&gt; That&#x27;s not what issue with that was<p>Ok, the lower funding number might not be the issue, but it certainly seems like the timeline and article regarded it as a bad thing.<p>&gt; The issue is that it wasn&#x27;t discussed within the BoT<p>Ok, well, I would expect that will probably end the likelihood of further grants from Knight Foundation or many other reputable grant givers.  Poor procedure inside an grantee is frowned upon, and having their name shown in a negative light is a warning to everyone else.<p>&gt; They also made that grant application so vague that it looked like they wanted to compete with Google. Read the document. Heck, read the article that is now on Wikipedia!<p>Looking at this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;foundation&#x2F;a&#x2F;a7&#x2F;Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;foundation&#x2F;a&#x2F;a7&#x2F;Knowl...</a><p>It looks pretty normal for how you write up a project.  You really only put high level stuff in for some of these organizations.