[Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)
Mark Mikofski
mikofski at berkeley.edu
Fri May 3 11:40:09 EDT 2019
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.
https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/#FoaId45eda43a-e826-4481-ae7a-cc6e8ed4fdae
see topic 3.4 specifically in attached PDF - also note to view the
recording the password is "*Setofoa2019"* it's about 30 minutes long.
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.
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:
https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/
Best Regards,
Mark
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <waterbug at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <jh at 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 at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing listNumPy-Discussion at python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
--
Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005)
*Fiat Lux*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20190503/1539fb5c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SETO_FY19_FOA_Applicant_Webinar_Topic_Area_3_-_Balance_of_Systems_Soft_Costs_Reduction.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 949355 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20190503/1539fb5c/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list