Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round 2
Looking at a few applications, I'm puzzled as to what is required. It appears that applicants were also puzzled, since they've either left the question unanswered or provided information that bears little or no relation to the linked en.WP article. Given eight first-rank and some 40 second-rank terms, how much detail is expected? Should applications directly address the terms? The goals? Tony (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Tony. By adding the language around "SMART" criteria, we had hoped to better understand how proposed activities were indeed specific and measurable, as well as attainable, relevant, and time-bound. As you mention, SMART criteria are often used in conjunction with objectives and goals. By using the criteria for activities, we had hoped to ensure that activities were not simply listed, but that they should be quite specific and related to the objectives. The FDC also wanted to emphasize the 'measurable' part of SMART; it is important to indicate how the activities included will be measured and what metrics will be used.
- Like you, though, I don't think we asked the question perfectly this round to get the level of detail that was desired. We certainly weren't looking for 40 criteria to be addressed for each activity proposed, but we were hoping for some level of detail to understand how entities were approaching their plans. I suspect we have some work to do to be clearer in the proposal questions to ensure we get the information needed. We will certainly be reconsidering how we frame this question. Another proposal revision process will be taking place after this round to continue to improve our process. If you have any suggested language to propose, I'd be grateful to hear it. Thanks again for your comments and attention! KLove (WMF) (talk)