From	Rainer Zahn	Date	Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:29:58 +0200
To	Eystein Jansen, Keith Briffa
Subject	Re:
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. > >Best wishes, >Eystein Hi Eystein, 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 it. Best, Rainer