economy in fields like 
agriculture and weather forecasting.  He paid for the study above.  Many 
grant programs specifically solicit proposals for open-source tools.  
There are also technology development programs in other parts of NASA 
than the Science Mission Directorate.  Try contacting Dr. Michael New, 
who is Zurbuchen's deputy, and could direct you to appropriate programs. 
(Please, let's be coordinated and not all deluge the guy.)


2. As suggested in another message, it's often easier to get support for 
a specific, targeted item as part of a big project or institute using 
that item, such as LSST or the black-hole group. There's a certain way 
to wend into those projects, usually originating from within.  STScI has 
long devoted programmer resources, for example.


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which 
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or 
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs 
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few 
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss 
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could 
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the 
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA 
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its 
logical end to see if it's viable.


4. I mostly lurk here, since being more actively involved in the early 
days of numpy docs, so maybe this one  has been tried already, or is in 
the works.  My apologies if so.


Think of development as a product to buy.  You could put chunks of 
development up for sale, advertise them, and coordinate one or more 
groups buying them together.  For something like an efficiency boost, 
you could price it according to the avoided cost of CPU resources for a 
project of a given size (e.g., somewhat below the net present value of 
avoided future AWS cycles for the projects buying it).  It would be like 
buying a custom-built data pipeline, except that once you buy it, 
everyone gets it.  This might mean scoping out a roadmap of 
improvements, packaging them into fundable projects with teams ready to 
go, pricing them, advertising them to specific customers and in trade 
media and shows, and making sales pitches.


This sounds really weird to us scientists, but it would work just like a 
regular purchase for services, which the government and industry are 
much more used to doing than donations to open-source projects.


Don't just sell what the customer is buying, sell in the manner that the 
customer likes to buy.


5. And, keep trying grant proposals to NSF!

--jh--


On 4/18/19 6:36 AM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:


A number of core projects (NumPy, SciPy, Matplotlib, Pandas, 
scikit-learn) got together and put in a proposal to NSF for a large 5 
year grant, and it was unfortunately just rejected. We now published 
the proposal, which may be of interest: 
https://figshare.com/articles/Mid-Scale_Research_Infrastructure_-_The_Scientific_Pyth

Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Marten van Kerkwijk]

Hi Ralf,

I'm sorry to hear the proposal did not pass the first round, but, having
looked at it briefly (about as much time as I would have spent had I been
on the panel), I have to admit I am not surprised: it is nice but nice is
not enough for a competition like this.

Compared to what will have included some really exciting, novel proposals,
most damning will likely have been the modest, incremental goals (for a
large sum of money): performance improvements, but without any actual sense
of what would now become solvable (how does it beat throwing more computers
at a problem, which is cheap?); better implementations of things that exist
(arrays with units, sparse arrays); better GPU support (feels like
something everybody and their brother was excited about a decade ago);
etc.  I also think any panel would expect some concrete examples of
facilities that would now be helped: e.g., how is this going to help LSST
analyze its 20TB/night of data?

Going forward, best may be to explicitly involve the facilities that use
python - within astronomy, that would include LIGO and LSST, but certainly
also STScI (and other NASA institutes), which actually supports SPE
already. It would be good especially to show how much money it would save
them when this is implemented, so that it becomes clear this is a net win.
Indeed, for any future proposal, I'd suggest to involve (or at least ask
for advice) some more senior people who have been successful before (within
astronomy, the likes of Steve Kahn, the LSST director; he was at Columbia
for most of his career, so there is a connection).

All best wishes,

Marten
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

[Ralf Gommers]

Hi all,

A number of core projects (NumPy, SciPy, Matplotlib, Pandas, scikit-learn)
got together and put in a proposal to NSF for a large 5 year grant, and it
was unfortunately just rejected. We now published the proposal, which may
be of interest:
https://figshare.com/articles/Mid-Scale_Research_Infrastructure_-_The_Scientific_Python_Ecosystem/8009441
.

Those of you who are on Twitter may already know about this. First mention
of this rejection on Twitter with a lot of conversation following:
https://twitter.com/amuellerml/status/1117455802598662144. Full quote from
Andreas Mueller, replying to a tweet that the first ever image of a black
hole was built on Matplotlib, SciPy, NumPy, Pandas, Jupyter, AstroPy:
"Slightly ironic that in the same week @NSF rejects a grant to fund the
scipy ecosystem saying that working on it is not impactful enough and
hiring developers to work on it is too expensive." And a follow-up
conversation on Twitter about the rejection:
https://twitter.com/amuellerml/status/1118617331058475008

This proposal was led by Columbia, who submitted it together with NumFOCUS
and Quansight. It was largely written by Andreas Mueller (scikit-learn,
also the PI), Andy Terrel (NumFOCUS) and myself (NumPy/SciPy), with a lot
of valuable input from Thomas Caswell (Matplotlib), Jeff Reback (Pandas),
Gina Helfrich (NumFOCUS), the other co-PIs, the core teams of the projects,
and many others who pitched in ideas and advice.

This was the first time we tried a proposal of this scale and ambition (as
far as I know), and while it's disappointing that the NSF doesn't seem to
value software much (not really news, nor unique to NSF), rejections are a
normal part of submitting grant proposals and we now have a much better
idea of what it will take to submit further proposals in the future. Which
we plan on doing.

Cheers,
Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion