Grants talk:Conference/Europeana/Scholarships for 2017 European GLAM coordinators meeting

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

Grant committee members decisions[edit]

Grant Committee members who support this request[edit]

  • Support Support My concerns was solved by questions from my colleagues Mervat and James. Good luck in the meeting! --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions from James Hare[edit]

Thank you for this proposal. A meeting focused on key GLAM players could be very useful, and I appreciate that you've focused your invitation criteria based on prior experience.

  1. I recommend surveying the participants at the meeting, including before, immediately after, and at some interval in the future. It's always hard to "prove" that meetings and conferences instigate progress in the movement, especially when the people involved are motivated anyway, but getting data on the connections made in the meeting and ideas and plans developed could help get some insight as to what value people derive from these meetings. With a small meeting attendance, that should make it easier to gather responses.
    1. We wont be doing a formal survey beforehand about what they hope to get out of the meeting etc (especially because the schedule itself is being built to accommodate people's specific requests/suggestions) but we certainly can/should do one afterwards. Wittylama (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Any particular reason for excluding APG or SAPG recipients? Thinking of SAPG recipients in particular, although their chapters are better funded they're still funded on restricted grants and may not have funds to attend meetings.
    1. All, or at least nearly all, the relevant organisations (european Affiliate orgs with GLAM projects) have know about this event for long enough to to put it into their annual plans for funding. Several did so overtly (listing it specifically their APG document) and several others integrated it into the broader 'travel', 'conferences' or 'staff costs' subheading. The primary audience of this event is groups that are already sufficiently professionalised (in the sense of organisation, not the sense of 'having employees') to have steady annual planning cycles and the ability to approve project such as this. It is not an 'outreach' or 'for beginners' event. However, we thought it would be good to have the scholarship option for those minority of affiliates which are sufficiently professionalised in their activities but not yet sufficiently stable in their annual funding cycle. Wittylama (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. You mention Wiki Loves Monuments in particular – are you coordinating with the WLM group that I believe is also having its own meeting? Is there common attendance between the two meetings?
    1. There is probably a common attendance for some people, but we have not overtly asked attendees if they're going to both this and the WML meetings. Certainly there IS an overlap of Affiliates involved in GLAM and WLM actions and we have a session in the proposed schedule about mapping out the 2017/18 collective activities - of which WLM and the 'European Year of Cultural Heritage' are big potential items. Wittylama (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. You also mention WikiCite – what is your coordination with that effort? Is there a reason to discuss WikiCite independently of the upcoming meeting in Vienna? (Disclosure: I am involved in WikiCite and plan on attending that meeting.)
    1. User:Astinson (WMF) will be leading a presentation about WikiCite and Structured-Data-On-Commons projects, as well as we have several participants knowledgable of the activities in that regard (including reps from WMDe and the WikiSource usergroup, and me.) Wittylama (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. I love the documentation sprint – once you've done it, please write a learning pattern about it.
    1. Sorry to say but that proposed item has not made it into the draft schedule for the thursday/friday, although it might become an item for the saturday workshop sessions. Instead of a documentation sprint (for writing documentation) our plenary session on the first day is a documentation and workflow mapping sprint. By which we mean to try to collate what kinds of documentation and workflows we all know of/use across all the different places and wikis and actually list them in one place! Hopefully that will identify duplicate and missing items (and, we suspect, be more productive than trying to write documentation in a group setting). Wittylama (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

harej (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions from Mervat Salman[edit]

Hello Team; @Wittylama: I found that the proposal is well detailed, and with the points that James highlighted above, everything will be clear enough. I have two simple questions here.

  1. In detailing the scholarship budget, you mentioned that the total number of invitees will be a maximum of 10, while in the Measure of success paragraph you listed that the Total # of participants > than 2015 edition (which was 15).
    1. That total number refers to the number of attendees of the event, not the number of scholarship recipients. We already have ~20 people signed-up to attend, and several others who would be recipients of the scholarship if the grant is approved. The 2015 edition of this event had no scholarships available so there's no comparison possible to the number of recipients this time. Wittylama (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. The Total amount requested from the Conference and Event Grants program is €7,000 ($7,270 USD), but I thought it might be a bit more than that (nearly $7500), I am afraid you may want to count an amount for emergencies or for the rapid change in the exchange rates.
    1. Given the delay in processing this grant it is highly unlikely that we will come close to being able to offer all 10 scholarships. We have 4 'ready to go' applicants, and perhaps some other people will request to take it with less than a month until the event. Moreover, as we've said to the grants department, we needed to send out physical letters singed by UNESCO management this week (actually, last week) to be allowed into the building... so it's vey hard at this late date to be able to add any more people. This is most disappointing. However that does at least mean we are not going have any problem staying underneath the maximum budget! Wittylama (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. As UNESCO is playing a great role in the European GLAM Projects and they are coordinating this meeting, how would you share the experience with other wikipedians interested in GLAM? How can they benefit from UNESCO's willingness of boosting the GLAM Projects?
    1. That's a question in particular for User:John Cummings (as the UNESCO WiR) but we do hope to try and film the presentation sessions (not the discussions) to put them on commons, and we will - like the 2015 edition - put any documentation we create during the event on Meta too. Wittylama (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As a member of the Wiki Conferences Grants Reviews Committee, I totally support this meeting and I don't find any results for not approving this grant. All the best. --Mervat Salman (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks @Wittylama: