Hola Hopit@s,
Lo primero pediros disculpas por las confusiones de ayer con la
procedencia del virus (fue detectado por nuestro sistema de vigilancia y
yo malinterpret� el mensaje que me enviaron ya que, aunque proced�a de
funredes, era porque el maldito virus rebot� de Gusi (pobrecita!!) a la
lista hope. Mis disculpas, Daniel. Luego os mande a tod@s un mensaje que
era una contestaci�n solo a Bel�n. Lo siento por "el ruido". <:-(
Bueno, cosas sobre la propuesta: Os env�o los comentarios que han hecho
Carlos Oliveira y sus colegas de la CE al resumen del HOPe que les
enviamos. Creo que son positivos y �tiles para enfatizar m�s algunos
aspectos, y que podemos hacerlo sin problema casi todo. Solo tengo
dificultad con el segundo p�rrafo sobre las especificaciones de las
herramientas tecnol�gicas. Por favor Oscar y Daniel, �pod�is
desarrollarlo esto y enviarme un texto peque�o EN INGLES con todas
vuestras palabrejas?. De lo dem�s si alguien tiene alguna sugerencia que
lo diga, pero creo que esta controlado.
Respecto a los presupuesto: no habeis incluido ningun@ gastos de
material fungible. �Ha sido a prop�sito o un olvido? �Os parece bien que
incluyamos algo, pe 600 � 900 EUROs anuales, para cada soci@?
Besos.
Concha.

IST RTD Programme – 6th call : PRE-PROPOSAL CHECK

Name and address of co-ordinator
Concha Colomer
Spain

Proposal title: HOPe – Health Opportunities in the e-Society: A
self-learning virtual community for health work

Dear Ms. Colomer
Following your recent request, I attach comments on your summary of this
proposal.

Appears to fulfil partnership and transnationality requirements:
YES [X] NO []

Appears to conform with scope and objectives of call:
YES [] Partly [X] NO []
Comment:
Based on the information available the proposal appears to address at
least some of the topics of the action line "self learning for work".
However they must be formulated in a way that makes more evident their
relevance in terms of the objectives of the action line. I suggest that
you take a look at the attached slides (presented by my colleague Brian
Holmes in the Info Day last January).
Although we understand the emphasis on improving the use of existing
tools instead of repeating development work, the proposal must include a
description of the tools to be used and what are the developments
envisaged, demonstrating that this component is "state of the art".
Another remark concerns the composition of the partnership. The partners
involved in the technical component (technology providers) are
identified as well as the content providers. There are two aspects that
do not appear to be covered: the user component and the pedagogical
evaluation. Regarding the user involvement maybe this is implicit given
the involvement of the national public health schools but I would
suggest making such link more obvious (you must bear in mind that the
evaluators do not necessarily know how public health professionals are
organised). Concerning the second point (pedagogical evaluation) it is
normally required that you have such task allocated to a partner that is
not involved neither in the technical nor content development
activities.

Please note that these comments are provided on the basis of an
appreciation of the summary information supplied and do not commit the
Commission. They may not be taken as indicating either acceptance or
rejection of any subsequent full proposal submitted for evaluation.

 Carlos Oliveira
 DG INFSO D3
Nearby Wed Apr 18 03:13:51 2001