View this page "Meeting notes"
Arlin
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/tolweb2/web/meeting-notes - or
copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't work.
Hilmar Lapp
last teleconference on Sep 8. I was at the recent CI for Dimensions of
Biodiversity workshop in Madison, WI, which incidentally was an NSF-
supported workshop (albeit in this case more or less instigated by NSF
and USGS, rather than independently sought by the PIs). Assuming that
Karen hadn't had a chance yet, I spoke to George Gilchrist about how
this works. Here's the gist from that conversation:
- NSF looks for workshops that in topic or possible impact span at
least several programs, better yet directorates. They are less
enthusiastic about workshops with a narrow focus, or whose impact
would affect only a narrow community. (In my experience with NSF,
narrow need not mean small, so big in numbers does not counter
narrowness.)
- NSF is most enthusiastic about workshop proposals on activities or
topics that could not be funded already through other means or
programs. Being risky or high-risk is OK if not welcome, low-risk
targets or outcomes aren't what they are looking for, NSF being NSF.
- NSF doesn't want to cause submitters too much work if a successful
outcome isn't likely. The recommended way to go about a proposal is to
first call a program officer from the envisaged target program and
talk about what the workshop would be about. If the feedback is
encouraging, submit a 1-pager that can be shopped around at NSF by the
PO. If it garners cross-division or cross-directorate support, submit
a full proposal (several pages if I recall that correctly?), which
will be sent out for external review. This early feedback model
typically provides for a high funding rate for those that take the
initial hurdles.
- Many proposals also come in unsolicited and w/o any prior feedback.
Their fate is mixed - some get very good review, some not.
So this sounds like the next step would be for one of us to call up an
NSF PO and talk about the workshop ideas we've had, and see from
there. Any takers?
-hilmar
BTW Google is discontinuing pages and file uploads for Google Groups.
We'll have to decide where we'll move our meeting minutes etc from
this group. Since we're running the evoio.org wiki already with an
open login model, would anyone have concerns with or objections to
moving our content (apart from the discussion list) there? BTW I think
I can masquerade the group email as being @evoio.org - should I look
into that?
--
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :
===========================================================
Nico Cellinese
initiated this conversation with George, you could carry it on too but
I think that the most likely takers are those in the Div. of
Biological Infrastructure. I would suggest you talk to Reed Beaman,
Peter McCarty or Anne. I am in conflict with all of them so I rather
pass. Again, this is the best time of the year to submit a workshop
proposal because it's the beginning of their financial year and
traditionally they are more favorable to consider these types of
proposals.
Nico
On Oct 21, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> This is re: the NSF workshop proposal idea that we discussed at our
> last teleconference on Sep 8. I was at the recent CI for Dimensions
> of Biodiversity workshop in Madison, WI, which incidentally was an
> NSF-supported workshop (albeit in this case more or less instigated
> --
> To post: email to tol...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe: email to tolweb2+u...@googlegroups.com
> On the web: http://groups.google.com/group/tolweb2?hl=en
>
Karen Cranston
FYI, the PRF board meeting is scheduled for December 13 and 14.
Karen
Hilmar Lapp
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:08 PM, Nico Cellinese wrote:
> Seems to me that given you have initiated this conversation with
> George, you could carry it on too but I think that the most likely
> takers are those in the Div. of Biological Infrastructure.
I could, but I a) have too much on my plate already to get to this
soon, and b) am from NSF-funded NESCent which does fund working groups
and meetings, and especially given that we've discussed sending this
to NESCent before I think I'm under a bit of COI here.
In other words, I think it'd be useful if someone else who is
unaffiliated with NESCent (sorry, Karen, I guess that takes you out
now too) provided their independent take on our workshop ideas to NSF
and see what they say.
-hilmar