Grants talk:APG

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from FDC portal/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Annual Plan Grants process is meant to be community led, and the community is encouraged to actively participate. If you have a question or feedback that you would like to provide,


Grants:APG outdated[edit]

"will be submitted by eligible organizations by 1 October 2014!" --Nemo 07:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing template[edit]

I hope it's ok: Template:2014-2015 round2. --Aubrey (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding data guidelines?[edit]

I appreciate the reduced reporting requirements for next year - that seems much less duplicative of the work that already goes into annual reports!

Have people considered detailed guidelines on how and where to share data about programs? Making machine-readable data about programs highly visible — in a continuous stream, where appropriate — has many advantages. It can provide a feedback loop while programs are in progress, and allows for others to analyse and support the work. It is also something that benefits from attention at the start of a project; once it is over this may no longer be possible.

Providing structured data access also doesn't seem to be a standard part of current annual reports, so guidance would be helpful. (This is true of the WMF also: while the Foundation has a basic dashboard that offers some reader and editor data, that does not provide structured data for many core projects; including core priorities such as speed, quality and participation by underrepresented groups.) SJ talk  16:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I learned about Gangadevi and her book Madura Vijayam - Madurai Sultanate page ! Wikipedia/Media can make the book available ?

what kind off subject can be made after these words?

FDC proposal/Program should not be a container template[edit]

Hi,

One of the most infuriating thing I find with the APG forms is how {{FDC proposal/Program}} is a container template − the all content is supposed to go in the |overview= parameter. This disallows − probably among other things − one of the most useful features there is when it comes to editing long documents, section editing.

On User:Jean-Frédéric/Sandbox, I have shown how using two templates − one header and one footer − allows the same formatting without losing section editing. I would strongly suggest altering the form preload Grants:APG/Proposal form preload/7. I will probably be bold and do it myself unless there is opposition.

(cc @KLove (WMF), Wolliff (WMF):)

Jean-Fred (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Fred, I'm really sorry that the APG forms are frustrating. You are welcome to go ahead and adjust the preload as you suggest; I don't think it will break anything. :) thanks for being bold and pitching in here. Warmly KLove (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift answer KLove (WMF)! I went ahead and changed the preload. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, my friend! KLove (WMF)

FDC proposal form vX preload[edit]

Hi,

If one tries to create a proposal form from the entity hub, eg Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round2/Wikimedia Norge, it loads the following, which uses Grants:APG/Proposal form preload/5 (to which Grants:APG/Proposal form preload currently redirects). However, I believe we are now at v7 Grants:APG/Proposal form preload/7.

Could this please be clarified as soon as possible? One would not want to use outdated forms for their proposals...

(cc @KLove (WMF), Wolliff (WMF):)

Jean-Fred (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, dear Jean-Fred. Great catch. Turns out those hub pages are using an outdated hub page template, and thus linking to an older version of the preload. While all four organizations have created their proposal forms already, I notice most of them have not yet added most of the content. Therefore, what I will do is Email the group of applicants today to ask them if they are OK with me manually switching over the information they've put in the old forms to the new forms. If they are, this should solve the problem and given that we have only four applicants in this round I think it is do-able. I just don't want to do it before consulting them, as it might be rather shocking. Will post update here once I confirm. Thank you so much for catching that. While I don't think it would be the end of the world to use the old form, the new form is actually easier, and it will be more comparable to what Round 1 organizations used. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)