1. Okay... a quick review of the projects that got funded:

    * Moving Jython Forward: This is *desperately* needed... Jython is at Python 2.1 right now, and the jython user lists are full of people asking "Is this project dead?" and often not even getting an answer. Yet the Python community loves to point to Jython as one of its success stories!

    * Implementing SNMPv3: A useful project, but not much more so than others. But did you see the price tag? If we can get modern SNMP support for a mere $1,500, it's worth it!

    * Software Engineering Course: A well-conceived proposal which did NOT involve paying to write some code.

    Now, I agree that the grants committee should have tried to write personalized responses for each of the 60 applications they received... but in your case they DID! As it happens, the people on the committee hadn't heard of Wax, so they complained that they didn't even know how large the userbase was. That's a legitimate complaint.

    If you feel like applying again next year, do so... but include listings of specific features you plan to add, with time estimates (like the Jython proposal) and background describing users of Wax (like the Software Engineering proposal). Of course, you are also up against the fact that there are LOTS of different GUI toolkits being developed for Python (not all as nice as Wax, of course, but no one can complain that the area is underserved).
      posted by Michael Chermside at 10:48:50 AM on December 30, 2004  
  2. I'll mention it again: I don't mind that others get a grant, and I don't mind hearing that their projects are maybe more useful than mine. That was never the problem.

    """Now, I agree that the grants committee should have tried to write personalized responses for each of the 60 applications they received... but in your case they DID!"""

    I don't agree...

    """As it happens, the people on the committee hadn't heard of Wax, so they complained that they didn't even know how large the userbase was. That's a legitimate complaint."""

    Fair enough, but as I already pointed out in http://zephyrfalcon.org/weblog2/arch_e10_00660.html#e668, that was the only point that made a bit of sense. The rest does not. I did include an extensive list of things to be done and goals to be met, and the time frame within which they should be met. Also, it should be perfectly clear that the money would have been a compensation for work done; in case that wasn't clear, I even spelled it out for them. And I also mentioned in the proposal that I didn't have much time to work on Wax, so assuming that "the work will be done anyway" was a bit crass.

    """If you feel like applying again next year, do so... but include listings of specific features you plan to add, with time estimates (like the Jython proposal)"""

    ...I did... see the aforementioned post.

    """...and background describing users of Wax (like the Software Engineering proposal)."""

    OK, I didn't do this. Actually, I did think of adding some information about that, but then I realized I have very little data about who uses Wax, how many people, etc. So I decided against it. :-/ I don't think it would have mattered anyway...

    """Of course, you are also up against the fact that there are LOTS of different GUI toolkits being developed for Python (not all as nice as Wax, of course, but no one can complain that the area is underserved)."""

    Yes... this is one of the reasons I am still pondering what to do with it. Spend more time on it, knowing that it might never really take off? (And proving the grant committee right, because, yes, the work was going to be done anyway without funding. :-) It's not a trivial task, and as more people start using it, I have to be extra careful about backward compatibility, the wxPython versions it supports, etc. ...I could also choose to spend the same time on it, in which case it would just be plodding again and never reach a mature status. ...Or I could stop working on it altogether.
      posted by Hans Nowak at 11:31:35 AM on December 30, 2004  
  3. Actually... I do kinda begrudge one of the grants. I think the Jython one, and the very inexpensive SNMP one, are both important and well formulated.

    But I just don't see it for Greg Wilson's application, which is the largest chunk of grant money by a large margin. I'm sure Greg is a great guy, very smart, and all that. But it basically just says he'll continue to work on (and publish) the same curricular material he needs to prepare anyway.

    I guess mainly though it's that I also proposed a grant that was for publication. And the gruff response I got said: "Tough luck, we don't care about publications, go talk to a commercial publisher" (completely ignoring the content of my proposal that discussed why a Creative Commons publication was desirable; or also that I said in the proposal that I had talked to commercial publishers who would do it, but preferred not to work with them). And moreover, I was a lot more specific, and was asking for less money.

    Now admittedly, it's perfectly reasonable for the PSF to decide material on "python for scientists" is a focus they like better than "metaprogramming in python." If I had got a letter saying "your proposal isn't an area we want to direct funds to"... well, that would be fine. I guess it's hard not to remain peeved about the letter I actually did get, which was pretty awful.
      posted by David Mertz at 03:43:23 PM on January 01, 2005  
  4. Ow. This posting, and the comments, are pretty painful.

    If the effect of a grant program (even, or especially, a grant program for worthy endeavours by unquestionably worthy contributors, and for Python, the most worthy intellectual undertaking conceivable) is to leave contributors and potential contributors disgruntled, then

    that grant program is broken
    and counterproductive.

    -Bill


      posted by Bill Sconce at 08:24:48 PM on January 01, 2005