Talk:FF portal

WMF feedback on Feb IRC meeting

Having read the February IRC meeting minutes, I would like to offer the following comments. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 03:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Asaf, thanks a lot for sharing your comments here on Meta. It is great to have on-board someone like you, who is very thorough and clear, but also can share constructive criticism. I hope many flow funding members have the opportunity to share their opinions here too. TSB (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reactive vs. proactive

The minutes suggest that the flow funders perceive their role primarily as a reactive one, i.e. inviting people to approach them and ask for funding, or (as Poupou suggests) relay ideas from a given community to Meta and the FF program. This surprises me and contrasts with my original understanding (and therefore expectation) of the flow funders: I was thinking the great promise of the program was that individuals empowered to make a funding recommendation would proactively look for and find low-visibility opportunities in their respective communities, languages, regions, interests, etc., and bring those opportunities in for funding.

The "what is it?" page in flowfunding.org, which was used to advocate for the program in the first place, suggests

Once a Flow Funder has been chosen, they then disperse funds of their own initiative. The gift moves spontaneously as needs and opportunities arise. There is no application process, so no one is approached for money. [emphasis mine, --AB]

Now, admittedly, we are doing an unusual flow funding program, in that we haven't actually given the flow funders the money, but instead are asking them to recommend grantees to us, and, if the grantees are eligible, the money would be wired to them without any further process or discussion. However, the expectation is still for flow funders to proactively look for and identify fundable opportunities (if they can).

If we create a portal for requesting funds, we are essentially replicating the already-existing grant programs (e.g. WMF's, WMDE's), on a smaller scale and without some of the benefits of those programs, so the added value of the Flow Funding idea is, to my mind, greatly diminished.

I am happy to hear your thoughts on this. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 03:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Asaf, you are right that the Pilot Project was designed with the expectation that flow funders would be very proactive. So far, we have noticed that a few flow funders decided to create portals and ask their local communities to send fund requests for them to evaluate and select (or not) to fund. I believe it is still too early to predict how the majority of the flow funders will prefer to act, either in a more proactive or reactive way. But as far as I can tell, the flow funders that decided to be more "reactive" have very interesting reasons to do it that way. I will ask them to share their point of view here. Anyways, the beauty of a pilot project is exactly to test expectations and learn how things work in the real world, in this case the Wikimedia Movement. Before any intervention, I suggest we give another month to listen and observe the selected flow funding participants. TSB (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on the question proactive vs reactive:

There are two issues that hinder me from a more proactive approach:

1. Transparency. The German community is supersensitive regarding the way money finds to reach its recipient. If I would fund only such people that I chose proactively this might look like I support only my buddies and actually one of the first reactions that came up today, when I announced the Flow Funding Project in the German equivalent of the Signpost was "this is institutionalised nepotism". Certainly I will also approach people directly, who have mentioned at some point or other that they would need funding for something and I would encourage them to apply for Flow Funding and try to make everything as easy as possible for them. But I will definitely rely on an official page for applicants where all ideas or proposals are liste, those that come from themselves as well as those which I may have encouraged somewhere, in order to demonstrate that this is no mumbo-jumbo between best buddies, but an open and transparent institution. What I have said on the "proposals" page in German is mainly: tell me what you want to do, and I will translate it into English and get all the paperwork with the foundation done for you, so you have as little hassle as possible and receive the money.

2. The minimum grant of 500 US-Dollars. In my view this is way too high. Most unfunded wishes that I just stumble upon rank in the range of 25-200 US-Dollars. It is about simple stuff, such as entrance tickets, fees or pieces of equipment. Actually, if the Foundation would have allocated 500 US-Dollars in total on me with a minimum grant of 50 Dollars, this money would probably have gone already. Yet I have to bear in mind that the German situation is specific, as there are already several mechanisms in place where you can apply for grants.

Best regards,--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Asaf has expressed a key issue very well. Poupou, two responses: first, supporting "buddies" can occur whether the model is reactive, proactive, or both; second, I wonder whether FF should be a petty cashbox for individual entrance tickets and taxi fares. This kind of scattered micro-expenditure seems difficult to justify and audit for success in terms of the Foundation's strategic aims. A bigger "bundle" of small expenses, all directed towards a goal under a single theme, is easier to justify, to improve on, and to provide "lessons" for the movement. Tony (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually meanwhile I have the first project with a volume of 950 US-Dollar coming up, so maybe I should modify what I have been saying above. Given that none of the other flow funders had funded any project so far, I had assumed it would be difficult to find suitable funding opportunities, but I amy have been wrong. And I am happy to have assumend wrongly in that respect! However I do believe that there is also a need for "micro-funding" which is currently not addressed by the WMF's grant schemes as far as I can see. (I am not an expert in WMF grant policies...). Best, --Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. Since the WMF is trying to serve a global constituency, micro-grants are not a scalable focus for the WMF's work. We are glad to see that some local chapters are running microgrants programs to support their local communities, and we encourage that and, indeed, fund such programs in the (larger) grants we give chapters.

That said, we do want to challenge our assumptions and explore possible innovation, and so we are running the Participation Support Program (in partnership with WMDE), and we did decide to engage in this (FF) experiment. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Casting a wide net

Another aspect that surprises me is that the only proposals submitted so far were about the flow funder's own institution. I must repeat that my expectation of flow funders is to look beyond their own organizations (or families), to avoid Conflict of interest, as the promise of Flow Funding is the (presumed) advantage of a diverse group of trusted individuals to recognize opportunities that lie outside the network we are already reaching or working with. People's various circles, of language, culture, hobbies, alumni networks, etc., are all potentials to draw upon, to find good mission-aligned work that can be meaningfully supported with a lightweight point-and-fund grant of up to $2000. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 03:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Asaf, again I think it is a little to early to reach any conclusion, but I agree that the flow funding process should reach "outside" initiatives whenever possible. Flow Funding is a very innovative process and the select flow funding participants are in a very complex position in this pilot project. They are the first group of individuals to have autonomy to fund "outside" initiatives and they feel very responsible for this allocation of funds. I believe they first want to fund initiatives that are close to their own network so that they can test the flow funding process and guarantee the results. Perhaps with time we will reach all the "outside" initiatives we are looking for. TSB (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, the funded initiatives don't need to be totally unrelated to anything the Flow Funder ever cared about. I did explicitly say people's own circles of culture, hobbies, language, networks are fine. But the Flow Funders's own projects, organizations, employers, and families really must be out of bounds. Remember, we need to not only avoid a conflict of interest, but also, to the extent possible, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(to clarify, since at least one person misunderstood -- the heading of this section is meant to express the desired practice, not a complaint. That is, I think Flow Funders should cast a wide net.) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Matching expectations

I am curious what you (all) think about these expectations -- are they unreasonable? Am I misunderstanding the potential or promise of the Flow Funding idea? Let's try to match our expectations through open discussion on this page. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 03:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you will simply have to be patient. None of us is doing this a full time occupation, but we have to fit it in with what we already did before this came up. For the German community I can say that whenever money is involved, there is a climate of general mistrust and people are very critical about any initiative (which is not a bad thing at all!). But it makes it time consuming and sometimes nervewracking to answer all the questions and try and sort out misunderstandings or misrepresentations. But I am confident that it will work sooner than later and in any case there will be a lot of lessons learned in the end. Best,--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A proposal

Since no eligible proposals have been made so far (and only one flow funder has made any proposals at all), perhaps additional flow funders should be recruited? We can now safely assume that some flow funders just won't find interesting opportunities, and if we'd like to increase the chances of a meaningful pilot by July (prospective date of this pilot program's end), we should perhaps increase the pool of potential flow funders.

An advantage of the fact we did not give the funders the money is that the program can be run until the money in the central pool runs out, where whoever makes eligible funding recommendations while there's money left gets to play. :) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 03:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Asaf, although I suggested above to give the pilot more time before making any alteration, let's start to explore your very interesting proposal here on Meta. Do you have any suggestion on how and where to find more candidates? TSB (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

one candidate has already put his name on FF portal/Candidates. this is a (positive) side effect of the ongoing debate in the German wikipedia. Best,--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Two candidates by now, both from the German community! @TSB, I wish you would respond to their applications in some way. I don't feel competent to react. Best--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no specific recommendations, other than defaulting to an open process. I guess a call for volunteers is one way to go about it. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions raised by the German community

Hi there, some questions from the discussion about Flow Funding in the German community, which I would like to refer to you:

1. How exactly were the Flow Funders selected and why was there no election process?
2. What is the role of User:TSB? Is he a wikipedian? Is he doing this professionally or is he a volunteer?this has ben answered in the meantime--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Best,--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Answer 1) I have personally contacted all of the 2012 Wikimania Scholarship recipients (130 individuals from 57 countries) and the GAC members (13 volunteers in May 2012) to assess their interest to become flow funders. Out of this pool of highly engaged volunteers 16 showed interest, but only 10 agreed to become flow funders in the pilot project. Please find more details here.

Answer 2) I am volunteering to help coordinate the Flow Funding Pilot Project, which I suggested while participating as a member of the Funds Dissemination Advisory Group. I am a Wikimedia contributor since 2008 and I served as Wikimania Scholarship Reviewer four times

TSB (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure of private information

According to he FF template recommendation form, the legal name of the grantee is to be publicly disclosed on meta. In my view this is in contradiction to the WMF's eligibility criteria, where it says: "All grantees, including individuals, will be required to disclose their legal names, addresses, dates of birth to the WMF Grants Program, but are not required to do so publicly." In order to respect the privacy of potential grantees I therefore propose that this requirement should be deleted from the recommendation form and that the legal name should only be disclosed to WMF via email.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

+ 1, except the grantee agrees. --Alupus (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Anonymität muß möglich sein, da zum einen meiner Erfahrung nach diverse User bereits ein Problem damit haben, ihre u. U. gut verborgen gehaltene private Identität gegenüber der Foundation oder ihren Chapter gegenüber zu offenbaren, weil sie zum Beispiel aus beruflichen Gründen ihre Mitarbeit im Projekt nicht öffentlich machen wollen, aber Zweifel haben, ob dies gewährleistet ist, wenn sie diese dem doch schon großen Apparat der Foundation darlegen. Beispiele kann ich gerne eines nachreichen. Da auch Projekte denkbar sind, bei denen es nicht erforderlich ist, in die Öffentlichkeit zu treten, sollte man versuchen, diesen Wunsch zu respektieren, um möglichst vielen Interessenten den Zugang zu einer Förderung offenzuhalten.

Ein anderer Grund liegt in den gerade in der deutschen Community regelmäßig kritisch gesehen Entgegennahme von Spendengeldern. Leider handelt es sich manchmal nicht um um ein noch so hartnäckiges und tiefschüfendes sachliches Hinterfragen oder begründete Kritik, sondern um von Unterstellungen, Mutmaßungen und persönlichen Anschauungen geprägte Angriffe auch außerhalb des Projektrahmens und seiner Regulationsmechanismen auf Mitarbeiter. --Alupus (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. It is not required to disclose the grantee's legal name in public. We'll fix the form. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

fixed. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you!--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the mistake, Poupou. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 15:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

email flowfunding at wikimedia dot org is not working!

Hi there,

I have submitted my first recommendation today and have send it as advised to the abovementioned email address. It was returned with failure notice saying that the email address would not exist. Could you please sort this out and provide me with a valid address?

Thx,--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Publicity

The page doesn't state that the project is active, only that some months ago the WMF decided to start it. However, from hearsay it seems that it's indeed active. I see it wasn't announced anywhere (nothing on mailing lists except two non-announces buried somewhere[1], no links to this page except from other FF pages and one meeting log). I'd like to know more about this "dark launch" strategy: I suppose you prefer to involve people personally instead of having the usual general-public "spam"? --Nemo 08:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, the flow funding project is active, but still in pilot phase. Everything is done by volunteers with limited time available. The only exception is the transfer of funds, which is done by the WMF. If you search for Flow Funding [2] you will find more announcements, including those in other languages done by the flow funders themselves. But there is always room for improvement and you are more than welcome to help and/or share suggestions where the pilot project should be communicated. Best, TSB (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, while this is indeed far from a "dark launch", as Thomas shows, see also my comments above on my expectation that this be a proactive effort by flow funders rather than an open offering that people need to be informed about. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 16:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why far from a dark launch? There's not been any general announcement whatsoever. It's not hard to add a line to FF portal just saying "this thing is active, you're encouraged to submit proposals" (assuming it's true) and to copy it on WikimediaAnnounce with a link, so I assume it was intentionally not done. Thanks Asaf for the link; I had read that section, but my point stands: the status must be clarified on the page and an announcement should happen, even if without the "you're encouraged to submit proposals" bit. --Nemo 08:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The pilot program was announced like all other grants, in the WMF's monthly report, and see the link Thomas gave above. I'm not sure what would make someone think the FF portal is not active, but I'll point out the portal was built and is maintained by Thomas and the Flow Funders themselves. WMF only provided the text for eligibility and the procedural side. As for encouraging proposals: as my comments linked above indicate, I think the promised benefit of this program lies in engaged individuals' being able to identify opportunities for impact that would not have otherwise been noticed, or that would not have reached out to our existing funding channels, for whatever reason. Therefore, I don't think inviting proposals is the way to get added value through this pilot, and hence I have no interest in encouraging it. Every flow funder, however, is empowered to find funding opportunities in any way they see fit, so they could, if they chose, draw more attention to the program. Indeed, so could you, if you feel strongly about it. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 16:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not like all others, see for instance "[Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing the Individual Engagement Grants". I know that it's not the WMF managing the portal etc., in fact I didn't expect you to answer my questions, although your answers were helpful and indirectly suggested what the answers could be from Thomas. --Nemo 20:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Precisely like the others. NB: like other grants. The IEG is a new grants program, not another grant. The FF experiment is, from WMF's perspective, a grant, not (yet) a grants program. If and when it is shown to be a useful way of grantmaking, i.e. if the pilot succeeds, and if we decide it's a good idea for WMF to engage in that kind of grantmaking, you may be sure we will announce it like we did the IEG. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking of the "WMF's perspective". I am not saying that the WMF should have done it. I am not comparing to other WMF grants. --Nemo 10:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Namespace for FF pages in Wikipedia and the criteria for funding

I am not quite sure whether the aspect of where FF is located in Wikipedia has already been mentioned. In German Wikipedia poupou has placed the pages for the current round in her personal namespace for now. They may well remain there for the time being, but I think in the future those pages should be moved within the Wikipedia namespace. This is not a private project done by a Wikipedian. Rather, we distribute community funds to community members. Hence, the WP namespace is the proper location for this.

I also think that the criteria applied by a community member should be disclosed both in general, and for each fund provided so as to make the process more transparent to applicants and to other community members.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

From the Foundation's perspective, Flow Funders are empowered to reach their recommendations however they choose. This means they are free to reach out to potential grantees privately or publicly, and to host interim pages and discussions wherever they please (so this is just one Flow Funder's choice). Once they decide to make a funding recommendation to WMF, that recommendation is required to live on Meta, under FF portal/Recommendations, which is where the little inputbox will create the pages if the procedure is followed, and does need to include a public statement about the fit with our mission and the expected impact. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

FF portal/Proposals/Pilot/Training Librarians to become campus ambassadors

Can someone please categorize this page as needed? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since the above proposal has never been submitted, I linked it to the discussion held by flow funders here. TSB (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)