On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:49 PM Mark Mikofski <mikofski@berkeley.edu> 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 <mikofski@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.
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:

Best Regards,
Mark 
 

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


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <waterbug@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 <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:



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


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <jh@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
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


--
Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005)
Fiat Lux


--
Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005)
Fiat Lux
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion