Grants:PEG/FF portal/Questions about flow funding
General Questions on Flow Funding
- To what extent is it our responsibility to seek out projects that are deserving these funds vs. individuals/organizations approaching us directly about the opportunity? I very much prefer the latter. Those who seek funds are more likely to "need" them. If we go out hunting projects individually, this is likely to introduce bias, limit the diversity/scope of projects, and may incentivize gaming the system (i.e., people asking for money for projects they would have done regardless). West.andrew.g (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- To that end, how should we publicize this opportunity? My first thought was to publish this on [wiki-research-l] and in our respective editing communities (village pump, et al.). Sould we be cautious about aiming too broadly? If I wanted funds, why would I seek flow-funding instead of other grant channels the WMF offers? Answering that question may help us better target the desired audience. West.andrew.g (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just a comment regarding how I understood my personal contribution to this initiative, and its potencial: I think FF is a different way to distribute funds, to other people that maybe is not present in any of the WMF official channels. Here in Argentina is easy to think about a lot of initiatives related to strategic topics for WMF (gender gap, education, elderly people, GLAM, etc) that are not even aware about WMF projects, in order to make a proposal for a "official" grant channel. I'm thinking of myself mainly as a "link" among WMF projects and this kind of initiatives.--Lpagola (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- If someone finds the FF portal and submits a proposal at random, what happens? Does the proposal get assigned to a particular funder? Do we do this internally, or is this a choice they should make explicitly? Might it be helpful to have a page that list our areas of expertise? If one flow-funder rejects the idea, would a proposer be allowed to attempt with a different one? West.andrew.g (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Some answers, but everything is always open for discussion
- The Flow Funding portal, and especially the proposal submission button, still need a lot of development. I count on everyone's support to adjust and adapt the content and the structure of the portal according to our needs. Please edit!
- Flow funding members can support initiatives that they seek out or that approach them. Both ways are possible. It is up to each flow funding member to choose the best strategy to identify and support initiatives aligned with the Wikimedia movement strategic goals. Once the initiative has been identified, flow funding members are expected to share a description of the initiative and the desired outcomes on this portal.
- Flow funding members are selected because of their contribution to the Wikimedia movement. They have autonomous decision making power to allocate funds to initiatives that they believe in. This approach certainly introduces bias towards specific topics or areas, but it also helps the Wikimedia movement to support initiatives identified by knowledgeable volunteers. In the long term, we will be able to outreach to a greater number of initiatives by increasing the number and the diversity of flow funding members.
- In order to increase accountability and knowledge sharing, each flow funding member will openly report back on her/his flow funding experience and on funded initiatives’ impact. Funds will be directly transferred from the Wikimedia Foundation to initiatives identified by flow funding member and transactions will be transparent and accessible to the Wikimedia community to appraise and comment.
- Some of the differences between Flow Funding and other Wikimedia grants channels are summarized here
Specific Use-case Questions
- As a flow-funder I would like to support one or two librarians who would spend time over the early summer familiarizing themselves with the Wikipedia editing language. There are many tutorials already on Wikipedia that they can through, but I am wondering if the online training for Ambassadors is in place yet? Also, what are the current requirements to becoming an official campus ambassador?
- I realize that Flow Funder's are not permitted to fund their own projects or those of relatives. I'd assume this also applies to own's own lab, research group, business group, etc. Is it permissible to side-track such conflicts-of-interest by directing grant requests to an alternate flow funder? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- In this Pilot phase, every flow funding member should challenge, discuss, adapt and test every possible way of using the flow funding model to support Wikimedia's projects. At the same time, together with the other flow funding members, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community we will evaluate how each approach has increased the risk of gaming the system. In the situation described above, I personally prefer flow funding members to fund their own projects during the pilot phase than to try to partially side-track conflicts of interest. In all cases, our goal is to be 100% transparent and to engage both the international and local Wikimedia communities to evaluate the Flow Funding model. TSB (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Next Online Meeting
I would like to suggest a meeting on IRC with all flow funding members to discuss the Pilot Project and funding opportunities identified so far. Would you be available Thursday, February 14, at 1PM (GMT)? TSB (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:West.andrew.g -- Done -- It will be 8AM here, but it is on my calendar.
- User:Lpagola Thursday is not a good day for me, it's the day I'm at university, usually with meetings in the morning. I'm not sure if I will be able to join the meeting. Sorry! Please consider scheduling other week day!--Lpagola (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- unfortunately not, because I will be at work. weekend would suit me better.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can probably make it either of those days. Perhaps sending one of those doodle things to the list would help. --Solstag (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer some time in the evening, if that is possible? Doodle seems like a good idea!--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can be able to make it each of these days. What is the hashtag of the channel indeed?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Either day would work for me. It will be 7 am my time.IbrahimPsy111 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Following Solstag's suggestion, I used doodle scheduling tool to help everyone choose the best date and time for our IRC meeting (hashtag still to be determined). Please indicate when you are available here TSB (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since we already have six flow funding members available, I'd like to confirm our next IRC meeting on Saturday February 16 at 5PM (GMT). IRC Freenode #flowfunding. TSB (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please find HERE the content of the IRC meeting with TSB, Poupou l'quourouce, West.andrew.g and IbrahimPsy111 that took place on February 16, at 5PM (GMT). TSB (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please find HERE the content of the IRC meeting with TSB, Thuvack, Ilario, Lpagola and Kiril Simeonovski that took place on March 16, at 5PM (GMT). TSB (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please find HERE the content of the IRC meeting with TSB, Ilario, Lpagola and Solstag that took place on April 20, at 5PM (GMT). TSB (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)