On 4/22/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sj wrote:
I am in favour of being a "regognised" party
but I think we should try
to aim for more than that. :)
As to us not getting the IFAP money, is their a motivation? I would like
to learn from it.
Probably the number of requests... :-)
Or the fact that the submitted proposal did not claim to address any
of the three "main priorities" of this rfp. The reviewers may not
have bothered to read the rest.
Hoi,
I disagree that the "main priorities" were not addressed. I do not want
to speculate so I am interested in KNOWING the motivation. We cannot
answer this question ourselves.
Ah, forgive me if I was unclear. I am using their terminology, not
speculating. Section 3.1? of the application was entitled "Main
priorities"; in that section were three different 'priorities' with a
checkbox next to each one. The application asked which if any of
these priorities the proposal addressed. The submitted proposal did
not check any of them. (It did check a number of the secondary, more
general, priorities further down the application form.)
--
+sj+