Announcing $0M in new funding for the SageMathCloud over the next 3 years

[William Stein]

Hi,

There have been several recent announcements of funding for
Sage/Python related projects:

- IPython -- "Announcing $6M in new funding for the project over the
next 3 years" (from Sloane, etc.)

- OpenDreamKit -- 8.4M

A group of Sage developers applied to NSF for $1.7M for open textbooks
and a lot of SageMathCloud related development. Today we found out
that this proposal was denied (again).

I now have absolutely no NSF funding at all to support any
Sage-related (or other) activities anymore. This is the third
Sage-related NSF grant proposal I've been on that was rejected in a
row.

Anyway, for me personally and SageMathCloud development, and also
support of Sage development at UW, this is a major blow.

--
William (http://wstein.org)

[Nathann Cohen]

Anyway, for me personally and SageMathCloud development, and also
support of Sage development at UW, this is a major blow.

Perhaps they did not understand what exactly was the difference between SMC and OpenDreamKit ? Fortunately, 8.4millions is far enough to share.

Nathann

[Eric Gourgoulhon]

Hi,

Le mercredi 8 juillet 2015 22:43:36 UTC+2, c.d. mclean a écrit :

for the SMC community, if you use this service

and can forego the purchase of a bag of coffee

beans each month, then i assure you that you

ABSOLUTELY WANT to become an SMC

customer ... this project is simply too important

to allow it to whither on the vine.

I've just filled my credit card number by clicking on the "Billing" button in the SMC account setting, but then what's next ? I could not find how to proceed to actually send money to the SMC project... I remember having read somewhere that one can subscribe for $7 / month, but I don't see such option (actually any option at all) in the Billing section.

Eric.

[Harald Schilly]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Eric Gourgoulhon <egourg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I could not find how to proceed to actually send money to the SMC project...

Please email sup...@sagemath.com because the specific plans are
created individually. Also email us the ID strings of up to 5
projects, such that we know which ones to move over to the other
machines.

That's probably something which should be written on this billing
page, until everything is automated ;-)

-- harald

[Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd)]

On 8 July 2015 18:17, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I now have absolutely no NSF funding at all to support any
> Sage-related (or other) activities anymore.  This is the third
> Sage-related NSF grant proposal I've been on that was rejected in a
> row.
>
> Anyway, for me personally and SageMathCloud development, and also
> support of Sage development at UW, this is a major blow.

Do you have any feedback as to why your projects were not funded? 

Dr David Kirkby
Managing Director
Kirkby Microwave Ltd
Registered office: Stokes Hall Lodge, Burnham Rd, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DT, United Kingdom
Registered in England and Wales as company number 08914892
http://www.kirkbymicrowave.co.uk/
Tel 07910 441670 / +44 7910 441670 (0900-2100 GMT)

[William Stein]

On Thursday, July 9, 2015, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) <drki...@kirkbymicrowave.co.uk> wrote:

On 8 July 2015 18:17, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I now have absolutely no NSF funding at all to support any
> Sage-related (or other) activities anymore.  This is the third
> Sage-related NSF grant proposal I've been on that was rejected in a
> row.
>
> Anyway, for me personally and SageMathCloud development, and also
> support of Sage development at UW, this is a major blow.

Do you have any feedback as to why your projects were not funded? 

Yes.  In short: "there were many qualified applicants."

 

Dr David Kirkby
Managing Director
Kirkby Microwave Ltd
Registered office: Stokes Hall Lodge, Burnham Rd, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DT, United Kingdom
Registered in England and Wales as company number 08914892
http://www.kirkbymicrowave.co.uk/
Tel 07910 441670 / +44 7910 441670 (0900-2100 GMT)

--
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.
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.

--
Sent from my massive iPhone 6 plus.

[Fernando Perez]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:17 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyway, for me personally and SageMathCloud development, and also
support of Sage development at UW, this is a major blow.

All I can say is that I'm very bummed to hear this... I always admired your success in securing resources for Sage (with a bit of envy :) when I wasn't able to do so for IPython, and I only wish that today we could have resources for *both*.  

I tried to learn a lot from watching everything you did with looking for resources for Sage, and FWIW, I also haven't had great luck with the federal agencies.  My only success with the NSF has been with stuff that's only tangentially related to ipython/scipy, whereas grants where i went "head first" into the software (even solicitations that were "software infrastructure" didn't fare so well).

This is a cautionary note that, even though IPython and ODK are doing OK right now, the next cycle may well look very different for us too... Grant funding is a fickle business, which is why I continue wishing SMC sustained commercial success, so that it can have actual *revenue* to invest in Sage itself for the long haul.

The question of how to fund our work in a sustainable fashion for the really long haul, as our teams get larger (and thus more expensive) keeps me up at night...

All I can say at this point is that I hope the work we'll do on Jupyter, and indirectly with our colleagues at ODK (we'll have some of the Jupyter folks there too) will continue providing benefits to Sage!  

Cheers,

f

--

Fernando Perez (@fperez_org; http://fperez.org)
fperez.net-at-gmail: mailing lists only (I ignore this when swamped!)
fernando.perez-at-berkeley: contact me here for any direct mail

[Dima Pasechnik]

Certainly, ODK will do Sage days, and fund US-based Sage devs
in other possible ways...

[rjf]

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.

 Life is not fair, William.

RJF

[William Stein]

Thanks for sharing your sympathies and thoughts. (Yes, I've been on
NSF panels.)

-- William


--
William (http://wstein.org)

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:44:20PM -0700, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:17 AM, William Stein <[1]wst...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> Anyway, for me personally and SageMathCloud development, and also
> support of Sage development at UW, this is a major blow.
>
> All I can say is that I'm very bummed to hear this... I always admired
> your success in securing resources for Sage (with a bit of envy :) when
> I wasn't able to do so for IPython, and I only wish that today we could
> have resources for *both*.
> I tried to learn a lot from watching everything you did with looking
> for resources for Sage, and FWIW, I also haven't had great luck with
> the federal agencies. My only success with the NSF has been with stuff
> that's only tangentially related to ipython/scipy, whereas grants where
> i went "head first" into the software (even solicitations that were
> "software infrastructure" didn't fare so well).
> This is a cautionary note that, even though IPython and ODK are doing
> OK right now, the next cycle may well look very different for us too...
> Grant funding is a fickle business, which is why I continue wishing SMC
> sustained commercial success, so that it can have actual *revenue* to
> invest in Sage itself for the long haul.
> The question of how to fund our work in a sustainable fashion for the
> really long haul, as our teams get larger (and thus more expensive)
> keeps me up at night...
> All I can say at this point is that I hope the work we'll do on
> Jupyter, and indirectly with our colleagues at ODK (we'll have some of
> the Jupyter folks there too) will continue providing benefits to Sage!

+1 to each and every item above.

We, European devs, have benefited from NSF funding for Sage in
numerous occasions (Sage days, visits, ...) when we had no funding
here. We will do our best to reciprocate this with ODK.

For the longer run, a strategy I will explore in depth will be to try
to secure some *permanent* full time dev position(s), typically at
LRI. I have no clue of the odds though, so don't hold your breath.

Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/

[Nathann Cohen]

> We, European devs, have benefited from NSF funding for Sage in
> numerous occasions (Sage days, visits, ...) when we had no funding
> here.

You are speaking in your own name only. You are not the "Europeans
Devs", are are not entitled to speak in their name.

Nathann

[kcrisman]

Indeed.  However, presumably Nicolas intended to convey that since he is part of the "we" of all European devs, and since it is very true that many European devs (including ones with no connection whatsoever to "sage-combinat" or graphs or any of that) have benefited from NSF in such ways, the statement is still true.  Perhaps it could have been worded in a way to make it very clear that he did not intend to speak for all of them, though again I doubt that was the intent.  Happy week! 

[Dima Pasechnik]

Nicolas did not put 'the' after 'we'; do not twist his words please.

What he wrote is a correct statement.

 

Nathann

[Dima Pasechnik]

and, by the way, Nathann, you do use Sage code that was developed with NFS

funding, and thus benefit from it, so your point is really, really moot... 

 

Nathann

[Nathann Cohen]

> Nicolas did not put 'the' after 'we'; do not twist his words please.
> What he wrote is a correct statement.

You are amazing, guys.

Nathann

[Dima Pasechnik]

there were unconfirmed reports of an 1-person demonstration in front of the US Embassy

in Paris, with a banner saying "Sage Days are a waste of US taxpayer's money! Stop them now!"

Probably that's why William had no luck with NSF lately.

 

Nathann

[Nathann Cohen]

> there were unconfirmed reports of an 1-person demonstration in front of the
> US Embassy
> in Paris, with a banner saying "Sage Days are a waste of US taxpayer's
> money! Stop them now!"

Don't trust anybody who claims to have seen me in Paris. They are liars.

Though on the other hand that would prove one point: that anybody can
voice his/her own opinion, and yet be heard. There is no need of
indirect representation here as everybody can post freely, and so I do
not want to be made to talk against my will, encompassed in the set of
"european developers", "developers of combinatorics code", or whatever
may come next.

I do not trust representatives (least of all self-appointed), and with
good reasons. I would be surprised if most of you did (*).

Have fuuuuuuuuun,

Nathann

(*) In France they believe that the people wants to be monitored
US-style, nowadays. Who wouldn't?

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

This is right, there was an ambiguity in my statement. It could, with
a pinch of paranoia, be misinterpreted as you suggest. A statement
better representing what I meant is:

``Many European devs, including me, have ...''

[John Cremona]

On 14 July 2015 at 13:29, Nicolas M. Thiery <Nicolas...@u-psud.fr> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 09:59:37PM +0200, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> > We, European devs, have benefited from NSF funding for Sage in
> > numerous occasions (Sage days, visits, ...) when we had no funding
> > here.
>
> You are speaking in your own name only. You are not the "Europeans
> Devs", are are not entitled to speak in their name.

This is right, there was an ambiguity in my statement. It could, with
a pinch of paranoia, be misinterpreted as you suggest. A statement
better representing what I meant is:

     ``Many European devs, including me, have ...''

But how many is "many"?  Perhaps "At least one" would be safer.  Which reminds me of the old joke:

John, Nicolas and Nathann are travelling through Scotland on a train when they go past a black sheep in a field.  John says "Look, all Scottish sheep are black!".  Nicolas says "No -- I think you mean *some* Scottish sheep are black."   Nathann objects and insists on his version: "There exists at least one sheep in Scotland and at least one of sides is black."

John

PS Nathann, this is a *joke*.  No offence is intended.

 

Cheers,
                                Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/

[Nathann Cohen]

> PS Nathann, this is a *joke*. No offence is intended.

It would have been much funnier if you had had one character say "We,
Scottish sheep, are black".

Nathann

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

:-)

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 01:56:10PM +0100, John Cremona wrote:
> But how many is "many"? Perhaps "At least one" would be safer.

Let's see; I am certain of at least seven. Probably "many" more :-)