Hi all, thanks first of all for the responses both onlist and offlist. I appreciate the numbers mentioned in the report - they are retrospective and useful indeed. They are more detailed than I was aware of at the time of my initial query (my initial query predated the report, I believe). Thank you for pointing at this. There is indeed value in the transparency provided after the fact. I believe however that it would be even more helpful to provide these numbers before and during the grant rounds: it allows the community to identify discrepancies and enter a conversation about how it can be improved (I realize this may be an advantage for some, and imply more work for others) but maybe more importantly it is an important piece of information for potential applicants to know how much money there is to distribute. This importance will grow over time as a better understanding will develop about how previous rounds ended up. This way, applicants are not left to guess which regions have increased budget available thanks to strategic shifts, but they can actually use this information in setting their grant priorities. I hope that going forward, this information can be shared before the round actually starts. There is no harm in adding a few caveats of course (as these amounts can vary somewhat if the submitted proposals so require), but I see little reason to shy away from proudly sharing what kind of grant funds are available in which region - this distribution is something we should be proud of. If we're not, we should perhaps reconsider them. If these amounts are already prospectively, I happily will stand corrected! Warmly, Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:18 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote: