| draft proposal |
| SC: will have better luck with private foundations (Mellon, Sloan, etc) than with federal, playing on the idea that there are many kinds of data objects outside of the publication-centric view. Don't have Don Waters' successor in place, but Mellon emphasizing inclusiveness (eg, cheaper). Have been talking lots to open source people and everyone recommends involving the community early on rather than at the completion of the work.
KE: this is one reason we're coming to this group; need to avoid design-by-committee
JK: can lessen that effect by focussing on community requirements gathering
KW: should seek input from other than the well-funded universities; Mellon and Sloan seem like good funders to approach
SC: good to ask community to help you collect use cases
KE: so the proposal might be strengthened if it talks about current use cases and inclusiveness of ARKs
SC: Sloan is in process of changing its guidelines
KW: Sloan and Mellon are less formal than NSF; often it starts with a one-page proposal
KE: what about partners?
SC: good idea to have 1-3 partners; I'd suggest making an open invitation
KW: sometimes the funder has good ideas on partners
KW: it is very important to include request to support 1-2 meetings (eg, planning to start, and another)
KE: it is important to be transparent, with a project manager
KW: most funders expect that the recipient will invest percentages of people to do things like project management
KW: funders will want to know what the recipient is contributing, eg, time or storage
KW: but don't understate what you need to complete the work |
