holger krekel wrote: ...
yes, that's right. Nevertheless, my concern was more how close 26.5 is to 30 because it's possible that there are "too many" projects with points higher than 26.5 ... maybe i didn't use the right mathematical terms or so :-)
Yup. Logarithmic scale would only count if this were an absolute measure. Since it appears to be relative, logs or anything else don't count, just the number of competitors above our score counts. I forwarded the results to Mark Achtman from MPIIB, who seems to have some experience with EU funding, and his reaction was *very* positive, "a real good chance". So I'll repeat this here, "a real good chance" and hope for the best. ciao - chris p.s.: The analysis of that evaluation doesn't suggest that we had too experienced reviewers. That state of the art argument is rather vague and misplaced, since we are going beyond state of the art in certain areas. Maybe not in the research field, but my guess is the reviewer just *did not understand* it. This is supported by the fact that the complaint about the costs of WP 4, 5, 6 & 7 is hard to follow. There is no reason not also to include WP 8. These things, alltogether, are in fact costly, and _might_ be a little over-estimated, with some fluff inside for negotiation. Anyway, what I wanted to express is that the analysis looked a bit arbitrary, partially, like "we need to find some bad spots!". And if this is true, then this is true for other projects as well, and we don't need to expect all too many competitors above our score. :-) -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@stackless.com> Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/