Yes, that's a longer version of my first comment. On Mar 22, 2013 5:29 PM, "David Golumbia" <dgolum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the whole thing is not a big deal, but i will risk repeating myself: the > original comment on this list overlooked the phrase " *unless they have > an explicit component related to the requested program objectives listed > above*," and this is actually a solicitation *for *proposals, not an > effort to discourage them. The original "discourage" comment was just > trying to ensure that proposals were area- and program-specific. State has > already modified the page to make this clear, perhaps in reaction to > comments such as the original one on this list: > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/206488.htm. It's now clear that there is no > intent to discourage applications. > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Jillian C. York > <jilliancy...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I just really don't see why this is a big deal. So State's funding >> priorities for tech stuff aren't about those subjects. So what? >> > > > -- > David Golumbia > dgolum...@gmail.com > > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
