4 ms·
This is probably a silly question, but why did they plan the conference and set a date before they knew they had funding? Wouldn't it make more sense to confirm
by darkerside 3y ago
This is probably a silly question, but why did they plan the conference and set a date before they knew they had funding? Wouldn't it make more sense to confirm the grant first, and then start planning the event? The letter comes off as pretty entitled.
My guess is that while there may be some unconscious bias at play here, there is also probably groundwork that could have been better laid. Perhaps European organizers get a better response because they've been doing this for a while, know the PSF Board personally, and the event is a known quantity.
On the flip side, if you want to make change and not just virtue signal, it's always better to engage. Organize a call, express your concerns, hear the organizers out, and find appropriate action to take. Of course, this process might not run on a timeline that is convenient to the organizers.
- hobofan 3y agoI wouldn't be surprised if there is a chicken-and-egg problem where the funding application also has to contain a planned date and venue. As it reads from the letter, it does seem like they handed in their application 3 months before the event. That seems like quite short notice and I would have expected ~6 months before the event, especially if there is no certainty/pre-commitment that the grant will go through.
- eithed 3y agoI think that they knew they had funding, so they started organising it without having money. Then transfer took longer than expected, so organisers had to shell out the money themselves