User talk:R.T.Argenton

OTRS

Argenton, pode verificar a permissão da imagem solicitada aqui? Obg, CasteloBranco^msg 15:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Acompanhamento de solicitação

Boa tarde, poderia fazer o acompanhamento da seguinte permissão OTRS, é que houve outros usuários que encontraram a permissão mas não são portugueses e por isso não perceberam se a imagem foi ao não autorizada, se pudesse fazer a confirmação agradecia, as imagens referentes são: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agarra_que_%C3%A9_honesto.png e http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vai_de_Email_a_pior.png muito obrigada, Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Fellowship

Thanks for submitting a fellowship idea, Rodrigo! I just wanted to let you know that it wasn't considered for fellowship during the last open call for fellows because it was submitted after the deadline. I have posted some feedback on the idea talk page. If you would like to continue to develop the idea and be considered for a fellowship when new fellowship openings become available, please also send in your application during the next open call. Thanks again for participating! Siko Bouterse (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, do you use IRC? Would love to talk to you about Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Portuguese in #wikimedia-incubator^connect. --MF-W 18:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Individual Engagement Grant proposals due 15 February 2013

Hello R.T.Argenton! Thank you for drafting an Individual Engagement Grant proposal.

The deadline to submit a completed proposal to be considered for funding in this round is 15 February 2013.

When you have completed all 3 parts of your proposal, please submit it for review by updating the wikimarkup in your page from status=DRAFT to status=PROPOSED. If you have questions or need more help submitting your proposal, you can ask for it at IdeaLab Help. Thanks!

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, GrantsBot (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are invited on four current FDC proposals

Hello! As you may know, we've opened the community review period for the current funding round in the Funds Dissemination Committee process. I noticed that in the past you expressed interest in the FDC, since you were a nominee for the ombudsperson. I'd like to invite you to review the 4 proposals (totaling $1.3 million USD) that were submitted to the FDC, and to ask questions and share comments about those proposals. You can help to ensure that they have high potential for impact regarding the movement's goals. The FDC especially values comments by community members and will take them into account when they prepare their recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions! --Katy Love, Senior Program Officer, Funds Dissemination Committee, Wikimedia Foundation, 22:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your message to Committee members

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Posting one comment to a few user talk pages is not good. The evaluations have entered a next stage, where the comittee review ended on March 10. If you would like to contact the Committee, please see email, the members would be able to get your message and discuss it in one place.

Please don't get discouraged by that some of the points didn't get a maximum possible score, it's not an uncommon thing (for example, not all of the proposals were too good at community feedback — it is a fault of the timing, not of any candidate in particular). If you see any other weird score, please remember that none of the proposals were ideal; while it seems disadvantageous, it may as well be above the average of the proposals as a whole. Cheers, --Gryllida 01:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the score, but about the comments that you did and not make sense to me or are vague comments that do not help improve the project, or I had to explain what you questioned... And since you do not have a communication channel to open a dialogue I had to go ask each of you to look at the comments. If you do not want to answer, okay, just think weird not having dialogue before, nor during, nor after the evaluation. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 01:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts to add to here:

• I attempted to keep the discussion in one place, and moved your reply here.
• The link 'not' leads to is the principle, it's not what I classify your actions as.
• This is the first Grants round. The problem you're seeing unfortunately hit all the grantees, not just you. Several grantees voiced the need for communication after aggregated feedback of the committee and before the results are final. This is something the committee would definitely take notes of and improve for a next round.
• I forwarded your comments to the mail address I mentioned; they're already available for discussion and someone would be back with you to read and discuss your comments on the proposal talk page soon.

--Gryllida 02:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to let you know that the Committee has discussed your request for more feedback. I don't have enough time tonight to respond in detail but I want to let you know that your concern has been heard. I will post a longer reply after I've had a little more time to think about how to respond. Other committee members may respond also. Thanks for your patience. --Pine^✉ 05:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Let me talk a bit about our process. We were somewhat rushed in this round and I think it will help in future rounds if we have more time, before scoring begins, for Committee members and the community to talk with people who are proposing grants. This issue is already being discussed here and I'd invite your comments in that discussion. I agree it would be helpful to have more opportunity for communication between grant proposers, the Committee, and WMF.

My personal opinion is that the time for discussing "final submissions" with the Committee in public should end when the scoring process starts. One reason for this quietness is to decrease the possibility that a grant proposer will make changes or important disclosures about their grant proposals after scoring has already started. The Committee members are all volunteers with limited time, and we found it difficult to get enough members to each score enough of the proposals to get scores that we felt are valuable enough for the Committee as a whole to use during the recommendation phase.

We are now in the recommendation phase. The Committee is talking amongst ourselves and with WMF about which projects we will recommend for funding, after taking into account the scores and comments that Committee members made on each proposal as well as input that we receive from WMF.

At this point in time, I feel that the Committee shouldn't be publicly discussing the scores that were made public. However, after the March 29th announcement about which grant proposals have been funded, I think that would be a good time to resume discussions about the merits and scores of specific proposals. Proposals that aren't funded can be re-submitted in the next round, hopefully taking into consideration any feedback that is received from WMF and from the Committee.

I realize that I am talking only about process at this time, and I'm not discussing the specifics of your proposal. I hope that you understand the reason that I'm not discussing the specifics of your proposal at this time, but I will be happy to discuss them with you after the funding has been announced for this round.

I welcome any further questions about our process. Also, after the March 29th announcement I hope that we may have some time when we can discuss the specifics of your proposal.

Let me be clear that I am speaking only for myself. The Committee doesn't have a policy that applies to the timing of this kind of communication, and other Committee members may want to also comment. --Pine^✉ 04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey too. I want to second what Pine stated above. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, but I still wanted some clarification on the metric.

For example, this project received 3 points in the "E" criteria, ok? The same score of "my" project, but with a half of the endorsements, and there is only one Portuguese supporting the project, ok. This received no support, and also had the same score... I can spend the day giving other examples.

This, this, received less support, but a high score.

So I look at these numbers and get confused, because they do not seem correct. So I'm wondering about the metric used, it seems to me that projects was poorly evaluated, or that you were unfair to some guys and I do not like this feeling.

And there are clear errors in judgment of you, as I have shown you that you were wrong in the assessment, as the points 4, 5, of the Convidando Brasil evaluation, and I have not seen revaluation, or at least a "sorry, we really screwed up, but the process is that we do not have what to do after we go wrong ", or "you still wrong".

I also am a volunteer here, and I also spent a lot of time in building the project, I just wish that I were really judged for my mistakes, not by a opaque vision, without dialogue, using the excuse that you had no time, if you felt that you would not accomplish that, increase the assessment period, demanded a "alterations projects deadline ", and call more people to the committee.

And after the evaluation, you have to discuss the points and see if people changed what you raised, to really evaluate, because sometimes were just different ways to look the same point, and you are liable to mistakes,]. Your opinion can weigh heavily on the WMF decision, and they may not adopt or approve a project, by your mistake... And I am not thinking here in Convidando o Brasil (since you did not answer any of the raised points),'m thinking of Wikimedia movement, it scares me that community projects are assessed this way. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 18:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

PS:Alias​​, you should also have given feedback throughout the process of construction projects, and at least on mine, you did not, you only criticize without being able to talk, it made me sad. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on your last point, that it would be good to have more communication while proposals are being drafted and before scoring begins. We are discussing this. I think this would help us to get some of our questions and concerns addressed before we get into the scoring phase.

I won't publicly compare scores between projects at this time because that would get too far into discussing scores of specific proposals. But I will say that we're trying to take a comprehensive look at proposals, and I think WMF is too. The scores and comments from the scoring phase are starting points for our internal discussion, not endpoints.

As I said before, projects that are not selected in this round can re-apply in the next round. I think there are some proposals that have a good chance of passing if they do some modifications and re-apply, and there are other proposals that I personally am unlikely to ever support. We can talk more after the grants from this round have been announced.

--Pine^✉ 19:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I am willing to discuss your proposal in more detail if you're still interested in talking about it. --Pine^✉ 20:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding comparing scores between proposals, there are some scores to some proposals that seem different than what I'd recommend. I can't respond for other committee members. But individual scores were less important to us than our feelings about whether we'd recommend a proposal as a whole, taking into consideration our thoughts about individual scores and comments that we had. I encourage you to focus your attention at the comments that Siko posted based on the aggregated scores and comments. Regarding some of your other questions, my main concern that this proposal is attempting to be too broad. I think it would benefit from narrowing focus. You could apply for subsequent grants if you attempted one part of this larger grant scheme and that proposal succeeded. I have also asked another Committee member to comment here. --Pine^✉ 03:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Two things,

• I'm not going to go through this process again (second time), because I had the opportunity to do this program during this year, in the next year and at the end of this year I will not be open for this.
• But I am absolutely disappointed with the evaluation process, both you and WMF. The process seemed a great fallacy, and I just wish that my questions were answered, and committee do not hide, because you were responsible for judging my process, but you don't toked the responsibility for errors, different treatments and by the methodology used, whether there was one.

It is clear that most of you do not respect the decision of the Strategic Planning and had been fleeing fully of the established Wikimedia Movement values ​​such as transparency, openness... If you want to talk about the project, to improve that so maybe in the future someone has the patience to go through this process again, it's healthy that you utilize the project discussion page, this individual conversation worth anything to ameliorate the project. Thank you for giving some feedback.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 04:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Grantmaking Barnstar

	Individual Engagement Grant Barnstar
	Thanks for the thoughtful and engaged participation in IEG proposal discussions, I know it wasn't always easy, but I appreciate having your feedback throughout this pilot round! We'll look at your suggestions carefully as we improve the program going forward. Hope to see you again in future rounds, Rodrigo, and meanwhile wishing you best of luck. Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Individual Engagement Grant survey

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on Individual Engagement Grants! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the IEG program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you created an IEG grant proposal.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the IdeaLab soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Jonathan, Grantmaking & Programs, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)