Transcript Présentation PowerPoint

CSPD P2IO
• Armengaud Eric
• Attié David
• Besson Nathalie
• Caprini Chiara
• Delpech Sylvie
• Djalali Chaden
• Grain Julien
• Hamel de Monchenault Gautier
• Khan Elias
• Lebois Mathieu
• Le Goff Jean-Marc
• Leray Sylvie
• Ljungvall Joa
• Malvagi Fausto
• Ochando Christophe
• Ollivier Marc
• Reinosa Urko
• Robert Francois
• Rodriguez Jerome
• Schaffer Arthur
• Theisen Christophe
• Wallon Samuel
• Zerwas Dirk
Current list with 24 Members and a bureau of 4
Modus Operandi
2 step procedure:
1. 2 rapporteurs:
– Grade 1-20
– ABC
– Rank among the proposals treated
2. Preliminary ranking based on the 2 reports
3. Plenary discussion for harmonization
Numbers:
• 2 call for proposals per year 1 PhD, 1 PostDoc
• order 35 proposals
• 50% excellent
• each rapporteur order of 3 reports per AO
• order 1/3 transmitted to COPIL for final decision
Comments
Difficulties/comments:
• Tremendous hard work done by all the members
•
Web based proposal system enforcing that obligatory information is supplied in a nonambiguous way could be created (did that in a day for the reports)
•
Rules of exclusion (e.g. already has been financed by P2IO, excluded for N years) could be
stated in the call for proposals (a question of fairness)
•
mapping between the interests taking into account the specialties of the members difficult
if one wants to keep the number of reports distributed more or less equally. Latter is
helpful to harmonize among rapporteurs (e.g. super-duper proposal is 17/20 for person A
and 20/20 for person B)
Example: 1 specialist for R, but the same number of proposals as for P1
Work with a smaller committee and outside referees?
•
•
•
•
•
It is reasonable that some balancing (lab) is done in the selection process.
A flat ex aequo pre-selection of order 1/3 is unbalanced with respect to the work (time)
spent by the committee analyzing the proposals
A reasonable balance between committee and final selection committee (COPIL) is
necessary