FWIW, I would be happy to discuss with the Science WG on how we can
raise the profile of the technology. I think what you guys are doing
is very cool. When is your next meeting?
Ian
On 08/04/2015 8:24 AM, Greg Watson
wrote:
+1
If we want to build an ecosystem then a top level
project is essential. Why? So that, as Philip points out, we can
espouse the benefits of joining. Currently we’re asking people
to pay money to join the science iwg, but what do they get in
return. Also, there are some upcoming opportunities to source
funding from the US government, but unless we can demonstrate
significant value add it will be very hard to convince them it
is a good idea. Finally, I think this would raise the profile of
science within the foundation, and help us demonstrate that the
technology behind scientific computing can be just as important
as other technologies like iot or locationtech.
Greg
Hi Mike,
hi Jay,
yep, it would be great if more
projects/companies/institutions would join. Anyhow,
we're on a good a way so I think. But an experience I
made when talking to people/projects is that it's not
easy to describe the benefits of joining the Science WG
in short words ... even though we are aware of its
benefits. We possibly should discuss this point to find
a better way of advertising our strength.
In a separate mail I will propose three projects I'd
really like to see joining our working group. Maybe
others could also make recommendations :-).
Best,
Philip
Am 07.04.2015 um 22:07
schrieb Jay Jay Billings:
Mike,
That's a very valuable $0.02. Thanks!
I think you are right and that the
number of released projects is a better
criteria. (And we're not in a hurry.) We
definitely need more experience with the whole
process.
I'm going to type a couple of
related thoughts that came to mind when I read
your response, just to get them out there for
everyone, while I have a few more minutes.
We discussed the maturity of our projects a bit
during the committee meeting. One of the
interesting things about our projects in Science
(ICE, DAWNSci, Chemclipse) is that even though
they are currently incubating they are pretty
large, established and mature from our
pre-Eclipse days. The trip through incubation
for these projects is more about compliance with
IP and PMC needs than development of code,
although that is still happening. I think it is
safe to say that we what we are really
incubating with this three projects is the
neither the technology nor the governance, but
the IP trail and membership in the project
community, or at least it seems so to me. It
looks like the same may be true for some
possible future projects as well, although the
viz project would be close to a completely new
effort.
Another thing we discussed is that science
projects typically have strong relationships with
the government of the country where they were
written. This presents a whole different set of
issues than, say, pure technology projects. Help
with dealing with these issues could be one really
great benefit of a Science PMC.
Jay
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Philip Wenig
http://www.openchrom.net
https://www.xing.com/profile/Philip_Wenig
http://de.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wenig/2a/4a8/877
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
Ian Skerrett
VP of Marketing
Eclipse Foundation
(m) 613-240-7210
(o) 613-224-9461 ext 227
(t) @ianskerrett
|
