[Linux-aus] Grant Application from Guoyi Zhang for Willi26: An Open-Source Phylogenetic Interpreter in Rust for Research and Education

[Guoyi Zhang]

Dear Jonathan

Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense.

I think PeerJ is a very realistic publication venue for this work, with a reasonably high likelihood of being suitable for the manuscript. Therefore, I think it is best to keep the current grant application unchanged and proceed with the amount and scope specified in the original application, rather than restarting the application cycle.

Best regards,
Guoyi


________________________________
From: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe at just42.net>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 9:18 AM
To: Guoyi Zhang <Guoyi.Zhang at australian.museum>
Cc: Miles Goodhew <linux at m0les.com>; committee at lists.linux.org.au <committee at lists.linux.org.au>; Linux-Aus <linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au>
Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] Grant Application from Guoyi Zhang for Willi26: An Open-Source Phylogenetic Interpreter in Rust for Research and Education

[You don't often get email from jwoithe at just42.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Hi Guoyi

On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 04:55:16PM +0000, Guoyi Zhang via linux-aus wrote:
> I am also conscious that I do not want this application to place an
> unnecessary financial burden on LA.  However, I would be very happy to
> follow your suggestion: having a higher amount available if LA allows,
> drawing only what is actually required for publication, and returning any
> unused remainder to LA.

Please be aware that the grant being considered is that which was defined in
the original formal grant application.  This is what is currently before
Council and the community for consideration.  If details of the grant were
to be changed mid-cycle it would be confusing - no one would be quite sure
what version they were commenting on.  Furthermore, some people's earlier
comments may not be held about future versions.

Based on community feedback there may be a desire to alter the grant
application before it is evaluated by Council.  There is no problem with
this, but it would require a restart of the grant application cycle (with
the original grant request being withdrawn) so everyone is clear about what
is being asked for.

In the case of the suggested modification, the "higher amount" would need to
be defined explicitly in the application.  Furthermore, a grant described
along the lines of "up to $xxxx to cover publication in PUBLICATION-A,
PUBLICATION-B or PUBLICATION-C" would be easier to administer than a request
for a set amount which might then involve future reimbursement.

Regards

Jonathan
(LA Council OCM, 2026 LA Grants coordinator)

[https://media.australian.museum/media/dd/original_images/BrandCampaign_EmailSignature_600x140_V2.2a1d9b9.jpg] <https://australian.museum/exhibition/machu-picchu/>

The Australian Museum email disclaimer

The views in this email are those of the user and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Museum. The information contained in this email message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any attached files is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. The Australian Museum does not guarantee the accuracy of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. As Internet communications are not secure, the Australian Museum does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20260914/8f330d8b/attachment.htm>