next sprint in the snow with the plone?
hello pypystas, recently i talked to the Plone developers regarding a PyPy sprint on the same location and time as their next "snow sprint". See *their* nice sprint page here: http://plone.org/events/sprints/snow-sprint/FrontPage It takes place from 7th till 14th of February 2004 in some austrian mountain and you can possibly also do various snow sports . Of course i realize that this is rather early for us as we just finished our Amsterdam sprint but nevertheless i think it's a good opportunity. As Plone attracts quite some people (they have more than 40 people assigned to the sprint!) it would be a great opportunity and possibly the largest european python sprint event so far (until the ones at EuroPython, i guess :-). So i ask everyone to check if he/she could possibly make it. This doesn't need to be a definitive yes, yet, just a hint that you think it's probably possible or not. You can reply to this posting or sent private mail as you wish. I will get more details and confirmation soon (thanks to Jodok Batlogg and Alexander Limi, already). Prices are expected to be reasonable although it is high snow season. If we gather enough critical mass then we could still reach the goal of releasing some PyPy within the first year of development, hehe. Armin Rigo already appears to be able to come which considerably increases chances to make it :-) Ah, and btw, our EU project coordinator, Alastair Burt, just sent notice that our EU proposal got 26.5 out of 30 points which sounds promising but of course we don't know if they employ some logarithmic scale or so :-) (/me crosses his fingers, knocks on wood and all that). cheers, holger
holger krekel <hpk@trillke.net> writes:
hello pypystas,
recently i talked to the Plone developers regarding a PyPy sprint on the same location and time as their next "snow sprint". See *their* nice sprint page here:
http://plone.org/events/sprints/snow-sprint/FrontPage
It takes place from 7th till 14th of February 2004 in some austrian mountain and you can possibly also do various snow sports .
Oh hell, it's term time, at least fairly expensive, and I'm already going skiing in the last week of january...
Ah, and btw, our EU project coordinator, Alastair Burt, just sent notice that our EU proposal got 26.5 out of 30 points which sounds promising but of course we don't know if they employ some logarithmic scale or so :-) (/me crosses his fingers, knocks on wood and all that).
Indeed! Cheers, mwh -- 6. The code definitely is not portable - it will produce incorrect results if run from the surface of Mars. -- James Bonfield, http://www.ioccc.org/2000/rince.hint
On Jan 6, 2004, at 11:31 AM, holger krekel wrote: ...
It takes place from 7th till 14th of February 2004 in some austrian ... So i ask everyone to check if he/she could possibly make it. This doesn't
Nope, sorry. I do hope we can get something going around PythonUK/ACCU, as I'm most likely going to be in the UK for that and likely so is Anna, but early Feb's no good for me:-(.
Ah, and btw, our EU project coordinator, Alastair Burt, just sent notice that our EU proposal got 26.5 out of 30 points which sounds promising but of course we don't know if they employ some logarithmic scale or so :-)
No, I studied the PDF doc and it's really very simple: a sum of scores on scales of 0 to 5 in 6 categories, with a per-category threshold that would presumably rule out a project that's otherwise generally good but hopeless in one category. Out of a maximum of 30, we "lost" a total of 3.5 points: 0.5 on potential impact, 1 on not being totally state of the art, and 2 more on "mobilization of resources" which seems to be euro-speak for "are the estimated costs sensible" (we scraped by, barely meeting the threshold in that category, but the 2+ millions EUR we asked for , if I read the comments correctly, seemed somewhat-inflated costs to whoever judged those things, with specific mention of excessive costs for several identified sub-projects -- that was the only category where the short comment sounded negative to me, while all other comments sounded very positive, including those on the two categories where we lost the other 1.5 points). Alex
Hi Alex, [Alex Martelli Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:08:29PM +0100]
On Jan 6, 2004, at 11:31 AM, holger krekel wrote: ...
It takes place from 7th till 14th of February 2004 in some austrian ... So i ask everyone to check if he/she could possibly make it. This doesn't
Nope, sorry. I do hope we can get something going around PythonUK/ACCU, as I'm most likely going to be in the UK for that and likely so is Anna, but early Feb's no good for me:-(.
Python UK/ACCU is sometime april, right?
Ah, and btw, our EU project coordinator, Alastair Burt, just sent notice that our EU proposal got 26.5 out of 30 points which sounds promising but of course we don't know if they employ some logarithmic scale or so :-)
No, I studied the PDF doc and it's really very simple: a sum of scores on scales of 0 to 5 in 6 categories, with a per-category threshold that would presumably rule out a project that's otherwise generally good but hopeless in one category. Out of a maximum of 30, we "lost" a total of 3.5 points: ...
yes, that's right. Nevertheless, my concern was more how close 26.5 is to 30 because it's possible that there are "too many" projects with points higher than 26.5 ... maybe i didn't use the right mathematical terms or so :-) cheers, holger
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 06:26 pm, holger krekel wrote: ...
Nope, sorry. I do hope we can get something going around PythonUK/ACCU, as I'm most likely going to be in the UK for that and likely so is Anna, but early Feb's no good for me:-(.
Python UK/ACCU is sometime april, right?
Yep, Wednesday 14 April to Saturday 17 April 2004. I understand that's far too long to wait between one sprint and the next, and wasn't meaning to imply there should be no sprint until then, although in retrospect I see my words may have sounded like that!-)
yes, that's right. Nevertheless, my concern was more how close 26.5 is to 30 because it's possible that there are "too many" projects with points higher than 26.5 ... maybe i didn't use the right mathematical terms or so :-)
Ah, yes, of course -- it's an issue of statistics rather than maths. Even if we had 29.5 out of 30, it would be no use if there were funds enough for just (say) 100 projects, and 101 other projects had a full 30/30!-) And of course we have no way to know about it until we're told... Alex
[Alex Martelli Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:47:22PM +0100]
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 06:26 pm, holger krekel wrote: ...
Nope, sorry. I do hope we can get something going around PythonUK/ACCU, as I'm most likely going to be in the UK for that and likely so is Anna, but early Feb's no good for me:-(.
Python UK/ACCU is sometime april, right?
Yep, Wednesday 14 April to Saturday 17 April 2004. I understand that's far too long to wait between one sprint and the next, and wasn't meaning to imply there should be no sprint until then, although in retrospect I see my words may have sounded like that!-)
well, so far i received information from 5 people (Richard, Armin and me could probably come, you and Michael not IIUC). This is obviously not a good enough base for doing the sprint. I guess i'll wait until the weekend and see if more people like the idea of the "Snow Sprint" and then report back. (So, effectively, Armin is not completly released from looking for a switzerland opportunity :-) cheers, holger
hello pypystas,
recently i talked to the Plone developers regarding a PyPy sprint on the same location and time as their next "snow sprint". See *their* nice sprint page here:
http://plone.org/events/sprints/snow-sprint/FrontPage
It takes place from 7th till 14th of February 2004 in some austrian ...
Hello Holger and PyPy, at first a happy rest of the year! Personally I will not take part at the next sprint. However, if possible I will take some free days during that time and try to contribute somehow ... (cheerleading with bad jokes or something like this ...) Günter
holger krekel wrote: ...
yes, that's right. Nevertheless, my concern was more how close 26.5 is to 30 because it's possible that there are "too many" projects with points higher than 26.5 ... maybe i didn't use the right mathematical terms or so :-)
Yup. Logarithmic scale would only count if this were an absolute measure. Since it appears to be relative, logs or anything else don't count, just the number of competitors above our score counts. I forwarded the results to Mark Achtman from MPIIB, who seems to have some experience with EU funding, and his reaction was *very* positive, "a real good chance". So I'll repeat this here, "a real good chance" and hope for the best. ciao - chris p.s.: The analysis of that evaluation doesn't suggest that we had too experienced reviewers. That state of the art argument is rather vague and misplaced, since we are going beyond state of the art in certain areas. Maybe not in the research field, but my guess is the reviewer just *did not understand* it. This is supported by the fact that the complaint about the costs of WP 4, 5, 6 & 7 is hard to follow. There is no reason not also to include WP 8. These things, alltogether, are in fact costly, and _might_ be a little over-estimated, with some fluff inside for negotiation. Anyway, what I wanted to express is that the analysis looked a bit arbitrary, partially, like "we need to find some bad spots!". And if this is true, then this is true for other projects as well, and we don't need to expect all too many competitors above our score. :-) -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@stackless.com> Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
Alex Martelli wrote:
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 06:26 pm, holger krekel wrote: ...
yes, that's right. Nevertheless, my concern was more how close 26.5 is to 30 because it's possible that there are "too many" projects with points higher than 26.5 ... maybe i didn't use the right mathematical terms or so :-)
Ah, yes, of course -- it's an issue of statistics rather than maths. Even if we had 29.5 out of 30, it would be no use if there were funds enough for just (say) 100 projects, and 101 other projects had a full 30/30!-) And of course we have no way to know about it until we're told...
This is correct. My hope is just, as expressed in another message, that there is a certain noise level of "we need to find something" results. I think they were applied to us, and I hope to others as well, lowering the results of all competitors a little bit. If so, then we are looking really good, I guess. ciao - chris -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@stackless.com> Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
[Christian Tismer Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:47:48PM +0100]
holger krekel wrote:
...
yes, that's right. Nevertheless, my concern was more how close 26.5 is to 30 because it's possible that there are "too many" projects with points higher than 26.5 ... maybe i didn't use the right mathematical terms or so :-)
Yup. Logarithmic scale would only count if this were an absolute measure. Since it appears to be relative, logs or anything else don't count, just the number of competitors above our score counts.
I forwarded the results to Mark Achtman from MPIIB, who seems to have some experience with EU funding, and his reaction was *very* positive, "a real good chance".
So I'll repeat this here, "a real good chance" and hope for the best.
I like to think so, too.
p.s.: The analysis of that evaluation doesn't suggest that we had too experienced reviewers.
hmmm, I can't conclude this from the evaluation grid. It's only two pages, actually just one page with a evaluation table. The 6 sentences judging the different aspects of our proposal seem to be quite to the point. I don't know how you could do better in *one* sentence :-)
That state of the art argument is rather vague and misplaced, since we are going beyond state of the art in certain areas.
Well, they mostly reiterate what we are saying in the proposal IIRC so they can't be wrong ... on a "pure" theoretical side we are not pushing the envelope too much last time i checked :-) cheers, holger
participants (5)
-
Alex Martelli -
Christian Tismer -
Günter Jantzen -
holger krekel -
Michael Hudson