Witam, Circus time again! It seems to me that the KBN deadline is Tuesday 25.01 for sending to the rectorat. Do we try for a common grant proposal? Or separate ones once again? We have a cosmic topology result + other cosmic topology papers which make the case for cosmic topology fairly strong, IMHO, and this includes the topology-AGN connection. Time is getting short, so i'll assume by default we make separate proposals as we tried last year (unsuccessfully). Hmmm, in the last round, there were three cosmo applications that succeeeded: http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~kst/konkursy.html Demianski 200.000 zl Juszkiewicz 411.000 zl Lokas 102.000 zl If we fail again, then IMHO it will be time to activate cosmo-pl@..., this is a community problem and will require a community solution if it remains unsolved... pozdr boud
Boud asks:
Do we try for a common grant proposal?
As far as I myself am concerned I'm too busy with my hab. so no time for KBN-grant paranoia again.
Or separate ones once again?
See the above. Plus... We (Magda and myself) have been refused KBN funding last time (i.e. 2nd time in the row) by the same *incompetent* referee) so we feel very discouraged and disappointed, particularly given we got excellent ranks from the two other referees which appear competent *not* because they wrote positive reports (there made some critical remarks!) but just because they wrote their reports in a style competent referees should (IMVHO) use. [...]
Hmmm, in the last round, there were three cosmo applications that succeeeded:
http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~kst/konkursy.html Demianski 200.000 zl Juszkiewicz 411.000 zl Lokas 102.000 zl
This is an old story - KSt is apparently not maintaining his list any longer. The above results are those of the applications put in by July 2003 deadline. -- AM Cc: AJK
Sorry for a typo in this para which might change the meaning.
We (Magda and myself) have been refused KBN funding last time (i.e. 2nd time in the row) by the same *incompetent* referee) so we feel very discouraged and disappointed, particularly given we got excellent ranks from the two other referees which appear competent *not* because they wrote positive reports (there made some critical remarks!) but just because they wrote their reports in a style competent referees should (IMVHO) use.
The correct form of the two bottom lines follows:
reports (THEY made some critical remarks!) but just because they wrote their reports in a style competent referees should (IMVHO) use.
AM
participants (2)
-
Andrzej Marecki -
Boud Roukema