Re: Presentation BlueHats (french workshop)

[zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi Ludo,

Thank you for reviewing and pushing.

If you have a tight slot of time, you could add the 2 missing files:

talks/fosdem-2017/hpc/images/shrink-wrap.jpg
talks/fosdem-2017/hpc/images/shrink-wrap2.png

I think they are on your machine 'ribbon'. ;-)


On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 23:07, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> It’s nice you were able to talk at POSS.  I suppose the audience was not
> necessarily familiar with reproducible science, right?

To be exact, a subset of POSS. :-)

Yes, they were not, at all! Interesting "exercise". :-)


> > To guarantee Reproducible Science in the modern age of data, we need to
> > guarantee several items, especially:
> >  1. Open Articles
> >  2. Open Data
> >  3. Open Source
> >  4. Controlled computing environment (open, too)
> > Today, initiatives have been starting, to name some, about 1.
> > [[http://rescience.github.io/][ReScience journal]]
> > or french specific [[https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/][HAL]], 2.
> > [[https://zenodo.org/][Zenodo]] and 3.
> > [[https://www.softwareheritage.org/][Software Heritage]].
>
> Yup!  Not a fan of “open” which I find confusing here, but definitely a
> fan of putting all this in perspective!

Héhé!

Currently, Open <Stuff> sounds to people; they have a vague concept in
mind because all the marketing around.

For example, the French archive says: "The open archive HAL". :-)

Another example, ReScience uses "open" [1] and speaks about "open
source community" [2].

[1] http://rescience.github.io/
[2] http://rescience.github.io/board/


Yet another example from Software Heritage [3]: Open Access repo, Open
Data Sets repo, Open Source repo.

[3] https://www.softwareheritage.org/mission/science/


Well, the message is: everything needs to be transparent; and Open
<Stuff> is the vector to hook the message. I am not sure that enter in
the technical debate about free / libre vs open is relevant when
speaking about Reproducible Science.


Philosophically speaking, the code used in Science needs only freedom
0 and freedom 1 to then claim be Reproducible Science, IMHO.
And it is what I understand from the paragraph 'Proprietary Software'
of your article [3]. ;-)

[3] https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01161771v2/document


The conclusion is: naming is hard! ;-)

Hope to be able to discuss more on these topics here or there because
they really matter.


Thank you again.

Cheers,
simon