Everyone, today I made a copy of the document the way it looked like around 15.00 and proceeded to re-read it beginning to end and to tighten its screws. In the process, I
- deleted anything I could not understand. If I don't get it, the reviewer will not get it.
- deleted some duplicate information.
The “final” document (which is not final, as I explain below) is here. My verdict is: it contains some excellent parts and some really strong points (existing platform and community, obvious experience in engaging the crowd, radical methodology, access to unusual suspects, great data/knowledge management strategy, super-interesting consortium…), but it is still quite clunky to read as a whole thing. The constrained structure does not help! I will include a “guide to the reader” intended for the reviewers, that will say: “we followed the goddamn EC form structure. You like that, you read it back-to-back. But we suggest you read first 1.1, then 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 : these 10 pages will give you an idea of what we want to do, why and how.”
It is not final because I have not yet tackled sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 (WeMake and SF) and 1.4.5 and 1.4.6 (SSE). At a first glance these look generic (sorry, @Lakomaa), difficult to relate to the activities (sorry, @markomanka) or non-existent (sorry @Costantino and @Cristina_Martellosio).
I have been at it for 5 hours straight and my brain is fried. Bottom line, @melancon, can I take tomorrow morning to try patching up the final holes? Talk to me with Audrey, there are many things that can already be uploaded.
Erik and Marco) or non-existent (sorry, cost