I think that we agree about the problem not about the solution.
Anyway what it should be clear is that I have never spoken about an "algorithm" but about a matrix of parameters to evaluate a project.
These parameters have been enumerated *but* after the evaluation of the project.
This has generated anyway a wasting of time.
Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will evaluate it differently.
regards
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.plwrote:
Ilario - I disagree with your view that we should have an algorithm of evaluating projects, mainly because projects vary quite a lot. Also, it is my strong personal belief that it is imperative that if we see brilliant projects, with visionary impact for our movement, we should be able to support them, irrespective of some minor formal imperfections. I do serve on another funds dissemination committee relying on a sort of algorithmic method and quite often it is difficult to appreciate great projects with high impact, if they fail to tap into some of the application fields (btw, there we're giving grants of about $5k, while requiring more paperwork than in the FDC).