Proactive or Reactive

With all the talk about being proactive, yet not wanting to bind into money burns, I though of this.

So in this instance what would differentiate between a MG and a ZFG? The only real thing I can think of is how the grant is solicited. This could be a very useful avenue to be proactive in in the short term, build up a bit more of a war chest and get a feeling for what we can and cant do as a team.

it would need a separate mechanism and structure but it sounds good to me. Especially with 2 or 3 full time positions. on that note, I think in the first instance people should expect to commit more time than normal in the first 4 weeks to get this stuff up and running asap, hopefully leveraging as much of the existing ZFG process as possible.

What do other candidates think of this idea? I like it.

Can anyone else see a difference that I am missing?

I think the discussions and all else thats transpired over the past year and a half about defining a system for continuing funding is proactive, I suppose I’m indifferent but this feels like barking up the wrong tree, I don’t think finding qualified grantees the normal way will be so insurmountable a task as some may think