I’d like to challenge the real utility of this. Given that it was broken and we haven’t heard of anyone being affected, was this really being used?
We invested on this before and there seems to be no return-of-investment.
I don’t like to bargain on grantees and I’m opposed to people “price dumping” on grant proposals as well since that discourages future presentations of grants creating a hostile environment that generates “low psychological safety” in our community.
Assuming that your budget is “as low as it can be” for the value you are presumably providing, I don’t really see how that return of investment you are stating goes beyond a desire, an ideal.
Who are the users that are needing this? How are you going to contact them to actually make them use this software that provenly has had little impact. Could you explain how “it will be different this time”?
I’d love to have this working but not just for the sake of it. That apparently has been done before and did not drive any adoption so there’s obviously something else to the problem that we are not addressing and it would be important to find out what it is and actually invest on fixing that.