Re: [Rocketworkbench] project administrator

[<Ji...@ao...>]

Hello, all, one more here.   Jim Swenson, still listening.

No opinion on administration, but I do have half an opinion on the HW testing.

I suspect the people at SF understand that abstract ideas and formats aren't 
quite a complete world in themselves.  One important purpose of software is to 
be applied to reality.  So it's only reasonable to have a modest number of 
experimental datasets posted, of relevance distinct from one another, 
predominantly for the purpose of checking against the software's predictions.

When it becomes a gab-fest about 10 kinds of igniter and alternative 
construction proceedures for them, that's diffferent.   When it becomes more about 
exotic chemicals that don't obey the known mathematical models, than about making 
math models work in software, that might be different.  Or perhaps new models 
are within workable range, and SW-able math models of chemistry could be 
considered good open-source discourse, more power to the people, and all.
  So most discussions of experimental scheduling and methods should be 
offline email, or posted at another site, which I imagine you could reference from 
the SF project page.  

My suggestion is that you establish some such distinction, then go ahead and 
carry it out and dare someone to object.

for that advice, I probably owe you $0.02...
Jim S.