To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no>, "k.briffa-uea.ac.uk" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:29:58 +0200
At 18:17 03/04/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Rainer, we drafted a complaint, which Keith Briffa still sits on, and
>I don�t think it will be sent. Some of our partners, e.g. Hadley Centre,
>MPI and CNRS were reluctant as they thought complaining might backfire.
>If there was foul play, we had no proof of it. We did some checks with
>commission representatives, but did not learn much. I think the problem
>was that the review panel was biased against us, and that the commission
>did not follow up with instructions that was coherent with their own policies.
not sure if I comprehend the mentality of not sending a statement, keeping
a low profile I do not perceive a good strategy. I am mentioning this as I
have become increasingly weary of FWP programmes and proposals. Over the
past four years I was involved in 4 initiatives none of which came through.
Beyond the immediate frustration on the basis of the individual failures I
do note in all these instances is an unfavourable degree of ambiguity in
the reviewing process such that it appears the reviewers are being kept in
the dark about the vision of the call beyond what the call says in
printing. I can see the challenge from the programme managerial side that
one wishes not to interfere with the reviewing progress and yet I feel that
the reviews offered, perhaps the reviewing process at large, do not live up
to the standards set for proposals. Quite frankly, from my few
conversations I had with the programme managers and their assistants I have
come to the conclusion that they are helpful in providing assistance with
logistics and proposal structuring, yet on a managerial front they are not
up to speed with what I would perceive professionalism in handling their
tasks. So to me it seems there are various levels involved in the issue
that in the end mount to the impression that FWPs are not an immediate
option for proposals much longer. This view is shared by quite a number of
colleagues and it is for this reason that I am convince we must respond to
the Imprint failing.
If Keith doesn't mind perhaps forward the statement so I can glance through