Again I miss some - if only short - comments why proposals were funded or rejected. You must have reasons for that - so why not make them public?
Hello, dear Coward.
There are reasons for that. Some examples:
- If we publish the reasons people will complain about the validity of the reasons. Not because they are not valid. But because they are personal! A good reason for me might not be for you.
- Some other reasons might be derived of the person that submit the proposal. It is not a good idea to make public judgments about people (judgments are about previous iterations with TPF, not general comments about people).
At least, this is my understanding on the problem.
All the best,
Alberto (GC Chair)
PS: and it would make me have a lot more of work...
Most foundations do not separate out "rejected" proposals, but simply say that they wish they could fund all the worthy proposals which come their way. They leave it up to the public to guess which of the unfunded proposals the foundation wished they could have funded. I think this is a Best Practice.
A proposal writer who winds up not just unfunded, but rejected, might conclude they were the subject of a public judgment. Such a conclusion is not completely unreasonable. Of course, not being funded is also a public judgment, but it's a gentler one.
I appreciate the effort that goes into deciding on these proposals. I think ending the practice of separating out "rejected" proposals from the other unfunded ones would make things easier all around.
Very glad to hear about funding for a Perl 6 web framework