Re: Sage at the joint meetings in San Francisco
kcrisman
> As far as I know, we are not planning on having a booth this year in
> SF. Are there going to be any official Sage-related activities?
Depends on what you mean by official. I am giving two teaching-
related talks on interactive things I have done with Sage, and one
research talk on the results of what I talked at the last JMM about,
though I will not be emphasizing Sage per se in any of them. I
wouldn't be surprised if there were others. But I don't think
anyone's talked about this.
I'm cc:ing this to sage-edu as well, in case someone there has any
comments and misses this post.
> I am definitely attending, and I was thinking that it might be useful
> if Sage users and developers gave out Sage business cards during any
> appropriate opportunities. At last year's booth I think all or nearly
> all of the 200 business cards I brought were taken. Last year's
> design is still up at:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhampton/designs/bcard5.pdf
>
> If it sounds like a good idea, I am happy to print up a bunch of that
> or a new design and I can distribute them at the meeting. I think
> having sagenb.org on there was crucial for making it easy for people
> to give it a try.
I think that would be very helpful. Having a table when there isn't a
critical mass of Sage folks there would be very difficult, but having
some cards to hand out after talks would be great.
See you there!
- kcrisman
William Stein
>
> On Oct 12, 4:00 pm, mhampton <hampto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As far as I know, we are not planning on having a booth this year in
>> SF.
Correct.
>> Are there going to be any official Sage-related activities?
No, I don't think there will be any. This is definitely by choice of
the AMS though, since we put substantial effort and thought into an
AMS minicourse proposal, but it was rejected.
<rant> It is no surprise "the AMS" has not produced something like
Sage for mathematics already. They are very good at organizing as a
professional society, and also quite mature at publication of journals
and books. And they have done a superb job supporting software
related to publication (e.g., Latex). But I think the AMS's real
contributions to mathematical software so far have been essentially
nil. Maybe this will change someday, but I'm not holding my breath
waiting. (And of course I realize that "they" is partly us, since
many of us are AMS/MAA members.) The situation with the MAA is
similar. </rant>
> Depends on what you mean by official. I am giving two teaching-
> related talks on interactive things I have done with Sage, and one
> research talk on the results of what I talked at the last JMM about,
> though I will not be emphasizing Sage per se in any of them. I
> wouldn't be surprised if there were others. But I don't think
> anyone's talked about this.
I'm giving a little 15-minute talk in some number theory thing, probably.
Maybe we should throw together a Sage Days-style coding sprint? Sage
Days 18.5. We would just need a list of all Sage developers at the
meeting, and to organize a meeting location and schedule for coding
sprints. It would probably be best to do this unofficially, because
the second you ask for a room big costs, complications, and
bureaucracy appear.
> I'm cc:ing this to sage-edu as well, in case someone there has any
> comments and misses this post.
>
>> I am definitely attending, and I was thinking that it might be useful
>> if Sage users and developers gave out Sage business cards during any
>> appropriate opportunities. At last year's booth I think all or nearly
>> all of the 200 business cards I brought were taken. Last year's
>> design is still up at:
>>
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhampton/designs/bcard5.pdf
>>
>> If it sounds like a good idea, I am happy to print up a bunch of that
>> or a new design and I can distribute them at the meeting. I think
>> having sagenb.org on there was crucial for making it easy for people
>> to give it a try.
>
> I think that would be very helpful. Having a table when there isn't a
> critical mass of Sage folks there would be very difficult, but having
> some cards to hand out after talks would be great.
Having a table also cost about $800, which is another problem. An
advantage though to getting a table is that you don't have to pay
anything extra to register for the conference, so if 3 people are
table managers the table can nearly pay for itself. It's probably too
late at this point though, and running a table is a ton of work.
The business cards are gorgeous, by the way. I want some to hand out.
William
kcrisman
> No, I don't think there will be any. This is definitely by choice of
> the AMS though, since we put substantial effort and thought into an
> AMS minicourse proposal, but it was rejected.
didn't do" ... since we might want to submit a proposal for an MAA
minicourse eventually. Not the same thing, but still... any ideas, on
or off list?
Incidentally, for the info of those who read this list, several of us
submitted a proposal for a PREP workshop, but it was not approved. So
that's too bad, as well.
- kcrisman
Rob Beezer
some of the folks who are part of the program committee apparatus and
approved topics for MAA sessions, panels, etc. and I was asking about
proposing a panel or session on open textbooks. I got the distinct
impression that you would have to avoid the appearance of promoting a
"product" (even if it was free). So a talk like "How to select an
open textbook" might be legit, but a talk like "Bill Smith's open
textbook on Diffeomorphisms of Freely Generated Fiber Bundles" might
be considered too much of a promotion. Anyway, the substance of the
conversation was discouraging enough that I dropped the idea right
there.
<rant>I think you can find lots of counterexamples to this, some
officially sanctioned, and you might even be able to argue that every
talk has a strong element of self-promotion.</rant>
Based on this, I would suspect a proposal that describes some new
novel way of doing something, and Sage is incidentally the vehicle for
that something novel, possibly the only vehicle, would fair better
than a proposal that aims to simply teach folks how to use Sage. Just
off the top of my head, say: "How to extend mathematical software
through code contributions" - (not that this would be a great
minicourse that would draw a big audience, though I'd enjoy it). And
the description begins, "We will use the software system Sage to show
how any mathematician can add, modify, etc, etc." Something like this
might fare better?
I can, and will, consult a colleague who might be able to shed more
light on this and report back.
Rob
kcrisman
On Oct 14, 2:35 pm, Rob Beezer <goo...@beezer.cotse.net> wrote:
> At the meetings in San Diego a few years ago I had a discussion with
> some of the folks who are part of the program committee apparatus and
> approved topics for MAA sessions, panels, etc. and I was asking about
> proposing a panel or session on open textbooks. I got the distinct
> impression that you would have to avoid the appearance of promoting a
> "product" (even if it was free). So a talk like "How to select an
> open textbook" might be legit, but a talk like "Bill Smith's open
> textbook on Diffeomorphisms of Freely Generated Fiber Bundles" might
> be considered too much of a promotion. Anyway, the substance of the
> conversation was discouraging enough that I dropped the idea right
> there.
>
between what they are looking for with panels versus sessions versus
minicourses etc.
> <rant>I think you can find lots of counterexamples to this, some
> officially sanctioned, and you might even be able to argue that every
> talk has a strong element of self-promotion.</rant>
latest MAA publication - which is fine, even useful, since those are
good books! But seems to run against your other observation, as you
say.
I think that it's a very subtle line between creating a mini-course/
PREP/whatever that helps people use a valuable tool (say, Wolfram
Alpha) in a concrete context and one that is "about" that tool.
Marshall may also have some comments on this sort of issue, as I
understand he's thought about it, too.
> I can, and will, consult a colleague who might be able to shed more
> light on this and report back.
>
the luck of the draw, and that's probably part of it, too.
- kcrisman
William Stein
>>
I said:
>> No, I don't think there will be any. This is definitely by choice of
>> the AMS though, since we put substantial effort and thought into an
>> AMS minicourse proposal, but it was rejected.
it's true that we did put together a proposal for the 2009 JMM, but
then (in consultation with somebody on the committee) decided not to
submit it, partly because of another Sage MAA minicourse proposal for
the same meeting. So, the AMS certainly didn't reject our Sage
proposal, since we didn't even submit it. It turns out the Sage MAA
proposal was rejected, and this rejection was considered "stunning" by
some. However, the proposer of that MAA minicourse said "our chances
should be a lot better in a year..." though evidently that did not
turn out to be the case, with another stunning rejection (?).
> Jason G. says, "it might be nice to get an idea of what they did/
> didn't do" ... since we might want to submit a proposal for an MAA
> minicourse eventually. Not the same thing, but still... any ideas, on
> or off list?
accepted was not submitting our proposal!
> Incidentally, for the info of those who read this list, several of us
> submitted a proposal for a PREP workshop, but it was not approved. So
> that's too bad, as well.
>
> - kcrisman
> >
>
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
jason...@creativetrax.com
> At the meetings in San Diego a few years ago I had a discussion with
> some of the folks who are part of the program committee apparatus and
> approved topics for MAA sessions, panels, etc. and I was asking about
> proposing a panel or session on open textbooks. I got the distinct
> impression that you would have to avoid the appearance of promoting a
> "product" (even if it was free). So a talk like "How to select an
> open textbook" might be legit, but a talk like "Bill Smith's open
> textbook on Diffeomorphisms of Freely Generated Fiber Bundles" might
> be considered too much of a promotion. Anyway, the substance of the
> conversation was discouraging enough that I dropped the idea right
> there.
>
>
Interesting. That might explain also a bit better why the PREP course
proposal was rejected, as it seemed to have something to do with being
too Sage-centric (e.g., teaching people the technical side of how to use
Sage to enhance their courses, rather than exploring broader issues of
using a CAS in a course).
Jason
kcrisman
> it's true that we did put together a proposal for the 2009 JMM, but
> then (in consultation with somebody on the committee) decided not to
> submit it, partly because of another Sage MAA minicourse proposal for
> the same meeting. So, the AMS certainly didn't reject our Sage
> proposal, since we didn't even submit it. It turns out the Sage MAA
> proposal was rejected, and this rejection was considered "stunning" by
> some. However, the proposer of that MAA minicourse said "our chances
> should be a lot better in a year..." though evidently that did not
> turn out to be the case, with another stunning rejection (?).
>
rejection of a general open-source MAA session, which they thought
might not have enough submissions, so we had a very nice, well-
attended MAA panel (R, Sage, Undergrad Research, and WebWorK)
instead.
I never heard anything about it being "stunning" that we were
rejected, so perhaps that is referring to a different proposal I'm not
aware of? Jason's comments on the latest attempt are in a different
post in this thread, but it was a very different kind of proposal - a
summer week-long intensive online workshop.
> > Jason G. says, "it might be nice to get an idea of what they did/
> > didn't do" ... since we might want to submit a proposal for an MAA
> > minicourse eventually. Not the same thing, but still... any ideas, on
> > or off list?
>
> Well one clear thing we did which prevented our proposal from being
> accepted was not submitting our proposal!
>
- kcrisman
William Stein
>
>> OK, I have to back peddle. I'm checking through all my email, and
>> it's true that we did put together a proposal for the 2009 JMM, but
>> then (in consultation with somebody on the committee) decided not to
>> submit it, partly because of another Sage MAA minicourse proposal for
>> the same meeting. So, the AMS certainly didn't reject our Sage
>> proposal, since we didn't even submit it. It turns out the Sage MAA
>> proposal was rejected, and this rejection was considered "stunning" by
>> some. However, the proposer of that MAA minicourse said "our chances
>> should be a lot better in a year..." though evidently that did not
>> turn out to be the case, with another stunning rejection (?).
>>
>
> I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here... There was a
> rejection of a general open-source MAA session, which they thought
> might not have enough submissions, so we had a very nice, well-
> attended MAA panel (R, Sage, Undergrad Research, and WebWorK)
> instead.
OK, so evidently though our chances should be a lot better for 2010
for the MAA minicourse, they were actually worse because we didn't
apply.
> I never heard anything about it being "stunning" that we were
> rejected, so perhaps that is referring to a different proposal I'm not
> aware of? Jason's comments on the latest attempt are in a different
> post in this thread, but it was a very different kind of proposal - a
> summer week-long intensive online workshop.
>
>> > Jason G. says, "it might be nice to get an idea of what they did/
>> > didn't do" ... since we might want to submit a proposal for an MAA
>> > minicourse eventually. Not the same thing, but still... any ideas, on
>> > or off list?
>>
>> Well one clear thing we did which prevented our proposal from being
>> accepted was not submitting our proposal!
>>
>
> I don't say LOL much, but that's an LOL.
Definitely. Most grants I fail to get are because I don't apply.
I've failed to get thousands (nay millions) of grants that way. :-)
William
Rob Beezer
Most of the above is generally correct, including kcrisman's reply to
my post, and William's success rate on grants he never applied for.
A couple of new things to add. You can propose an individual talk on
something very narrow, like "Using Sage to..." and it will probably
get approved. But for a panel/session/minicourse then criteria like
interest level, are there enough speakers, availability of the
"platform", etc begin to come into play. So I'd say the more Sage is
being deployed and used, the better we'd do on this. A Windows port
wouldn't hurt, I guess.
Many Section Meetings have minicourses as part of their program.
William did a nice one at the Pacific Northwest Section meeting last
April. It was well attended (twenty?), in direct competition with a
Mathematica session by Stan Wagon (and George Andrews talking about
partitions). Speaking from experience, an organizer for one of these
local MAA meetings would probably jump on any offer to present such a
minicourse. These would be a valuable experience and trial run for a
presenter, and establish a track record of interest for a proposal at
the national level, and likely the presenter's travel might be covered
by the meeting, so geography and money doesn't have to be a constraint
(just time).
Rob
kcrisman
> something very narrow, like "Using Sage to..." and it will probably
> get approved.
the Calculus Sequence.” Again, though it's frustrating, we can
understand that it's hard for a committee to decide where the line
needs to be drawn. We tried to be as explicit as we could about
calculus.
> But for a panel/session/minicourse then criteria like
> interest level, are there enough speakers, availability of the
> "platform", etc begin to come into play. So I'd say the more Sage is
> being deployed and used, the better we'd do on this. A Windows port
> wouldn't hurt, I guess.
R, Sage, etc. mature, there will be plenty of interest for a session.
Minicourses seem to come up earlier, as people who have worked with a
tool try to share their expertise with others who don't have time or
ability to learn it on their own.
> Many Section Meetings have minicourses as part of their program.
> William did a nice one at the Pacific Northwest Section meeting last
> April. It was well attended (twenty?), in direct competition with a
> Mathematica session by Stan Wagon (and George Andrews talking about
> partitions). Speaking from experience, an organizer for one of these
> local MAA meetings would probably jump on any offer to present such a
> minicourse. These would be a valuable experience and trial run for a
> presenter, and establish a track record of interest for a proposal at
> the national level, and likely the presenter's travel might be covered
> by the meeting, so geography and money doesn't have to be a constraint
> (just time).
about a month, for the Section NExT group. We had the "Clickable
Calculus" guy from Maple in about a year ago (and he did a good job),
so it made sense.
You are definitely right about section meetings - I've helped organize
one, and you always want a variety of things to draw participants,
even at a "theme" meeting. I wouldn't be so sure that travel would be
covered by the meeting unless it's a big name - William I can see,
Stan Wagon and George Andrews I can see, not so sure about some of the
rest of us. But in the past there has been talk about having a roster
of Sage speakers that would be in some obvious place on the website,
and perhaps it's time to revisit that as a resource.
- kcrisman