| Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting |
Werner
Send science-iwg mailing list submissions to
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
science-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
science-iwg-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of science-iwg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Key outcomes from today's meeting (Andrew Ross)
2. Re: Key outcomes from today's meeting (Mike Milinkovich)
3. Re: Key outcomes from today's meeting (Torkild Ulv?y Resheim)
4. Re: Key outcomes from today's meeting (Andrew Ross)
5. Re: Key outcomes from today's meeting (Ola Spjuth)
6. Re: EclipseCon France deadline (Tracy Miranda)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:17:15 -0400
From: Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting
Message-ID: <53443D2B.7070105@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Hi Everyone,
The draft Science charter (Google doc)
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sW3MDC4ksCg19N4_-kaPPsV9gjkT8BSuJmBSBH5V4IU/edit>
is all marked up at the moment, but I'll go in and clean that up and
capture comments & discussion in the wiki.
In today's meeting there were a few key changes we propose making to the
draft charter that I wanted to share here on the mailing list.
*1) Widening the scope*
The charter draft was somewhat focused on RCP applications. The group
agreed we should widen it.
The team recognized there will almost certainly be different areas of
specialization or sub-groups within the group. For what it's worth,
we'll start with the Eclipse Technology top level project (TLP) for
convenience, but Science may have multiple TLP's in the future.
*2) Add Guest members*
The team agreed with the proposal to add a guest member level. Guest are
invited by the Steering Committee for 1 year terms and might be Eclipse
Foundation Associate members in the case of Academic Institutions &
Government agencies as per the Eclipse Working Group process.
Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have voting
rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the Steering
Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding guests. I'm going
to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do that... _if you are NOT OK
with this idea, please speak up ASAP._
*3) The "right" resource level*
There were many options to distinguish Steering Committee members from
Participant members. The current proposal to do so based on resources
contributed seemed to hold up to scrutiny, however consensus on the
exact resource level could not be reached yet.
Some felt 2 people was too much. Some felt 2 might be doable depending
on how you count effort. I'd like to bring the discussion here to the
list to get input from the wider group & give people more time to think
about it and weigh in. What is the right level & counting mechanism?
This doesn't have to be heavyweight.
Kind regards,
Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/science-iwg/attachments/20140408/3e54f348/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:21:23 -0400
From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting
Message-ID: <53443E23.10104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
On 08/04/2014 2:17 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have
> voting rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the
> Steering Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding guests.
> I'm going to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do that... _if you
> are NOT OK with this idea, please speak up ASAP._
I was not part of the conversation, so I don't know the rationale behind
the debate. But as someone who has some passing experience in open
source governance, I would say that giving Guest Members voting rights
is a bad idea. Voting is supposed to be about merit and contribution. If
you have a temporary and passing participation in a group I don't know
why you would expect to get voting rights.
That's my $0.02 worth. Feel free to ignore me :)
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/science-iwg/attachments/20140408/3be3d702/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:36:44 +0200
From: Torkild Ulv?y Resheim <torkildr@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx Working Group" <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting
Message-ID: <F9B9CCD2-2D62-4FE0-ABCB-C5F9B8A5D4F9@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I will have to agree with Mike. I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't see _why_ guest members should have any voting rights. I guess they will still be able to share their opinions, which is fair enough.
Best regards,
Torkild
8. apr. 2014 kl. 20:21 skrev Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 08/04/2014 2:17 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>> Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have voting rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the Steering Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding guests. I'm going to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do that... if you are NOT OK with this idea, please speak up ASAP.
>
> I was not part of the conversation, so I don't know the rationale behind the debate. But as someone who has some passing experience in open source governance, I would say that giving Guest Members voting rights is a bad idea. Voting is supposed to be about merit and contribution. If you have a temporary and passing participation in a group I don't know why you would expect to get voting rights.
>
> That's my $0.02 worth. Feel free to ignore me :)
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
> +1.613.220.3223
>
> _______________________________________________
> science-iwg mailing list
> science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
Torkild Ulv?y Resheim
Consultant / Eclipse Committer / Senior Software Developer
Itema AS - http://itema.no
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:55:48 -0400
From: Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting
Message-ID: <53444634.8040701@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The feeling expressed by more than one person was there are some
institutions that will not be able to pay the dues for whatever reason
but would be significant participants in other ways. It was felt their
full participation including voting was crucial.
I apologize if I am mis-remembering. Matt & Jay, I think you were the
ones who raised this? I believe there were others that agreed as well.
As I said, the group was split on this particular item.
Andrew
On 08/04/14 14:36, Torkild Ulv?y Resheim wrote:
> I will have to agree with Mike. I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't see _why_ guest members should have any voting rights. I guess they will still be able to share their opinions, which is fair enough.
>
> Best regards,
> Torkild
>
> 8. apr. 2014 kl. 20:21 skrev Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> On 08/04/2014 2:17 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>> Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have voting rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the Steering Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding guests. I'm going to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do that... if you are NOT OK with this idea, please speak up ASAP.
>> I was not part of the conversation, so I don't know the rationale behind the debate. But as someone who has some passing experience in open source governance, I would say that giving Guest Members voting rights is a bad idea. Voting is supposed to be about merit and contribution. If you have a temporary and passing participation in a group I don't know why you would expect to get voting rights.
>>
>> That's my $0.02 worth. Feel free to ignore me :)
>>
>> --
>> Mike Milinkovich
>> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> +1.613.220.3223
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 19:27:30 +0000
From: Ola Spjuth <Ola.Spjuth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Science Industry Working Group <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting
Message-ID: <EE22BCE0-B8F0-4128-9543-449276644162@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Being part of a university that will have difficulties with membership fees, did I interpret the discussion right that the preferred option to join is as Guest member on yearly basis? Sine the argument was made in the call that Guest memberships would be used sparingly, why not allow Associate members to participate? They are non-voting and free for universities.
Ola
On 8 apr 2014, at 20:36, Torkild Ulv?y Resheim <torkildr@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I will have to agree with Mike. I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't see _why_ guest members should have any voting rights. I guess they will still be able to share their opinions, which is fair enough.
>
> Best regards,
> Torkild
>
> 8. apr. 2014 kl. 20:21 skrev Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> On 08/04/2014 2:17 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>> Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have voting rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the Steering Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding guests. I'm going to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do that... if you are NOT OK with this idea, please speak up ASAP.
>>
>> I was not part of the conversation, so I don't know the rationale behind the debate. But as someone who has some passing experience in open source governance, I would say that giving Guest Members voting rights is a bad idea. Voting is supposed to be about merit and contribution. If you have a temporary and passing participation in a group I don't know why you would expect to get voting rights.
>>
>> That's my $0.02 worth. Feel free to ignore me :)
>>
>> --
>> Mike Milinkovich
>> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> +1.613.220.3223
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> science-iwg mailing list
>> science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
>
> --
> Torkild Ulv?y Resheim
> Consultant / Eclipse Committer / Senior Software Developer
> Itema AS - http://itema.no
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> science-iwg mailing list
> science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:42:39 +0100
From: Tracy Miranda <tracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Science Industry Working Group <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] EclipseCon France deadline
Message-ID:
<CAPmGMvix9hfMGap4KRN9wxRSt_Wht_aVevmJNbNhs6XS8EdXKg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Found out today that my swg UX talk has made the early-bird acceptance
list for EclipseCon France, hooray!
Hope we get a whole bunch of SWG talks then see you all in Toulouse!
https://www.eclipsecon.org/france2014/news/early-bird-selection
Tracy
On 7 April 2014 10:34, Tracy Miranda <tracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Likewise, heeding Andrew's call to action, I've submitted a couple of talks
> related to work we've done with Diamond Light Source on DAWN.
>
> 1. Following on from discussions with Kay Kasemir at Oakridge about DAWN's
> python integration & support for numpy,matplotlib, etc felt this would
> appeal to a wider audience too.
> https://www.eclipsecon.org/france2014/session/integrating-python-high-throughput-science
>
>
> 2. A UX talk on optimizing tool interfaces with a DAWN science case study
> https://www.eclipsecon.org/france2014/session/lean-design-critique-optimize-ux-when-design-time-limited
>
> Tracy
> www.kichwacoders.com
>
>
> On 7 April 2014 10:08, Philip Wenig <philip.wenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I've proposed a talk how to re-use open source libraries for scientific
>> research:
>>
>> https://www.eclipsecon.org/france2014/session/re-using-open-source-libraries-scientific-research
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Philip
>>
>> Am 01.04.2014 20:04, schrieb Jay Jay Billings:
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks for the reminder!
>>
>> Jordan and Taylor are planning to submit two talks about NiCE on Thursday.
>> (And then beg the US government for permission to go!)
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> On Apr 1, 2014 11:43 AM, "Andrew Ross" <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> FYI, the deadline for submitting presentation proposals to EclipseCon
>>> France (ECF) is:
>>>
>>> April 7th for the early submission. The program committee often gives
>>> feedback which you can use to tune your submission if needed for the final
>>> deadline April 14th.
>>>
>>> ECF runs on June 18 & 19 this year in Toulouse, France. It is a gorgeous
>>> city if you've not been.
>>>
>>> I'd love it if we could pull together a group of Science WG talks for
>>> ECF. There may be some LocationTech people & IoT people presenting also and
>>> in my opinion there's a nice overlap of interests.
>>>
>>> Go here to submit:
>>> https://www.eclipsecon.org/france2014/cfp
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> science-iwg mailing list
>>> science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> science-iwg mailing list
>> science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
>>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
End of science-iwg Digest, Vol 15, Issue 9
******************************************