OpenWetWare:Respond to NSF

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(What should be the relationship between OWW and publishers?)
Line 25: Line 25:
#Creative partnership
#Creative partnership
#Other?
#Other?
 +
 +
*What does OWW get from working with publishers?
 +
*#Increased legitimacy
 +
*#Opportunity to subvert existing merit structure in science
 +
*#Push forward more rapid publication options / technologies
 +
*#others?

Revision as of 00:48, 17 January 2007

Contents

High Level Comments from NSF

  1. Wants to see a 3-year plan (willing to hear case for 5 years, w/ evaluation point at EOY3)
  2. Wants to see money spent on actual stuff (e.g., code) not project management
    • Jasonk 19:16, 16 January 2007 (EST):What are the chances we can convince them a community developer (the position we outlined for the NIH $) is doing 'stuff'? This is not project management (e.g. not dealing with funding, strategic decisions, etc), but rather a person supporting the growth of various communities on OWW - communities that in the end will do more "stuff" then a couple paid programmers could ever do. Also, those communities will be persistent when the grant money ends in 3 years, while the programmers won't. Plus we'd really like to get a volunteer software developer community off the ground, since new code will need support when the 3 years is over as well.

What user types should OWW target for focused development support? What are the needs of these communities?

  1. Individual researcher
  2. Research lab
  3. Research community
  4. Educator
  5. Journal
  6. Organization
  7. Other?

How should OWW best leverage existing software development efforts?

  1. MediaWiki
  2. Jot/Google
  3. Apple OS Next (e.g., an OS with a built-in wiki)
  4. Other?

What should be the relationship between OWW and publishers?

  1. None
  2. Sell-out
  3. Destroy
  4. Creative partnership
  5. Other?
  • What does OWW get from working with publishers?
    1. Increased legitimacy
    2. Opportunity to subvert existing merit structure in science
    3. Push forward more rapid publication options / technologies
    4. others?
Personal tools