-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
Add cycle 5 #481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add cycle 5 #481
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Erik Tollerud <erik.tollerud@gmail.com>
Add more details
Updated the project/work section to clarify deliverables and revised budget details for sub-awards. Added specific period of performance for Cycle 5.
Revise template for Cycle 5 proposal calls
Removed clarification about matching roadmap as a goal.
Removed TODO items for updating numbers and adding SPOC role.
Updated selection criteria for funding requests to emphasize alignment with the Roadmap and available effort.
Updated the funding request deadlines and related timelines.
mention SOW in template
Update funding amount section in cycle5.md
Co-authored-by: Adrian Price-Whelan <583379+adrn@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Erik Tollerud <erik.tollerud@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Adrian Price-Whelan <583379+adrn@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Erik Tollerud <erik.tollerud@gmail.com>
Revise Cycle 5 funding request guidelines
| The primary change for Cycle 5 (relative to Cycle 4) is that the [Roadmap](https://github.com/astropy/astropy-project/blob/main/roadmap/roadmap.md) will be used to determine funding priorities. In addition, as the maintainers of the roadmap, the Strategic Planning and Organizing Committee (SPOC) will participate in funding request review, solicitation, and selection. Also, due to funding uncertainties, the period of performance and budgets should be just one year, as opposed to multiple years. | ||
|
|
||
| # Funding goals | ||
| Funding requests (FR) should address items on the Astropy Project’s Roadmap. In particular, funding will be prioritized for “red” and “orange” roadmap items, which have been identified by the community as being high priority. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is regular maintenance out of scope?
astrofrog
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@eteq - here are my suggestions - feel free to word these differently though
|
|
||
| We aim to achieve broad consensus before the vote. Requesters are encouraged to combine ideas and teams, modify, or withdraw FRs during the discussion period, as appropriate. Discussion is open to anyone; it is not restricted to voting members. | ||
|
|
||
| Voting members of the Astropy Project vote on the FRs using thumbs up/down on a dedicated comment. Every voting member of the Astropy Project has equal voting rights. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I asked this in the past, but are we going to actually check the votes against the voting member list? If so maybe could then also say "Non-voting members are free to vote on FRs, but these votes will not be included in the count to determine funding allocations"
Co-authored-by: Thomas Robitaille <thomas.robitaille@gmail.com>
|
For a moment I thought this was about JWST... 😅 |
This is the announcement for cycle 5 and relevent documents - the SPOC and finance have agreed this is good, with the important caveat that finance needs to get the lastest number for how much we plan to allocate (@kelle is planning to do this in the next few days). So I'm opening this as a draft until we have that number.