<html>
<body>
Jeff,<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I'm
thinking you should aim a bit lower than NEH for the first time around,
maybe something local. How about the Annenberg Foundation? Their
interests are arts, education and communication. OHM meets at least two
of those criteria.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>How about
a place that hosts a major collection of historical maps? The most
famous, I think, is the David Rumsey collection, managed by someone
called Cartography Associates (carto@davidrumsey.com). Also, one OSM
mapper used public-domain topo maps from the University of Texas
historical map library to do part of the Lincoln Highway in OSM (the rest
was not public domain). So they might be interested. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The USGS
has historical map collections and also might be able to give
grants. After all, the already use OSM software as the basis of
editing the National Map, so, in a way, they owe OSM.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>For any of
these, the opportunity to have their map data digitized might interest
them. Also, they would make a good partner. <br><br>
Charlotte<br><br>
<br>
At 12:07 PM 12/28/2014, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Karl -<br><br>
This insider's perspective is fantastic. Very helpful.<br><br>
There's much we can do about the lack of a start-up grant on our own, but
the partnership angle is interesting.<br><br>
We'll need to be very attentive to the rest of the advice. Another piece
of feedback we've received (from David R?) is that the panel members'
feedback can differ from the project officers' feedback. So... Your notes
are gold.<br><br>
For the odds, well... To paraphrase Wayne Gretzky... you never make a
shot you don't take. : )<br><br>
- jeff<br><br>
On Friday, December 26, 2014, Karl Grossner
<<a href="mailto:karlg@stanford.edu">karlg@stanford.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hello OHMers, happy holidays - <br><br>
<dd>A friend and colleague who has followed the discussion of NEH grant
possibilities for OHM wrote me to share some thoughts drawn from their
experience as a review panel member for a recent round of DH
Implementation Grants. I thought they were pretty relevant, so copied
them in below. My biggest takeaway is the need for innovation in
humanistic inquiry, which confirms what some have suggested -- framing
the effort as supporting a particular historical study, and
simultaneously a proof-of-concept. This may fit a 'start-up' grant model
better than an implementation one at this stage.<br><br>
<dd>Karl<br><br>
<hr>
<dd>The Implementation grants are ‘Low Risk / High Reward’ That is,
project ideas may be fabulous, however, funded projects in the
‘Implementation’ round already have some element of success and
stability. “Implementation” means just that. They will
fund projects that are already up and running in some form. The
funding is to enhance or elaborate what has already been done.
<dd>Stronger proposals are those that have:
<dd>Evidence that PIs are already in a successful partnership, such as
having co-authored or presented on the project jointly prior.
<dd>Have already obtained ’support’ for the project which could be
NEH Start Up funds, or campus or other external funding, or recognition
of any sort.
<dd>Statement of Innovation concerns innovation in both technology and
humanistic inquiry - really creative innovations in both areas.
<dd>The percentages of grant winners in past years is approx. 15%.
Very slim. My panel reviewed 18 proposals (out of 54?
submitted). Of those 18, 4 were outstanding, 11 were good and
showed promise for future developments, 3 were turkeys. Only 1 of
the 4 that my panel ranked as outstanding went on to receive funding, and
that particular one had obtained NEH Start Up funds previously.
The other few that NEH funded in this round were reviewed by the other
panels and I don’t have background on those. We were told that
many successful grants had be submitted previously, so it often takes
more than one try (I am sure you are aware of that).<br><br>
<dd>Preservation, sustainability and data management of the project are
important and requires thought and planning. This was a weakness
of many of the middle level proposals. The higher ranked proposals
mostly used their library or state-level repository partnering, and
included many details about how the storage, preservation, etc would
work. <br><br>
<dd>. it is helpful to talk to the NEH ggrant officers throughout the
writing process to make sure, firstly, that the idea is appropriate for
the grant, as well as to get a pre-review. <br><br>
</dl><br><br>
-- <br>
<font size=1>Jeff Meyer<br>
Global World History Atlas<br>
<a href="http://www.gwhat.org">www.gwhat.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:jeff@gwhat.org">jeff@gwhat.org</a><br>
206-676-2347</font><br>
<font size=1><br>
</font>OpenStreetMap: Mapping with a Human Touch<font size=1><br>
</font>osm:
<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map">Open
Historical Map (OHM)</a> /
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer">my OSM user
page</a><br>
<font size=1>t:
<a href="https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory">@GWHAThistory</a> /
@OpenHistMap <br>
f: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory">GWHAThistory</a><br>
</font><br>
<font size=1><br>
</font><br><br>
_______________________________________________ Historic mailing list
Historic@openstreetmap.org
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic" eudora="autourl">
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic</a> </blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Charlotte Wolter<br>
927 18th Street Suite A<br>
Santa Monica, California<br>
90403<br>
+1-310-597-4040<br>
techlady@techlady.com<br>
Skype: thetechlady<br><br>
</body>
</html>