Grants talk:APG/Sample letter of intent

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Raising a question: what is the intent behind the prohibition on lobbying? If the intention is not to prohibit lobbying by EE's, then it may be better to simply state that dollars are general support and not prohibit spending $$ for lobbying. Technically speaking, US NPOs that engage in actual lobbying must demonstrate a % of budget that isn't lobbying dollars, against a % that is. This is more easily accomplished if all the budget is unrestricted. It gets trickier if lots of the budget is restricted. It may be that WMF wants to curtail lobbying, but if the purpose is more nuanced (wants to prohibit partisan support) then perhaps say instead that EEs not engage in political activity. WMF should understand its intention and the implications in different countries. Would be good to do a close read of the US NPO tax rules which define important terms such as lobbying, grassroots lobbying and political activity. A few reources and Chayling (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an LOI for program, not general operarting support. Chayling (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Draft_FDC_Proposal_for_the_Board#Some_notes_and_remarks_from_Pavel (the "Other" section, 3rd bullet point) for some discussion on this topic. --Tango (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@Asaf: Has anyone yet applied for a lobbying Grant as well as a non-lobbying FDC allocation? SJ talk  02:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal Information[edit]

Although I understand the rationale behind requesting personal information such as date and place of birth, I also think that a lot of people (myself included), will find this quite intrusive. Can someone clarify exactly who will have access to this information, what it will be used for, and what steps will be taken to keep it private? Craig Franklin (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC).

My understanding is that it will be used to check you aren't on any lists of people US companies (and non-profits) aren't allowed to do business with. I would expect the WMF to keep it confidential in accordance with their privacy policy, but in a lot of countries (including the UK, but I don't know about Australia) this kind of information is public anyway. You can get all sorts of personal information about WMUK board members (and former board members, such as myself) on the Companies House website. This kind of intrusion is just something you have to accept if you want to hold this kind of position. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Tango is correct. One major requirement is to run names of organizations and individuals against the US government's SDN database, which is public and transparently queryable. The identification will be handled strictly by FDC staff (and until that staff is hired, by WMF staff currently filling those duties) and stored securely on limited-access storage (i.e. not accessible to other WMF staff or anyone else). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It is annoying; but made more stark because there's little other content requested :) What about asking for a one-paragraph overview of the plans attached to the amount? SJ talk  02:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Eligibility Criteria[edit]

The list at the bottom should match the list on our eligibility pages. It should for example mention a signed non-expired agreement with the Foundation, which in turn implies the entity is incorporated. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the time between Letter of Intent and Full proposal[edit]

I think I understand the intent behind the letter of intent, but I am not sure about how the time between the letter of intent and the full proposal is going to be used. So here are two questions to start with:

  • Will FDC members reach out to letter of intentees (;) well, organisations that send a letter of intent) to help them/advise them about putting their proposal together?
  • Will FDC staff do the same?

Thanks notafish }<';> 12:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for asking this question. Yes, the FDC staff will begin a dialogue with the interested entities through the LOI process. We will work with those who express interest and answer questions well ahead of the proposal deadline. Our goal is to have a meaningful dialogue with all entities ahead of time to understand plans and proposal goals. We want to avoid any miscommunications about the proposal and the process. I do not anticipate that the FDC members reaching out directly to the "intentees" (great word, btw!) in this process in the same fashion, though of course they would be most welcome if they are able to attend particular events like the IRC chats. Let me know if you have further questions! KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Katy for your answer. To be honest, I was playing with the idea of something along the line of "adopt a grant request", where an FDC member would somehow be "responsible" for a grant request, as an idea how FDC members could get involved early on. I'm extremely interested to see how this LOI thing plays out. I think it is very important to accompany people as early as possible in the process, among others to make sure that their request does not fail because of misunderstandings about the process. Wait and see :) notafish }<';> 22:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi again! Apologies for the delay in responding. I didn't get a notification, and I just came by to check if there was any followup. :\ I'm glad you see the potential for the Letter of Intent process, and I too hope that it can help reduce any misunderstandings about the FDC process. What you propose is an interesting idea that I will pass along to the FDC. This idea would certainly be challenging to scale, but is something they can consider. Thanks for the suggestion. KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just writing an email about adopting grant requests. I could also imagine community adoption, since I think community groups can be quite effective at helping one another with this. But I like the idea, whoever does the adopting. SJ talk  02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)