Projects have to request a core-tech earmark for each proposal they create. Make it so that projects can have a core-tech earmark that they can use for any proposal.
Why is this necessary?
What are the benefits?
What are the potential drawbacks?
Currently, projects have to request a core-tech earmark for each proposal they create. This can be time-consuming and may not be necessary in some cases. Having a core-tech earmark that projects can use for any proposal would be more efficient and would allow projects to get the earmarks they need more quickly. This will also save us time.
There are potential drawbacks to this change, as well. First, it may be difficult to monitor how projects are using their earmarks. Second, there could be an abuse of the system, with projects using their earmarks for things that are not core-tech related. However, these drawbacks can be mitigated by having clear guidelines for how projects can use their earmarks and by monitoring how earmarks are being used.
Projects have to request a core-tech earmark for each proposal they create. Make it so that projects can have a core-tech earmark that they can use for any proposal.
Currently, projects have to request a core-tech earmark for each proposal they create. This can be time-consuming and may not be necessary in some cases. Having a core-tech earmark that projects can use for any proposal would be more efficient and would allow projects to get the earmarks they need more quickly. This will also save us time.
There are potential drawbacks to this change, as well. First, it may be difficult to monitor how projects are using their earmarks. Second, there could be an abuse of the system, with projects using their earmarks for things that are not core-tech related. However, these drawbacks can be mitigated by having clear guidelines for how projects can use their earmarks and by monitoring how earmarks are being used.
cc @idiom-bytes