Add a paragraph to the introduction explaining the discussion of (RS)E vs. R(SE)

[CaptainSifff]

So, in the title it says paragraph, but the idea, of making the title "Foundational competencies of an (RS)E" also belongs here.

Content of this paragraph could be

• the discussion of where to put the brace
• emphasizing that it's not just the technical complexity that we handle, but also the research and social complexity. Thereby covering a larger complexity than an engineer.
• the discussion, that different RSE societies put the emphasis slightly different in that spectrum.
• start out with Venn diagrams

[CaptainSifff]

RSE: schnittstellenwissenschaft: Interface Discipline

[hvwaldow]

We can cite Anna-Lena in GI-Radar. https://gi-radar.de/351-research-software/

[hvwaldow]

Notes from Discussion:

• this is about the relationship to traditional SE skills and the SE community.
• Anna-Lena's "interface discipline"
• RSE not a subset of SE
• There exists multitude of views on the definition. This is natural, since we are in the early stages of forming a well-
  defined field in applied sciences from the multitude of things that self-defined RSEs actually do.
• Due to the heterogeneity and high degree of specialization of working RSEs, the field needs to be considered as a
  collection of sub-communities.
• The dialectics of "bottom-up" (systematically building of skills from general foundations to specialization) and "top-down" (acquiring relevant skills in response to a set task, "learning on the job").
• Different RSE societies (look at UK, US, DE, other?) might have different definitions (have they?)
• In the relationship SE / RSE maybe use relationship math / physics as a metaphor?
• RSEs potentially need to deal with non-technical complexities that are characteristic for research environments: organizational, motivational, with respect to the size of projects, independence and heterogeneous goals of stakeholders, boundary conditions for funding and future funding, ....