(People keep mentioning a post limit, and I'm sure I'm going to hit it. I'll see if someone can give me a temporary exception, but I also wanted to warn that I'm in back to back meetings for the next 3 days and intend to deliberately go quiet because of that. In the evenings, I plan to be writing up my notes and reflecting on what I'm learning.)
On 2/29/16 7:41 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
Not at all, I apologise for any confusion I may have brought to bare here.
No problem.
FWIW, I don’t think anyone is opposed to a better search engine. I’m rather impressed you had built one back in the day :-)
Well, it wasn't anything too amazing. :) It wasn't long before Magnus Manske did the radical thing of actually using a real database, making my amateurish efforts a moot point.
I was very harsh in a reply to a blogpost by Lila on the 16th [1], and frankly I regret the degree of hostility in that comment - I read it now and cringe a little.
We've all been through a very emotional time.
Is what I’m saying is the truth, then I do hope someone has gotten in contact with the Knight Foundation to clarify the application?
My understanding is that the Knight Foundation is fine. Keep in mind that many people have a mental model of grant making that works like this:
1. A program is announced to fund projects of a specific kind. 2. Someone writes up an application and mails it off, fingers crossed. 3. The funder decides and announces the award.
In reality, it's more a conversation with multiple meetings and conversations.
If you could please advise then why we added dramatic language that gave an impression we were building something we aren’t to the Knight Foundation, who then funded the first tranche, then I’d appreciate it.
I wasn't involved but it seems to be a non-issue. As I am here in SF, I'll try to figure out who to ask more about our relationship with Knight. But as I say, my rough understanding is that there isn't a problem there.