Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Free software project grants

[Marc Eberhard]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:43:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-10-16 20:25:47 +0100 Marc Eberhard <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
> 
> >Past rejections of an application do not influence future decisions of
> >the board concerning this application.
> 
> Does this mean that past application history will not be looked at?  

It will be known anyway, but the board is obliged not to take this into
account. Thus it can't say, we turn this down, because we've done so in the
past. If they choose to recycle the same rejection letter... well, that
might be reasonable depending on the circumstances. The broader message
behind this is: Don't be discourage from applying, if you have been turned
down for whatever reason once. You'll still have the same chance next time
again. Maybe there is a better way to state this and to make it an
obligation for the board to evaluate proposals in line with this.

> It seems that it could help speed decisions if you can see whether it 
> was rejected as "not directly applicable" or "nice project, but not 
> enough money to fund this".

I would hope, that it will usually be the second. My idea is to offer advice
throughout the application process in contrast to research councils. There
you submit your idea and you're either told yes or no. I would hope, that
applicants get in contact with us first and that we can discuss their
application informally until it is in an acceptable state and can be
formally submitted. So the decision will usually be a "when is the money
available" and not a "this project isn't good enough". Obviously, someone
could simply submit something and then we would have to reject it on the
base of the project, but I wouldn't expect this to be the norm.

> You write that process will be "open" but will applications be 
> published for public comment?  I don't know whether that would 

I would say no.

> encourage other sources of funding to look at the applications or 

This is extremely unlikely to happen. No funding body is actively looking
for applications. They are all operating in passive mode. If you want money
from them, you have to apply directly to them. The most active thing they
do, is to issue a call to invite applications specific to one topic they
consider important to be funded. Obviously, that's something we can do too.

> discourage people from applying because they fear someone will act on 
> the idea first.  Maybe some compromise needs to be struck, with a 
> "public abstract" being part of the application?  How do the research 
> councils handle it?  I assume that they're all private by default, 
> from my memory of MRC procedure.

Yes, indeed. The whole application process is considered to be strictly
confidential up to the point a grant is awarded. At that stage, the details
of the application and the project are published on the funding body's
website. It is the responsibility of the applicant, that the application
itself does not contain any sensitive material, which would prevent it from
being published. 

I wouldn't like to see the initial stage of the process to be public, as it
might be considered embarrassing to apply and being turned down. This way,
nobody knows who has been turned down or has unsuccessfully applied. I
believe this is a strong encouragement to apply. You don't loose anything,
if you don't get the application through. I think, this is a very sensible
approach.

As soon as the application is accepted, all details of the project are made
publically available, including the final report and eventual interim
reports. So it should be possible for everyone to verify, how the money was
spent and if it was a successful project. This was, what I meant with
openness.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:50:40AM +0100, Andrew Savory wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> 
> > You write that process will be "open" but will applications be
> > published for public comment?
> 
> How about making them available to members only? That way we keep the
> process open within AFFS, and have yet another incentive for people to
> become members.

Hard to say, if that would be more helpful to the cause. By publishing the
details, we also advertise ourselves and this effect might lead to more
people signing up (because they believe in what we do and want to support
us) than by forcing them to join to see the details.

> I think it would be a good idea if members got to indicate their opinion
> of each bid, too. This should be in association with a review board, since
> we couldn't guarantee continuity in the member review process.

I do have reservations against making the bidding stage public for the above
mentioned reasons. I agree, that transparency would be nice here, but I
personally believe, this would put people off from applying. Anonymous
numbers should be published in any case, like total number of applications,
success rate, average amount bid for, average amount granted, etc.

> It would also be a good idea to draw up criteria for a FLOSS project, for
> example:
> 
> - is the project original?

We might want to fund projects, which are not really original, but instead
provided essential localisation features for the UK, which would be unlikely
to be implemented by someone. The UK tax tables are just one good example of
this.

> - does it fulfill a genuine need?
> - does it represent good value for money?
> - does it have support from the community?
> - etc

My suggestion would be to start without such guidelines, to see which
applications we get. As we gain more experience, how much money we can
realistically expect to be able to spend and how much we can actually
achieve with that money, we can then draw our conclusions and draft
guidelines. Instead of guidelines or in addition, we might also decide at
some stage to issue calls for specific applications to direct the process.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:14:29AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I agree with this and the suggestion for member comments.  I think the 

I'm at least unsure, if member comments on applications are helpful.
Probably rather against it. As a compromise, I would suggest to leave this
decision to the applicant. If they're happy to have the details of the
application being published before a decision is made by the board, that's
fine. If not, we treat it as confidential. Would that work?

> current RFC should say that "published criteria will be used in the 
> evaluation" and leave the specific details for another RFC, possibly 
> drafted by the funding workgroup, if that happens.  Let's see if 
> someone has a revolutionary idea about the general shape before we 
> start filling in.

I agree. As our opinion might change, what we would like to see funded,
these guidelines should not be part of the framework. I would suggest too,
that they'll be drafted by the WG and updated as needed. We want to remain
flexible here.

Thanks,
Marc
_______________________________________________________________________________

email: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
email: address@hidden, web: http://www.aston.ac.uk/~eberhama/