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(a)alk.edu.pl>wrote;wrote:
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).
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch