[Foundation-l] Re: UNESCO

[Sj]

On 4/22/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at 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+