Makoto Nozaki

Continued from the previous post.

From the comments to Alberto's post:

The 3-monthly call for grants, and the 1 month taken to assess grants, means that there is a 1-4 month lead time between "now" and when a proposal can be accepted.

Now we have a bi-monthly cycle, +50% added frequency, the lead time between "now" and when a proposal can be accepted can be as short as 3 weeks. Or 3 weeks + 2 months at the longest (announcement).

Should we make it monthly? Certainly yes if we have more applications. If we get a lot more proposals every two month, it will be appropriate to make it more frequent.

Bi-weekly cycle? Well, the Committee Secretary needs a break :)

Frequently anticipated questions

So the lead time is between (x weeks) and (x weeks + y months). Any views to make x smaller?

Right. It is easy to decrease y by increasing the voting frequency. However x is a different story.

We need this x-week period for public hearing and the committee voting. Here x=3 (weeks) would be appropriate to have enough discussion but it is an option to make this shorter for smaller grants as it won't need to same amount of debate to approve $500 grants and $10,000 grants. It's something we want to consider if we get a good number of small grant applications (I understand the current cycle is relatively big for smaller applications, so it can be a chicken/egg discussion).