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 <dar...@alk.edu.pl>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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l