Re: Possible funding of gfortran work

[Mikael Morin <morin-mikael@orange.fr>]

Le 14/06/2023 à 10:28, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> Hi Mikael,
> 
> please find my answers inline.
> 
>>> I understand. I would have been happy in the past when a client had as much
>>> knowledge and structure than we already have. Under "Project goal" we now
>>> have about 300 words. So we could add more.
>> Well, It wouldn't be really part of the goal, more how to reach that
>> goal.  The "timeframe" question is possibly where it should go.  Or if
>> you consider that the planning is a goal itself, it could be put here.
> 
> The timeframe question accepts only a number. I.e. we can't plan there.
> 
>>> What do you have in mind?
>> Something that breaks a big, risky thing to a set of smaller, manageable
>> ones.  Something showing that the main problems (or some of them at
>> least) have been identified and that we have a path to solve them one by
>> one.
>>
>>> Like adding
>>> more bullet points to each item in the form of:
>>>     - rebase existing implementation to current master
>>>     - identify missing requirements
>>>     - add tests for missing requirements
>>>     - implement missing requirements to pass tests.
>>>     ...
>> Well, this is a bit too general to be useful.
> 
> Mhh, I don't suppose that the planning will be evaluated by software
> specialist. I therefore propose not to be too technical, but to stay on a
> project manager level. So how about we enumerate the bullets so that we then
> can put a project/milestone structure under each one like this (PD: person day):
> 
> 1.M1 assess open issues and refine planning (1-3 PDs)
> 1.M2 rebase to current master and adapt to recent changes in gfortran (1-3 PDs)
> 1.M3 identify missing requirements ... I need input here from Nicolas as I
> don't have an overview of what is needed. Therefore I am quite general.
> 
OK, let's wait for Nicolas' input, as it sounds scary as is.
Identifying the missing requirements should be done before the 
submission, and saying that you have to do it as part of the project 
sounds very much like you don't know where you are going.
Same goes for the planning, it should already be clear enough beforehand.

I mean, counting the time spent in identifying the requirements etc can 
be done internally, because it's time spent working, but I think it 
should not be part of the planning submitted because it's time that will 
be already spent at the time the application form is submitted.


Regarding my own work, there was no additional discussion regarding the 
different items I proposed, so I will pick the two or three I'm most 
interested in (additionally to the scalarizer) and try to produce a plan 
for them as well.

>>> Mikael Morin @ ??? -- Maintained/Contributed to the scalarizer. Experienced
>>> in gfortran development and component dependencies.
>>>
>> I'm not affiliated to any company, university or organization.  Just
>> myself. :-)
> 
> Sorry, I did not mean any insult.

I didn't see any insult.  I was just trying to answer the three question 
marks (???).

> What do you prefer? "not affiliated" or
> "private", ...?
> 
Yes, that's fine.  Nothing.  Whatever.