Please review #13125

[Volker Braun]

This fixes some critical bugs in comparison with infinities

[Volker Braun]

bump

[Nathann Cohen]

Hmmmmm... Could we not cite grants in source code ? :-/

+This module has, in part, received funding from the European Union's

+Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement

+FP7-ICT-247914.

[Volker Braun]

I didn't put it there. I agree that its silly, but so is much of the bureaucratic process behind these grants. Afaik we don't have a policy formulated.

[Nathann Cohen]

Couldn't we have a wiki page in which we would add all the references to grants ? It would look like a giant dictionary of numbers and nobody would ever look at this page, and it would look totally stupid and useless, but nobody could blame anybody because if anybody asks why all grant numbers are stored where nobody sees them we would answer that "it is sage'a policy, and none of is can do anything about it" ? :-P

Nathann

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/3U9OYwmfoOk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[mmarco]

I think that, if credit should be given to the grant that funded a certain work, it should be stated in either a comment of the corresponding ticket, or the commit message. That way it would be clearly stated which code was funded by which grant.

Imagine the situation where the code funded by some grant is, in the future, replaced by some other code that has nothing to do with  that grant. In that case, there would be no code in sage that was funded by that grant.

[Nathann Cohen]

> I think that, if credit should be given to the grant that funded a certain
> work, it should be stated in either a comment of the corresponding ticket,
> or the commit message. That way it would be clearly stated which code was
> funded by which grant.
>
> Imagine the situation where the code funded by some grant is, in the future,
> replaced by some other code that has nothing to do with  that grant. In that
> case, there would be no code in sage that was funded by that grant.

The point is that my blood pressure goes up when I see people thanking "The Lord, their girlfriends and an accountant" where it does not belong... Why, a trac ticket ? Why the source code ? Those are work tools ! We use them for serious stuff ! Let's put the grant numbers where they belong --> anywhere else. Plus the web page will stay like that forever, and become harder to read with time. It's cool !

Nathann

[Thierry]

Hi,

i agree that such <s>spam</s>info should not be part of the source code.
Sage-combinat maintain their grant page
http://wiki.sagemath.org/combinat/Grants but it is more about
applications. The general grant page is a static page at
http://sagemath.org/development-ack.html Perhaps could me move this
stuff on the wiki to ease maintenance ?

Ciao,
Thierry

> 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+...@googlegroups.com.

[Volker Braun]

IANAL, but, especially if we get a DOI for Sage releases, some grant rules could be construed as to require an acknowledgement in the source tree. Not that I really care. But one way to be on the safe side would be a "grant_graveyard.txt" (open for naming suggestions) where you can add your acknowledgements. 

[Nathann Cohen]

> IANAL, but, especially if we get a DOI for Sage releases, some grant rules
> could be construed as to require an acknowledgement in the source tree. Not
> that I really care. But one way to be on the safe side would be a
> "grant_graveyard.txt" (open for naming suggestions) where you can add your
> acknowledgements.

I like the idea of a file named grant_graveyard.txt.

This being said, can't we just decide that "Sage refuses to see frant
numbers in its source code" ? And if anybody asks, we will just
answer "Okay we are sorry, we just can't add the grant numbers in
Sage, it is refused during the review and I can't force them, it's a
collaborative project".

Nathann

[Dr. David Kirkby]

On 18 May 2014 10:24, "Thierry" <sage-goo...@lma.metelu.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> i agree that such <s>spam</s>info should not be part of the source code.

I don't have a strong view on it, but what if a Sage developer uses source code from someone else? Should they remove any similar comments that already exist?

Dave.

[Nathann Cohen]

> I don't have a strong view on it, but what if a Sage developer uses source
> code from someone else? Should they remove any similar comments that already
> exist?

Well, most of this codes goes into packages anyway, doesn't it ? 

The thing is that we shouldn't let the administration of all of the developpers' country define by themselves what should appear in the source code of an open-source project. Given the number of developpers that are somehow supported by grants, doing otherwise could end badly :-P

Nathann

[leif]

Yeah, and now using git, we can make it even more obscure (to ordinary
people) by adding all SHA numbers of related commits.


-leif

--
() The ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/\ Help Cure HTML E-Mail

[Andrew]

I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about: in papers is it common practise to acknowledge funding sources. Indeed this is often required. If a substantial piece of code is one of the funding outcomes shouldn't this be acknowledged?

I have not been putting grant information into my code as I do agree that in some ways adding grant information is like spam. Nonetheless, I think that we probably all should start doing this if we want to maintain that writing code should count as a research output, much like papers do.

I would have thought that the "correct" way to do this would be by adding a brief sentence to the

AUTHORS: block

and the top of the file. This way when the code evolves later the correct attribution remains in place.

Andrew

[Nathann Cohen]

> I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about: in papers is it common practise to acknowledge funding sources. Indeed this is often required. If a substantial piece of code is one of the funding outcomes shouldn't this be acknowledged?

For me Sage is a collaborative software, not the administration's playground.

> I have not been putting grant information into my code as I do agree that in some ways adding grant information is like spam. Nonetheless, I think that we probably all should start doing this if we want to maintain that writing code should count as a research output, much like papers do.

Only for papers it is only a couple of them, and for Sage it would
mean adding them again and again and again. Let's not give them room
for that.

> I would have thought that the "correct" way to do this would be by adding a brief sentence to the
> AUTHORS: block
> and the top of the file. This way when the code evolves later the correct attribution remains in place.

Let's put this in a graveyard file. We don't have to stand this
absurdity of writing numbers where nobody reads them just to make them
happy.

Nathann

[Volker Braun]

On Monday, May 19, 2014 2:51:23 AM UTC+1, Andrew wrote:

I would have thought that the "correct" way to do this would be by adding a brief sentence to the

AUTHORS: block

and the top of the file.

IMHO that is just the programming equivalent to spray-painting your name on transformer boxes. The only meaningful attribution is "git blame", nothing else.

[Dima Pasechnik]

well, rules are rules. If certain Ritchy Bastrad would donate 10M$ to
Sage project, under the condition it be renamed Ritchy Bastard
Sage, then, you know...

Not many people here enjoy next to zero obligations liftime funding,
like CNRS offers you, Nathann :)

Cheers,
Dima

[Nathann Cohen]

> well, rules are rules. If certain Ritchy Bastrad would donate 10M$ to
> Sage project, under the condition it be renamed Ritchy Bastard
> Sage, then, you know...
>
> Not many people here enjoy next to zero obligations liftime funding,
> like CNRS offers you, Nathann :)

Ahahahah.

Well, refusing to get funding also means that I give up any hope of career progress, and I am paid 2000 euros a month after taxes (which is of course more than enough to feed me). I also became homeless because it was better than working in the crazy place I was assigned.

Sooooo it's true, I can refuse funding if I give up other things (and if I pay with my own money for all expenses, of course). But compare what can be compared. I can only refuse things if I accept to give up others.

Nathann

[leif]

Well, when doing funded work on Sage, you can easily change your name
for related commits, to, say, "John Doe (20xx-20yy A4711/c23-12X M$)".

[William Stein]

Grant ack must happen, but on the sagemath.org website (only) as we've been doing it for years now.  I think that model works well.   If anybody wants to add something, email me or Harald.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.