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

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.


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
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to