Cycle5: X-ray spectroscopy and io.ascii fixes #482
Conversation
Project Description / Scope of Work Address (by fixing or closing) open issues in `astropy.io.ascii`, astropy affiliate editor, organization of dev-telecons, development and review of other astropy and specutils code. **Relations to cycle 4 request**: In [the discussion on Moritz cycle 4 request](astropy#385 (comment)) the finance committee requested a 2-3 year budget and a matching scope; this proposal is to execute year 2 of that longer-term plan. Work has [started](astropy#405) but delayed transfer of the funding from NumFOCUS to MIT and medical leave for Moritz in the fall of 2025 mean that only a fraction of the originally proposed work has been done so far (but more will be done before the end of the year)
|
Based on my notes, 10% of your time in 2026 will cost $ 29,285.43 . |
|
The text contains a range, but just to make it easier to find, I'll post it here, too:
|
|
Please react to this comment to vote on this proposal (👍, 👎, or no reaction for +0). |
|
I wish this was separated into two/three parts (while I understand it doesn't make sense from the POV of the subcontract). But while parts I and II are core activities I feel we need support, part III doesn't really align up as well (if we identify x-ray spectroscopy as a focus point then sure, but right now it feels like a very specific sub-topic). |
|
@bsipocz This is following the model from last year, but I future years, I'll split it. We could vote for it in independent PRs, but I can still ask NumFOCUS to add all approved numbers together so that there is no more than one (if any) subgrant in a given year. |
Yes, splitting only makes sense for the topic votes, it should not control how the actual contracts are admined. I would also advocate for a better voting system, e.g. one should consider it's a zero sum game, so each voter should only vote for (X x total funding) where X is maybe 1.2 or so? Anyway, that is beyond scope for this PR and comment. |
|
Yes, agreed. In future funding cycles, we will add more explicit instructions about submitting multiple PRs for different activities. |
|
The Cycle 5 funding request process has been hugely successful! On the downside, that means our funds are severely oversubscribed. Even after the Finance Committee and SPOC have taken into consideration community feedback/voting and alignment with the roadmap, there are still more funding requests than we can afford in 2026. We would like to stretch the budget as far as possible, and to fund as many activities as possible, while making sure the Project remains volunteer-driven. Hence, we would like to know if this project will still meet its deliverables if minimum your budget is reduced by 25%, 50%, or 100%. Or if there’s some other minimum, feel free to specify that instead. As a reminder, there will be more funding for 2027 and we expect the Cycle 6 call for 2027 funding requests to begin in the Fall of 2026. Thank you for your engagement and understanding as we continue to optimize our funding and budgeting processes and the balance of volunteer vs funded work! (@hamogu ) |
|
For any allotment significantly below 100%, I suggest to drop a deliverable: Drop the part about X-ray spectra in specutils and concentrate only on the deliverables 1 (improve io.ascii) and 2 (dev telecon, pyopensci editor for astropy affiliated packages). There are non-astropy packages (e.g. Sherpa that can deal with X-ray spectra. While it would be nice to consolidate the number of packages in the ecosystem, apply the same modeling and fitting to multi-wavelengths spectra and it aligns with the roadmap in a ver general way (read and write more formats), it seems like a lower priority for me at this time and it needs significant work to get it fully done. A partial implementation does not help anybody, so it would be a waste of money to implement only a fraction of it. (It would be much easier to just copy the IO routines for Sherpa, but because the API differs a bit from astropy and Sherpa is GNU licensed, they need to be re-implemented from scratch. There are implementations in other packages, but all of those that I am aware of are either incomplete and need significant work to be specutils compatible or are license incompatible with astropy packages.) |
|
We are pleased to let you know that this proposal will be funded at the level of $15,000. The Astropy community supports this work and the SPOC finds it to be well-aligned with the roadmap. While we would ideally fund this work in full, given over-subscription and budget limitations, this proposal will be funded at less than the maximum budget request. With the amount allocated, we ask that you focus your funded work to address the roadmap items listed in the request. If the amount allocated is insufficient to make any progress on the roadmap items, please let us know. Additionally, assuming a successful and timely budget process with NASA, we are anticipating more funds to be available at some point in 2026. Once this is final, the SPOC and Finance Committee will review project progress and spending to date and evaluate the possibility of modifying budgets mid year. At that time we may be able to allocate more funding to this project. We will follow-up with more details on how to start working on this in the near future. In addition, individualized feedback will be forthcoming. |
5 participants
Address (by fixing or closing) open issues in astropy.io.ascii, astropy affiliate editor, organization of dev-telecons, development and review of other astropy and specutils code.
Relations to cycle 4 request: In the discussion on Moritz cycle 4 request the finance committee requested a 2-3 year budget and a matching scope; this proposal is to execute year 2 of that longer-term plan. Work has started but delayed transfer of the funding from NumFOCUS to MIT and medical leave for Moritz in the fall of 2025 mean that only a fraction of the originally proposed work has been done so far (but more will be done before the end of the year)