I have been struggling with this proposal. The documents being circulated are generally low quality, and the organization, running on Teams, is not friendly. So, I propose we make a decision on whether to go forward, and how.
My struggle is that I don’t really understand what they want to do in practice. The docs are very abstract. “Resilience to climate change” covers too much ground. However, today they presented a breakdown into WPs. So, my contribution is this: I wrote a 2 pages proposal on what we could do in there. From now on:
Please Ivan and Nica review. This is not necessarily large-scale ethno (at least not in the WP3 task, but it could be in the WP4 one).
Then send to whoever the PI is (I am thinking Amineh and Leen) and negotiate.
On the basis of the agreement on what to do, Ivan prepares a budget, and then we need to negotiate that.
If everything checks out, we can then continue. If not, we disengage.
BUT
I do not have the time to participate in weekly calls, only provide writing support, so you guys need to make a decision if you are willing to be in them.
@Ivan, I reviewed @Nica’s suggestions. To save time, I suggest you send this to the consortium. Specify we need their OK to move forward in an efficient way. If they OK it, then we plan the work.
In the meantime, another mail from Filippos - Institute for European Energy and Climate Policy (@marina knows him) passed under the radar for the same call:
We are exploring the formation of a consortium to submit a proposal for this Horizon call:
HORIZON-CL5-2023-D1-01-09: Behavioural change and governance for systemic transformations towards climate resilience(RIA, 4M, 8M) – Deadline: 18/4/23
"Following early discussions with relevant colleagues from AUBE and IMEC, we have a draft concept note that meets a significant share of the call. You will find it attached, and please treat it confidentially.
Looking back at our collaboration, perhaps this opportunity might be useful for your work as well. We would be interested to explore together this call, and develop an advanced concept upon which to build our proposal.
Please let me know if this is something to examine, and I will be happy to jump on a call to discuss further"
Sending their proposal via email because they requested confidentiality.
Some time has passed after I sent the draft.
The Nudge crowd answered they would come back (if interested) after discussing it with their partners.
Delft acknowledged the receipt, but never answered if not by inviting us to more general meetings.
Have you received anything that I haven’t seen?
If not, I am tempted to start disengaging procedures because the communication is becoming difficult.
I would gladly dedicate some of my time to this, but only if constructive.
Just a figure of speech.
I wrote to Amineh to see if they read our proposal, what do they think about it and how they want to continue.
The things to know in advance is how much time have you and Alberto to dedicate to the proposal writing.
I can organise to attend these, but once a week (and they seem to proliferate). I don’t have time & attention to work on the proposal writing. If we continue to work with them, we should start an update thread for us to coordinate better.
I don’t think it makes sense to attend periodic meeting on proposal writing for people who are not going to do any writing. So, it comes down to two solutions:
Either they agree to communicate in writing.
Or they agree to a meeting schedule that @Nica (with the time zone issue and her other commitments) can live with.
What is acceptable as a level of communication here? What would you need in writing from them (starting from the supposition they will not move on Discourse) in order to be able to work properly?