What all this panic about?

AFAIK SETI@home functions w/o US government funding 3, 4, 5+ years already. So what? The single sign of past funding is the line on the bottom of SETI beta site "AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956" that should not be there quite long time ago. That funded part was changed even in algorithm heavely enough, not speaking of about all GPU versions that did not fund by NSF ever. Rather RFBR granting mention would be more appropriate :P ;D ;D ;D

What all this panic about?

AFAIK SETI@home functions w/o US government funding 3, 4, 5+ years already. So what? The single sign of past funding is the line on the bottom of SETI beta site "AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956" that should not be there quite long time ago. That funded part was changed even in algorithm heavely enough, not speaking of about all GPU versions that did not fund by NSF ever. Rather RFBR granting mention would be more appropriate :P ;D ;D ;D

Yes dear, this is not about SETI funding, it is about BOINC funding.

BOINC being the platform SETI is running on, as you might be aware, since you occassionally post to boinc mailing lists.

If you don't want to worry about the bigger picture, fair enough. Just don't complain if the gallery closes you wanted to hang your picture in.

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

Excuse me for being ascerbic, but this is a disaster and some of us are trying to limit the damage.

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

Let me explain little more then.
My point was: SETI@home is good enough project to survive w/o NSF funding.
BOINC is also good enough project. Why many seems to think it will not survive?
That's about my post was, SETI as example case. BOINC released under same license as SETI code was. What make you think "gallery will close" then?
P.S. to limit damage usually in opposite direction to start the panic area ;)

I'll let Richard explain why he thinks branching is bad.

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

I'll let Richard explain why he thinks branching is bad.

Let me explain little more then.
My point was: SETI@home is good enough project to survive w/o NSF funding.
BOINC is also good enough project. Why many seems to think it will not survive?
That's about my post was, SETI as example case. BOINC released under same license as SETI code was. What make you think "gallery will close" then?
P.S. to limit damage usually in opposite direction to start the panic area ;)

Yes. SETI is a good enough project, though understaffed. Einstein is, in this context, a better project, because it has a higher staffing ratio and - crucially - full support from its hosting Max Planck Institute for networking, data comms and storage.

But many of the other research projects around the world are run by one man and his dog - and only the dog is full-time. I've just joined the search for a cure to Malaria - it's run by one post-doctoral student, as a volunteer, while he's also doing the next phase of his research in a wet bio-lab.

I've used this analogy before. I drive a motor-car. I have many different manufacturers to choose from when I buy a replacement car - any of them will do the job. But when I drive across the country, I only have one road network available to me. I don't carry a spade, a bucket of tarmac, and a roller around in the boot of my car. I don't build my own roads.

Infrastructure is different. SETI classic had to build its own infrastructure before launch in 1999, because nobody else had done it for them. But every single WU that's crunched has to travel through a network, and be accounted for in a database. It's far better that the common infrastructure, like the road network, is invented once and maintained centrally. That way, everyone can use it, rather than wasting time re-inventing the same thing.

So, we're talking about BOINC, not SETI. We're doing it on the SETI boards partly because of an accident (?) of timing - David's announcement came at the start of a holiday weekend, and most projects' (plural) staff will have been away from their desks: SETI is one of the few project boards which remains active seven days a week. And partly because SETI - as a pioneer of the distributed computing movement - has always had difficulty distinguishing itself from BOINC. Unsurprising, because SETI was there first, and its staff and volunteers feature prominently in the list of 121 volunteer developers credited as contributing to BOINC.

By all means petition the Russian Foundation for Basic Research to set up a global infrastructure network and API to support distributed scientific research. Maybe if they build a better mousetrap, the world will rush to their door, too.

what we've learned (that's been actively suppressed).

An "interesting" comment there.

Isn't it just. And no, I don't know what he means either. Jason, would you mind unsupressing it here, please?

With great pleasure, as much as possible without personalising it. I'm referring to the routine shelving of ongoing problems that call into question fundamental design decisions and method. Just review the trak logs in a context of design and tone rather than 'finding bugs' and you'll see a pattern (specific instances could be pointed out, but it's more meaningful from a holistic viewpoint).

Add to that a resistance to change that still hasn't properly embraced the public & industry moves to multicore/multhreeaded techniques that became more or less standard circa 2005, and you start to see a picture of stagnation, or perhaps zombification, more than adaptive, and flexible development that is responsive to the needs of users and all stakeholders*

When you have a number of people in a room at a given point, and you choose to ignore one voice (because they say things you don't like or agree with, or you don't understand what they are talking about) and put too many critical things in the too hard basket, then that constitutes a form of psychological abuse.

*note: stakeholders vary by what product you are delivering. Centralised development of a multitargeted, monolithic codebase, toward one or a subset of stakeholders, is problematic. That's why modern trends tend toward smaller manageable subprojects and teams. Not to mention the irony of a centralised development model in a distributed computing context.

Those are not features of modern development practices, which instead are inclusive, [foster a culture of continual improvement,] and foster the assets which are the contributors and all the stakeholders, and their needs.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

I'll let Richard explain why he thinks branching is bad.

Let me explain little more then.
My point was: SETI@home is good enough project to survive w/o NSF funding.
BOINC is also good enough project. Why many seems to think it will not survive?
That's about my post was, SETI as example case. BOINC released under same license as SETI code was. What make you think "gallery will close" then?
P.S. to limit damage usually in opposite direction to start the panic area ;)

Yes. SETI is a good enough project....

All written hardly relevant to the simple question - why panic?
I'm aware about BOINC importance as framework. No doubts in that. BTW, Linux important too as "framework" that allows many sicentific and not only scientific projects to use hardware (as any OS does, but Linux is widely adopted in sci world in first place). So what? Linux devs recive NFS grants all the time? I think not.

By all means petition the Russian Foundation for Basic Research to set up a global infrastructure network and API to support distributed scientific research. Maybe if they build a better mousetrap, the world will rush to their door, too.

Well, RFBR directly supports some of BOINC-based sci projects AFAIK. And it's good (for them, at least). But your proposal seems bad one - no way direct grant for BOINC is possible. And to develop alternative - for what?! Only if it will be decided that BOINC too bad to meet its goals that's worth. And it's not the case.

In short, there are many successfull open-source projects not covered by any govermental grants. And BOINC being very good in its area can easely join to the top ladder of them. Even w/o grants.

what we've learned (that's been actively suppressed).

An "interesting" comment there.

Isn't it just. And no, I don't know what he means either. Jason, would you mind unsupressing it here, please?

With great pleasure, as much as possible without personalising it. I'm referring to the routine shelving of ongoing problems that call into question fundamental design decisions and method. Just review the trak logs in a context of design and tone rather than 'finding bugs' and you'll see a pattern (specific instances could be pointed out, but it's more meaningful from a holistic viewpoint).

Add to that a resistance to change that still hasn't properly embraced the public & industry moves to multicore/multhreeaded techniques that became more or less standard circa 2005, and you start to see a picture of stagnation, or perhaps zombification, more than adaptive, and flexible development that is responsive to the needs of users and all stakeholders*

When you have a number of people in a room at a given point, and you choose to ignore one voice (because they say things you don't like or agree with, or you don't understand what they are talking about) and put too many critical things in the too hard basket, then that constitutes a form of psychological abuse.

*note: stakeholders vary by what product you are delivering. Centralised development of a multitargeted, monolithic codebase, toward one or a subset of stakeholders, is problematic. That's why modern trends tend toward smaller manageable subprojects and teams. Not to mention the irony of a centralised development model in a distributed computing context.

Those are not features of modern development practices, which instead are inclusive, [foster a culture of continual improvement,] and foster the assets which are the contributors and all the stakeholders, and their needs.

Yes, it would have been much better if BOINC developers had concentrated on refining their core product, instead of adding frivolous extras like, err, support for GPGPU computation or virtual machines.

That was a joke, but like many jokes, there's a kernel of truth underneath it. Infrastructure, and in particular funding for infrastructure, is very tricky to manage and get right. On the one hand, you want to embrace and deploy the new technologies as they arise: think of how home internet has developed from largely dial-up to multi-megabit fiber broadband during the lifetime of SETI (BOINC, coming later, arrived after broadband in this corner of Yorkshire).

On the other hand, users expect infrastructure to be 100% reliable and consistent from the first day. Water comes out of your taps, the light comes on at the flick of a switch - that sort of thing. But it all had to be invented somewhere, and tried out first. We're the guinea-pigs for this one.

We - and therefore BOINC - come under the general heading of scientific research. That means our funding stream is looking for novelty, innovation, publishable results. Keep on moving forward, don't stop, don't rest on your laurels. That's the way both Governmental and private (philanthropic) funding bodies think.

In my experience, it's particularly difficult to get (and maintain) funding for "innovative infrastructure" - if that isn't a contradiction in terms. At least one major UK funder - the BBC "Children in Need" telethon - used to be notorious for refusing to contribute even a tiny percentage of the core running costs of the organisations it funded to develop new services. "It must all go to the children" was its mantra. That was years ago - I don't know if they've moved any closer to standard sector best practice of "we won't fund you unless you demonstrate that you've realistically appraised your need for management [infrastructure] support, and asked us to contribute the appropriate portion", since I had to draft the redundancy letters for myself and two colleagues when our core grant was discontinued - sore point.

What's needed is a recognised structural funding route from "experimental research" to "core services", and for the BOINC project to have found and followed that route. It's a problem familiar to a lot of individual researchers, too: get your degree, get your doctorate, and then three strikes of the fixed term research project funding and you're out - because of the risk that you'd drift into tenure. What BOINC needed to do was to manage the transition into tenured funding in the middle of a global financial crisis and a general political scepticism of scientists and suchlike freeloaders experts.

That's what the new project management committee needs to wrestle with, not countersigning microcode.

I'm aware about BOINC importance as framework. No doubts in that. BTW, Linux important too as "framework" that allows many sicentific and not only scientific projects to use hardware (as any OS does, but Linux is widely adopted in sci world in first place). So what? Linux devs recive NFS grants all the time? I think not.

That's an important and interesting point. Can anyone explain simply how Linux developers pay their grocery bills - what's common practice in that area? I don't know, but it might be a good model to examine.

Totally agreed there.

FWIW if there is a need then something stronger will emerge, and like Raistmer I don't think panic is warranted.

I just hope the community as a whole quickly realises that the turn of events and changes can be opportunities, and seizes them, rather than take that governance document as anything more that a twisted joke.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

I'm aware about BOINC importance as framework. No doubts in that. BTW, Linux important too as "framework" that allows many sicentific and not only scientific projects to use hardware (as any OS does, but Linux is widely adopted in sci world in first place). So what? Linux devs recive NFS grants all the time? I think not.

That's an important and interesting point. Can anyone explain simply how Linux developers pay their grocery bills - what's common practice in that area? I don't know, but it might be a good model to examine.

Strength in diversity. Small focussed teams[ cross functional for larger initiatives divided up], generally with vested interests using their work toward their own goals, but bound by GPL to release their modifications. Some fund from a donation standpoint, some free for personal & paid commercial use, some service based.

As with anything, some not funded/managed well at all.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Totally agreed there.

FWIW if there is a need then something stronger will emerge, and like Raistmer I don't think panic is warranted.

I hope I'm trying to avoid panic. But at the same time, something stronger will only emerge if enough people take personal responsibility for becoming part of the solution.

Can anyone explain simply how Linux developers pay their grocery bills - what's common practice in that area?

Big commercial enterprises that add money and programmers. Who funds Linux development may be from 2009, but gives a good enough insight showing that at the time not 14% of changes was done by 'the public', while the majority was done by programmers from big name companies.

Linux Foundation#Funding writes: Its funding comes primarily from its Platinum Members: Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Oracle, Qualcomm, and Samsung and for many years Hitachi. These nine each having a representative on the Board of Directors, they hold a majority on the 16-person board. As of April 2014, the foundation collects annual fees worth at least 6,245,000 USD.

And then the public can donate to their favorite distro, e.g. public sponsors at Linux Mint.

I have said to David (and Rom and Charlie) that perhaps public sponsoring such as Rooster Teeth/Achievement Hunter is doing is something for them. Here people can enjoy all the videos for free, bar a couple specifically for sponsors. But by not paying, you can't watch the videos until one or two days after they were released. Want to talk with your friends about what was on there? Pay a monthly fee of as little as 3 dollars and you get to be the first to see the videos.

I do foresee this approach may be problematic in the BOINC environment, for what would need to be closed of for sponsors and would they get enough people willing to give out a little dough? But on the other hand, now they don't have any income either.

---

So, we're talking about BOINC, not SETI. We're doing it on the SETI boards partly because of an accident (?) of timing - David's announcement came at the start of a holiday weekend, and most projects' (plural) staff will have been away from their desks..."

Richard-with all due respect you call this "accidental (?)"...considering Jord's statement that he's known about this since April, I call it convenient timing.

---

William wrote:

@Jord April eh? We should have known. we knew he was applying for funding, when he didn;t say he'd aquired it we should have known... We (i.e. Richard and I) figured _something_ was going on when that Project Governance draft turned up.
Why work to the last second without saying anything? The change could have been so much smoother if we'd known. Oh well. No crying over split milk eh?

We were all under an NDA, that included Rom and Charlie. Can you imagine trying to get a new job, but not being allowed to say what happened to your previous job? That's what Rom ran into. He is doing some contract work here and there, and luckily he did get confirmation now that WCG is picking him up for a while.

I was notified somewhere in April but had already had the feeling something was off since development of the 7.5/7.6 client had fallen silent all of a sudden. I was also sending in emails to the developers and for the first time in forever getting no answers, or non-answers back.

Since that time I have also been asking time and time again when the public was going to be notified. Well, I guess now that you all are, I can go back to resting easy.

Blurf wrote:

Richard-with all due respect you call this "accidental (?)"...considering Jord's statement that he's known about this since April, I call it convenient timing.

Simple explanation really, the cheques ran till 1 July.

Forking.
As for forking off, people have tried that. Guess it didn't work. Or these guys also found that BOINC isn't built and maintained in your free time in the weekend and one hour a night after work, but will soak up hours and hours of your time, time you then do not spend with work and family and friends.

I do not expect anyone else to take over either. You can all demand that David step aside for he's in the way of progress, but until you've produced anything as coherent as a complete client that works flawlessly with 50+ projects and their applications and the BOINC back-end (no matter how old), do you really feel you have the right to demand anything?

Personal believes:
At the same time I doubt that BOINC will progress forwards quickly from this time forward because of the unneeded added overhead.

{Edit} No, taking that down anyway. The internet is unforgivable.

Here endeth my fear and loathing for the day. :)

---

So, we're talking about BOINC, not SETI. We're doing it on the SETI boards partly because of an accident (?) of timing - David's announcement came at the start of a holiday weekend, and most projects' (plural) staff will have been away from their desks..."

Richard-with all due respect you call this "accidental (?)"...considering Jord's statement that he's known about this since April, I call it convenient timing.

Well, that's why I put in the (?). Alternatively, as I wrote in a PM on Saturday morning, "David ... Certainly didn't want to drum up a political lobbying campaign at the NSF". I think we should also avoid doing that.

Jord's description of Linux funding is interesting. That's effectively secondment of paid staff from their day jobs, or 'Pro Bono' work as lawyers would recognise it. Food for thought there.

...but until you've produced anything as coherent as a complete client that works flawlessly with 50+ projects and their applications and the BOINC back-end (no matter how old), do you really feel you have the right to demand anything? ...

And there's the thing with the described approach. The stakeholders (customers, users, projects, other developers) have needs, and aren't necessarily all developers or coders.

You keep and acquire more customers by addressing their (true) needs. Some will step forward and complain (Kudos to them), some will vote with their feet (Kudos to them too), and some will just be not worth keeping as customers [they do exist but are surprisingly rare].

Pretending stakeholders (including yourself) don't have rights, or don't have options, or their (even trivial or annoying) needs aren't important, doesn't make sense for a bank or a brand of footwear, and to me makes even less sense for a community driven and supposedly open endeavour.

There's a great sales training video called 'Give 'em the pickle', probably on youtube [It is, just checked, by Bob Farrell]. It's worth a watch.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

...but until you've produced anything as coherent as a complete client that works flawlessly with 50+ projects and their applications and the BOINC back-end (no matter how old), do you really feel you have the right to demand anything? ...

And there's the thing with the described approach. The stakeholders (customers, users, projects, other developers) have needs, and aren't necessarily all developers or coders.

You keep and acquire more customers by addressing their (true) needs. Some will step forward and complain (Kudos to them), some will vote with their feet (Kudos to them too), and some will just be not worth keeping as customers [they do exist but are surprisingly rare].

Pretending stakeholders (including yourself) don't have rights, or don't have options, or their (even trivial or annoying) needs aren't important, doesn't make sense for a bank or a brand of footwear, and to me makes even less sense for a community driven and supposedly open endeavour.

There's a great sales training video called 'Give 'em the pickle', probably on youtube [It is, just checked, by Bob Farrell]. It's worth a watch.

I think a good example of what you are saying here is my view towards BOINC when it came out. I didn't care for it while doing the BOINC Alpha test prior to it being released. It felt like a lot of input from us testers/users was being ignored. Then it was released & I still didn't care for it. So I stuck with classic SETI@home until it was completely shut off. Then around 2009 I felt BOINC had finally developed to a point where I would use it.
Shortly after that I figured I would get back into the Alpha testing again to help with BOINC development. However I found that the devs had basically abandoned that & only wished to do everything via the alpha e-mail list. Which as someone that has been a test engineer for ~17 years is a pretty dreadful way to run something.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

We were all under an NDA, that included Rom and Charlie. Can you imagine trying to get a new job, but not being allowed to say what happened to your previous job? That's what Rom ran into. He is doing some contract work here and there, and luckily he did get confirmation now that WCG is picking him up for a while.

Nice..he'll do some good work to improve their clients I expect.

[quote]I was notified somewhere in April but had already had the feeling something was off since development of the 7.5/7.6 client had fallen silent all of a sudden. I was also sending in emails to the developers and for the first time in forever getting no answers, or non-answers back.

Since that time I have also been asking time and time again when the public was going to be notified. Well, I guess now that you all are, I can go back to resting easy.

Thx again for the info...hindsight is 20/20 I guess


[quoteBlurf wrote:

Richard-with all due respect you call this "accidental (?)"...considering Jord's statement that he's known about this since April, I call it convenient timing.

Simple explanation really, the cheques ran till 1 July.

Makes sense.

---