Help recruit new proposals and ideas, and spread the word about IEG and committee openings during open call periods.
Make recommendations to WMF about grantmaking practices and help improve the IEG program and committee process.
Become a project advisor. If you’ve become familiar with a project and we’ve funded it, following its progress to completion is a great way to stay involved between open call periods. Read reports, highlight results, check-in with grantees from time-to-time about what they’re producing, help troubleshoot or connect them to others if needed, etc.
Encourage Wikimedians to write up new ideas and proposals.
Define a budget and schedule for each round with community input.
Maintain program pages and information for proposers and grantees.
Provide feedback on the talk page of grant proposals in all 3 stages.
Determine and communicate eligibility of proposals.
Nudge proposals to move from draft to proposed status.
Maintain proposal pages with formatting and categorization to ensure committee has easy access to proposals with all info needed for completing review.
Prepare scoring rubric and other materials to assist with committee review.
Facilitate committee review process, aggregating scores and other info for discussion, bringing in expert opinions and information as needed.
Help communicate committee recommendations outward.
Complete due diligence on recommended grantees.
Approve and disburse grant funds.
Support grantees from onboarding through final reporting stages.
Support specialized committee roles in facilitating the grantmaking process
Skype or Google Hangout may also be considered if voice becomes necessary for reaching consensus
Some guidelines we've agreed to during the review period:
Members are strongly encouraged to communicate directly with grant proposers in the IdeaLab and proposal discussion pages, to make suggestions, to ask questions, and give feedback.
Members are also encouraged to communicate with grant proposers after grants are announced to discuss how proposals that were not selected could be improved or to share revision suggestions if the proposal may be submitted in future rounds.
Active committee members should not communicate with recused members or grant proposers regarding private committee discussions about specific proposals during the scoring and recommendation periods.
WMF grantmaking staff, with the assistance of the committee, will post a one-time release of aggregated scores and comments after the scoring phase has concluded.
conflict of interest guidelines
The committee handles conflicts of interest from active members who submit proposals as follows:
Members may continue to serve on the committee during a round in which they have submitted a proposal by continuing to participate in public discussions and other on-wiki activities.
Members who have submitted a proposal will recuse themselves from all working groups that formally review proposals in the same category during that round.
Members who have submitted a proposal may continue to serve in a working group reviewing a category of proposals for which their own proposal is not included.
Members who have submitted a proposal will recuse themselves from the final deliberation and recommendation of all proposals when their own proposal has moved from a working group to the all-committee shortlist.
Committee members and WMF grantmaking staff who take on a role of advisor to the point of becoming a champion for any given proposal should recuse themselves from the process of reviewing or giving final approval on the proposal.
Committee recusal includes abstaining from scoring and formally recommending proposals, and removal from the committee mailing list and any other private channels or documents in use throughout the formal review period.
Committee members should follow the WMF Conflict of Interest Guidelines, which is currently in a draft form at Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest. Any potential or perceived COIs must be first and foremost disclosed proactively to the Supervisor of the allocation of funds. The Committee must be informed of any recusals that take place, but not necessarily of the reasons involving them.
Give feedback and ask clarifying questions to help improve proposals and projects for which funding is sought. It would be rare for a submission to be absolutely perfect from the start. Some may need tweaking to become really good usable project plans, and we can help nudge them in the right direction. Point proposers to the Proposal guidelines and other documentation when needed.
Encourage good ideas to move to status=PROPOSED before the deadline for each round.
Ensure that sufficient information is provided and that goals and estimates are realistic and well-defined. If scope or budgets need to be adjusted up or down, the appropriate time to request this is before a project is recommended for a grant.
Check on the community discussion around each proposal. Make sure community notification happened. If not, suggest or help grantees to do so.
Encourage proposers to be bold, experimental & aim to have a targeted impact. In IEG, we believe it is ok to fail, as long as we learn something new from each attempt.
Remember that submitting a grant proposal can be intimidating for people! Please be kind as well as honest in your feedback :)
Step 1: Prepare for review.
When: from when the working groups form until the end of the comments period.
Join a working group based on your area of interest or expertise.
Familiarize yourself with the set of proposals your group will be responsible for reviewing. Read the proposal and its associated discussions. Ask clarifying questions or make suggestions on the talk page to improve the proposal.
Check that relevant communities have been notified, budgets make sense, and so forth.
Do any necessary background research to help you learn more about the project plan. If you feel additional expert input is needed to help evaluate a proposal, let IEG program staff know.
Read the proposal and its associated discussions one more time to refresh your memory.
Continue to ask clarifying questions or suggest changes on the proposal talk page as needed.
Reach out to your fellow working group members to discuss proposals as needed (can use any communication channels of the group's choosing)
Use the ieg review system to individually submit your scores and comments for each proposal assigned to your group, based on the rubric below. Indicate in your review whether you would recommend funding for it, given the limited budget described.
Each working group may want to check in as a group mid-way through the scoring period. Staff can assist with scheduling if needed.
Step 3: Synthesize scores and feedback for proposers.
Review the aggregate scores (link will be sent via email by Staff) for your working group.
Work with your group to prepare a the feedback template for each proposal the group is responsible for.
On the template, list the proposal's score for each criteria.
Also on the template, synthesize the group's comments into a list of qualitative feedback. Remember that this feedback will be shared with proposers, so it should be clear, concise, thorough, honest and kind.
Support the Review Coordinator to ensure each feedback template is posted to the proper proposal's talk page
Step 4: Deliberate to form a committee recommendation.
Before this step begins, staff will share with the committee a ranked list of proposals based on the committee's scores, and then performs due diligence on all proposals that have a majority of individual recommendations from committee scorers.
Staff will post the outcomes of WMF's due diligence on the IEG wiki, sharing what's been learned about each proposal along with staff suggestions.
Contribute your thoughts to the discussion either on the IEG wiki, committee mailing list, or by joining the group deliberation Skype call.
Once the Review Coordinator closes the discussion and we've reached consensus, celebrate with great joy, because we're ready to announce a new round of grantees!
The committee may continue to post feedback, questions, or requests on proposals throughout the review period. Plans can be updated and improved in response to committee requests until a project is selected for funding.
The committee may decide to recommend a proposal as-is, or make recommendation contingent on some adjustments (to scope, budget, etc). Comments should be including in the scoring form and/or on the IEG wiki discussion page to reflect any contingent recommendations.
eligible proposals & working groups
We organize into working groups to review sets of proposals with a common methodology. Join a working group!
Proposals eligible for review in the current round: