December 1st is not OK with me, I have another engagement.
I chose this date because there is no conflicting meeting in your agenda. Could you propose another date/time slot?
I didn’t receive an invitation with the link (google meet, zoom, whatever) for the
VoCol: a collaborative ontology development tool webinar. I wasn’t worried because a webinar has already been postponed (and we were notified after the meeting start time).
Did you receive an invitation or a link for this past event?
Can you please give a straight answer to the question? Would you be ok, yes or no?
It doesn’t seem right to me to discuss this without the parties involved being known/without the parties involved.
Received yesterday from the DAPSI contractor:
The DAPSI contractor answered:
The attached file is the same that the one attached here. I forgot the dates of both meetings are mentioned at the end of this document (page 17).
Received Wednesday (17/11/2021):
For the record, the organization managing the DAPSI fund acknowledged that I’m not participating in the Phase II of the grant that started October 1st, 2022. My involvement in was during the Phase I of the project and was concluded successfully. My decision to not participate in Phase II is discussed in another post.
Did the DAPSI project end, or only @dachary’s involvement?
My involvement ended. It was possible for @pilou to take over my role as a coordinator but he did not and the project ended for lack of participants.
Wow, that impact was never clear to me. Thought that @pilou would continue in the 2nd stage alone, and with you separately (self-)funded.
This is not a direct consequence of me not participating in the phase II. The organization acknowledged I was no longer participating and from that point on did not communicate with me. I can only speculate as to what happened afterwards. @pilou has been very diligent in making all communication on the matter transparent and he did not copy any message. I therefore suppose he did not write to the organization to tell them he was willing to takeover the coordinator role and continue working for the full 24,800€. Since someone must assume this role as per the MoU, it makes sense that it had to be terminated. But again, that’s only speculations on my part and only @pilou can give a definitive answer as to what really happened.
As indicated in this message, the DAPSI consortium took note of the termination of the project when Loïc gave up his role of coordinator and beneficiary.
As he did before, Loïc unilaterally took a decision impacting the DAPSI project as a whole.
As a partner company, I take note of Loïc’s defaulting - the DAPSI consortium did the same.
I offered the opportunity to make 12,400€ to anyone willing to take my seat in the DAPSI project. I made it very clear that I would continue to work on the deliverables and work on the forgefriends project. This decision solely impacted my funding and not the forgefriends project in any way, therefore there was no need for me to seek consensus.
This is not what the message says. It reads “I am sorry to hear that you do not continue in DAPSI for the second phase.” It does not say the project is terminated. If anything, it is very much subject to interpretation as to what the actual consequences are for you as a beneficiary and the project as whole.
You could have replied to the mail (you were cc’ed) declaring yourself interested in taking the role of coordinator (as I suggested you do three times) and get the chance to be paid the full 24,800€ for working on Phase II.
Did you reach out to the DAPSI organizers to clarify this?