From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Topics for Discussion Simple APG Committee 10 November, 2015 - 20.00 UTC

Welcome new committee members!

Please visit the new workroom:


5 minutes - warm up and tech check

Introductions & Orientation - 20 minutes Review of responsibilities Discuss how to address conflicts of interest or potential bias - guide to be published this afternoon Friendly space expectations: Timeline for current round 2. Review - 15 minutes Phase 1: guidelines for early review & suggestions State of current applications Housekeeping - 5 minutes Communications Scheduling norms Teams and task forces

Committee responsibilities[edit]

We have suggested these to get started. They are open to discussion / definition / redefinition by the committee. We can work on this together on the discussion page on Meta.

Link to workroom:

Suggestions. Provide suggestions about applications, and engage in conversations with applicants early in the review process. Process is iterative, intended to be more flexible than APG process.

Assessments. Assess final applications together with other committee members. Committee members can make individual assessments then convene to compare and make decisions together.

Feedback. Give written feedback to applicants about the final decisions. Ways: formal written feedback, conversation with grantees.

Engagement. Engage with grantees throughout the life of the grant. Role of the simple APG committee will be better defined in the future, depends on the committee time commitment.

Development. Provide input to develop the simple annual plan grants process together with WMF. The committee will have an opportunity to influence the process.

== Friendly space expectations We expect you to consider the following when engaging in discussion: Context and background: Do I have a basic understanding of the context and background of the discussion? Have I made sure to educate myself before asking others to explain things to me? Cultural differences: Am I being sensitive to cultural differences and language barriers? Experience: Am I considering and not making assumptions about a person’s level of experience (with the Wikimedia movement, grantmaking, project management, etc.)? Support: Am I framing my comments/questions in a supportive, concise and constructive way, offering suggestions for improvement? Impact focus: Are my questions focused on the impact of the project proposal or am I overly focused on minor details? Once you have considered these points, please feel free to participate in grants discussions. If you would prefer, contact a member of the Community Resources or Learning and Evaluation teams who can help communicate your concerns.

Conflicts of Interest[edit]

Staff will contact each of you privately with a questionnaire during this week.

When making a decision for the committee, members should put this duty first, ahead of their own interests or those of another group with which he or she is associated. At a minimum, a committee member should disclose potential conflicts of interest, and he or she may not participate in any discussion or decision where a conflict exists. If there is an appearance of a conflict, or potential for a conflict, it should be discussed with Wikimedia Foundation staff.

You should actively disclose if you have a conflict of interest, or if there is risk that your decision will be perceived as a conflict. You must actively disclose the following situations:

  • If you are receiving payment or anything of value from a person or organization that may benefit from your allocation of movement resources;
  • If you are allocating movement resources that may benefit you, your affiliated organization or employer, your family member, spouse, partner, business associate, significant other, close friend, or their organizations or employers; or
  • If your allocation of movement resources could be perceived by others or the public as improper (even the perception of a conflict or unauthorized personal gain needs to be disclosed).

You should refrain from influence over any decisions where you will receive any personal benefit, or where your relationship with the decision may compromise your independent judgment. If you have a conflict of interest, you must excuse yourself from the discussion, and abstain from the decision. To manage a conflict, you must abstain in the following types of situations:

  • If the decision will result in personal gain (including favorably impact your own financial interests, the private interests of others with whom you have a financial relationship, or another organization which you are a part);
  • If the decision relates to any chapter or affiliate organization of which you are a part; or
  • If you received compensation or payment in any form (including travel or lodging expenses), unless otherwise permitted by the FDC or Board of Trustees.


1 October - 31 October. Eligibility & applicant discussions with staff. 1 November. Application deadline. 10 November - 30 November. Questions & Suggestions. 10 November: First committee meeting. To review the process. 16 November: Analysis of applications is available to the committee. Week of 16 November: Call to discuss application input. (Optional) Week of 23 November: Calls with applicants. Prepare and aggregate assessments. (individual assessment to be done by committee members) 1 December - 15 December. Decisions. First week of December: Call to discuss aggregate results. Second week of December: Call to discuss final decisions. 15 December (or earlier): Decisions are made. 15 December - 1 February. Applicants become grantees. February. Pilot review process (optional for committee members).

Guidelines for early review[edit]

Key questions

  • Based on the results the applicant is likely to achieve, should we fund this application for the amount requested?
  • If we should not fund the application as it is, what changes would make us more likely to fund the application?
  • What additional information do I need to make a good decision about this application?

A few suggestions for communicating during the early review phase

  • Be polite and respectful, and keep the grants space friendly. Try to be even "nicer" than that...
  • Consider introducing yourself, if you don't yet know an applicant.
  • Include positive feedback alongside criticism, and acknowledge the work and achievements of applicants.
  • Consider asking questions before commenting, if important information seems missing. Assume good faith and an info missing is due to inexperience.
  • When you make critical comments, be specific and constructive, so your comments can help the applicant improve.
  • Address big ideas first, so applicants can work on revising the details after big ideas are improved.
  • Stay focused on programs and results, rather than focusing the conversation on financial details.

State of current applications[edit]

  • We asked applicants to submit applications by 1 November.
  • We are expecting five applications in this round: WMIN, WMES, WMEE, Shared Knowledge (Macedonia), WMCZ
  • Process and application forms are new, and applicants have had some challenges.
  • Eligibility discussions prior to finalizing applications are over.

Communications and scheduling[edit]

  • Please review the upcoming meetings in the workroom and respond to Doodle polls to get meetings on the calendar in advance.
  • Please Email staff with communications and scheduling preferences.
  • Preferences among video conferencing tools: Skype, Google Hangouts.
  • Email group for private communications, Meta for public information. Do we need another channel?

Teams and task forces[edit]

What teams or task forces does the committee need?

Additional Topics[edit]

Q: what's the division between FDC and S.APG? 100k$ limit, but some proposals that would undergo APG process are more fit for this process.

Q: Is the committee public (i.e. do grantees know who we are)? Not yet, many options to make this happen.

Q: Who on the Grants team is involved? Winifred, Katy - - and Siko will be examining closely

Suggestion by Sydney: use the Red/Yellow/Green FDC method