Please note the following is not objective as I am involved in one of those proposals directly targeted (#91). But I will try to answer in a quite objective manner, including my feelings about my own story case here, and your suggestion.

We exactly discussed a very related consideration when we drafted our proposal. How to proceed? Should we go on a quarter by quarter basis and do the PR more often to get people voting for each proposal update? Should we go for a one-year-long thingie and then be happy and focus on our work (even if it is only partly funded). Where to put the bar in the daily amount? etc.

There was basically no guidelines, no inputs, on what the community (actually the big stake holders) would prefer. We decided to go with the latter option (the one-year thingie). As there is no much support for it (we are very far from the 22 MHO threshold and I don't think we will ever get there in a realistic manner), this was probably the wrong choice. But would going quarter by quarter change anything? Would asking less have changed anything (although we justified later on, in an update, how we were planning to spend the grant and give back the un-used part if any). We never got any feedback. It is thus difficult to judge.

To come back to the point of this post, I am not against this. But I would like at the same time more feedback on the proposals themselves, so that they could be better designed according to the wish of the community.