I apologize for the surprise regarding this grant. We worked on a short timeline, less than a month, and based our work on existing documents available as it is something we have been discussing previously in
- The unsuccessful application to Mozilla data infrastructure fund,
- Antonin's interest in improving the extension mechanism OpenRefine 2032 ... what direction does OpenRefine want to go? - #3 by antonin_d
- The feedback I received during my outreached call last year with developer User Interviews Results Part 3: Cultivating a Thriving Developer and Trainer Community
- GSoC 2024 idea list
- Other discussion such as this thread.
Overall, the grant application process is interesting but uncertain. It often takes months to know if your grant has been approved. It is risky to put too much design into a feature with the condition of securing the grant to realize the implementation.
This is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. The way I would like to approach it is to work with a roadmap with different levels of granularity. First, we list the initiative we want to work on at a high level to see if we have a consensus around it. It provides our partners, funders, and ecosystems with the general direction of the project. Those projects are great candidates for a grant application (or partnership). We can delve into design and technical requirements once we secure the resources to work on the feature.
Today, I am aware that we struggle to reach a consensus on the project roadmap. It is part of the things I want to address this year, as outlined in this post Requesting Feedback: Documenting OpenRefine Community Handbooks - #9 by Martin
Finally, sorry to go off the initial topic of this conversation. Happy to split the thread into a new conversation.