Grants talk:IEG/Brazilian GLAMS Project

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Ready to propose?[edit]

Hi Rodrigo Padula and Luiz Augusto!

I am guessing from your notes in the community notification section that you do intend this proposal to be submitted to IEG this round, as your page seems reasonably complete at this point. So, I'm going to update it to status=PROPOSED for you now - this final step is a bit confusing so I'm guessing it was simply overlooked. If that was wrong and you're actually not intending to go through review during this IEG round, please just let us know and I'll change it back to DRAFT status. And either way, of course, feel free to keep updating and iterating on it in response to feedback, new info, etc. I imagine that even if you later move to PEG, your energy and thinking about this for IEG will still be useful for the project :)

Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Siko, we created that project to run on this round!! Thanks by your support, we will update and improve the proposal during the next hours, best regards ;-) Rodrigo Padula (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long term[edit]

Hi, Rodrigo and Luiz!

My question is: who (person or ngo) will operate, possess and manage such machine now and in future? I trust both of you, your commitment and accountability, the point is how to use it to empower others and expand even more our community, now and over time.

Thanks for your initiative, that's what we need. --Jonas AGX (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Jonas! I've expanded a bit the Sustainability section. Please let us know if you need any additional clarification (or tip to help the IEG committee to understand what we are planning to do). Lugusto 18:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, Lugusto. But there are some W-questions to figure out, imagine we got that scanner:
  • Where will it be hosted?
  • Who will manage (i. e. give maintence, move around) it? And who is going to be the official owner?
  • What partners we are already connected to?

--Jonas AGX (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing collections[edit]

Hi! Have you approached any rare books collections to see if GLAM partners are willing to let you handle and scan rare books with your own equipment?

Also, given that scanning is a very intensive process, how much do you think you can accomplish in 6 months, and how will you prioritize what is scanned?

Last, is it possible to partner with someone in Brazil who already has scanning equipment, or to borrow it somehow? That seems important since equipment costs are such a large part of your budget. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ocaasi, thanks for your questions!
  • One of our advisors is currently doing digitization using DIY book scanners. Their approach is very interesting and is generating very amazing results: he picked to digitize rare books from a branch library from the en:Ministry of Finance (Brazil). That Ministry and their main library is located at Brasília city, but this branch is located at Rio de Janeiro city. Despite it's very precious and relevant collection, that branch library is very apart from the main Ministry office and the main library itself. Well, you can read further details on this report in Portuguese about the branch library and whow they are trying to get better support from the visibility their collection acquired and the collection itself at Internet Archive (still ongoing effort). We are still seeing on how to help on their effort (focused mainly on ancient statistical books; maybe digitizing books from secondary subjects that he didn't digitized until now?) but their expertise certainly will help us a lot and is a first GLAM partner interested both on help us and on getting help from us.
  • We are also planning to contact more GLAMs that we known to have rare books still without scans, offering our service as free. For that we present myself (I'm finishing my Library and Information Science graduation in a very known specialized college in the GLAMs local ecosystem, founded 81 years ago. This certainly will not magically open doors to us (the mostly known rare books thief from Brazil was also a student at the very same college than me >.< LOL), so we are also planning to submit recommendation letters in behalf or from Brazil Program or from Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil or from Open Knowledge Foundation Brasil (their director is a former WMF employee and a friend of us), or even all three at same time. We also have contacts and friends on GLAMs who currently runs their own digitization efforts, but our focus is to try to approach those still unable to scan books.
  • Our draft in Portuguese have some guidance on how to priorize titles to scan, despite we ending on not translating those:
    • Titles already not available on current digitization efforts (or available with damages, such low quality or missing pages);
    • Titles on foreign languages that some Wikisource subdomain other than pt.wikisource shows interest to work on (we will poke that communities at time of partnership on each GLAM, further details on the draft page);
    • Titles that pt.wikipedia or pt.wikibooks communities may show interest to extract images or proofread texts and create or improve contents in a similar fashion than en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica (we will poke that communities at time of partnership on each GLAM, further details on the draft page);
    • Books with most cultural significance that helps to publicize both the GLAM institution and both our effort;
I think that this explanation (and some of my recent edits on the grant request page) covers yours questions. But if you have any additional questions or points to poke us, please let us known. Lugusto 22:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, thanks for your idea. In GLAM projects, one of the main tasks is find a cultural partner: is painful if you don't have a organization that helps in the search. So, if we think that you can contact one or more partners and digitalize over 1000 documents in six months, I don't like the spendings items (or budget): you enumerated all main items, but you didn't say, per example, how much travel do you want finance or why do you have international travel. Please, consider extend this section to understand why the WMF would pay to someone a travel. Regards Superzerocool (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Superzerocool, thanks for your question.
We've done the budget prospection very expensive but certainly we will not spent all that money in travelling. Don't known if you is aware on the territorial size of Brazil (we don't known exactly what GLAMs institutions will work together us) but we are also fancing some additional issues: the World Cup is causing mostly marketers increase their prices in an immoral and abusive way (their general believing is that persons from others countries are all millionaires and the local innhabitants that needs to travel from one state to another will be turn also millionaires in automagically ways) and our authorities are doing nothing because they believes that such prices increases are all ok (!). Certainly the most majority of this project will be run after the end of the World Cup, but no one knows exactly neither when the prices will start to be decreased, either on what percentage the decrease will occur.
Concerning to the international travel, it will be to the Internet Archive headquarters (in some recent edits we've made more clear for those unfamiliarity with it the expertise that IA holds on DIY book scanners)
IEG/PEG grants don't have clauses that allows requesting increase of allocated money in quick ways, and due to the details that I've gave in this message this may be necessary if we decrease our total amount requested. But in contrast requires that all not spend money gets refunded to WMF. We will be doing detailed reports on budget usage and certainly will refund any unused amount. Please let us know if you have any additional concerns. Lugusto 03:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lugusto, I forgot the World Cup and the "new prices", in Chile the air ticket to Brazil in June increased around 110% :(. You have requested the extra expenses. So, you are right: you need more money to fund the travels :). To improve the project and if it's possible, I suggest extend the budget section, because this give us a vision to understand the estimated costs: the money would not be a problem, but this item is important to IEG Committe (or other Committe). Regards! Superzerocool (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lugusto, I'm going to echo Superzerocool's suggestion that you expand your budget breakdown to include more detailed descriptions of what each item in your budget will help pay for - this will greatly help the committee during their review. The item that I'm most concerned about is the equipment purchase, so I'm going to post a more detailed comment about this in a new section below. Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to echo Superzerocool's suggestion too. I think you should detail with why you have international travelling, to where you are going and how many day you are expecting to stay. Include information about the raising of prices due to world cup it's also important to evaluate the budget properly.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility issue for listed grantees[edit]

Hi Rodrigo Padula and Luiz Augusto,

We're conducting eligibility checks on all proposals this week, and it has been brought to my attention that Rodrigo is currently working as a contractor in the Brazil Program team at Ação Educativa. I also understand that Luiz may be a (short term?) contractor on the same team as well. (For anyone reading this who isn't familiar with WMF-funded work in Brazil: the Brazil Program team was formerly directly a part of WMF via the Brazil Catalyst program, and is now funded by WMF via a partnership grant to Ação Educativa as the local organization which now houses this team).

Grants from WMF are intended to support volunteers in the Wikimedia movement, and so paid staff are generally considered ineligible as individual grantees - this helps us prevent potential conflicts of interest, and we believe it is good organizational practice. We may make some exceptions for contractors who are engaged for less than 20 hours per week (see the IEG rules for more details about this).

Although past discussions around this have focused on making this demarcation clear for WMF staff, it also applies to staff of other organizations receiving Wikimedia funds. We would not, for example, fund an IEG project where the grantee was a staff member of Wikimedia Deutschland. I've updated the text in the IEG rules to help clarify this point, because I realize this can be a bit confusing.

Because you are a paid contractor of a WMF grantee organization, I have 2 suggestions:

  1. If contractors from the Brazil Program wish to serve as advisors on the project, that is absolutely fine and would make this project eligible for either an IEG or a Project & Event Grant (PEG). I wonder if there are other community volunteers who would be interested in leading the project and taking the role of grantee? If so, and you can make changes to this proposal by Tuesday 8 April to reflect this, then we can proceed for this round of IEG.
  2. On the other hand, I wonder if it might make more sense for the Brazil Community User Group to propose this project as a Project & Event Grant. GLAM projects are exactly the sort of offline initiatives that PEGs already fund all over the world. Most of your budget request is for equipment and travel, and it doesn't appear that you're looking for funding for the project leader's time, so I expect that PEG may be able to provide the best kind of support for this project.

In either program, the staff eligibility rule will apply, so I'd encourage you to think about having another volunteer community member acting as the grantee for this project, if WMF funding is sought.

Please let me know if you have any further questions, and what you decide once you’ve had a chance to discuss it! Best wishes for you and your project, Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siko,
I'm really a contractor on Brazil Program but, as you've noticed, for a limited period of time (3 months, ending on 31 May 2014) and for exactly 20h/week. So, at least for me, this clause isn't an issue.
Rodrigo Padula is also a contractor, but with circa 30h/week and as part of the main staff on Brazil Program. At time of private drafting we discussed about compatibility issues due to that clause among others issues (such the main reason why Brazil still don't have a local chapter despite it's history for trying to form one since 2008, as you may be aware: lack of volunteers with free time to engage in long term projects in the real world) but we ended to submit the project in the current way also because all contacts required to start this project (mentioned in the advisors section) are contacts that Rodrigo knows before starting to work in Brazil Program (Rodrigo talking to them with me in a direct way is more effective than me talking to them based in previous conversations between Rodrigo and those persons presenting me. Don't know if the semantic difference between those two scenarios can be easily understood in English language as it is understable in Portuguese language, but is a significant difference).
In our view, moving this grant request from IEG to PEG will only change the budget amount we can request and remove the need to request project extension from six months to one year, getting it directly in a year fashion. As you may have also noticed, the volunteers that have signed the user group agreement endorses this project, but are unavailable to participate in a direct fashion on it. Are there any additional advantages that I can't understood if this project is re-worded as a PEG request?
BTW, Rodrigo Padula and Jonas Xavier will be attending at Wikimedia Conference next week, if you need any face to face clarifications. Lugusto 03:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Siko, as informed by Lugusto by now I'm a contractor (partial time 25-30 hours week) in charge of the local Education Program working for the Brazilian Catalyst Program. Since that proposal will be applied(if approved) during the second semester, I will have more time to dedicate to that initiative until there. Another important information is that our contract between WMF/Ação have a 10 months time frame ending in August 2014. In the worst scenario, we will have together 35 hours/week to coortinate that project with local community/user group support. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Siko mentioned PEG as a more appropriate program for this proposal mainly because you are not seeking compensation for your time. However, the point about eligibility is the more immediate obstacle to this proposal: neither PEG nor IEG will fund it as it stands, because we prefer not to fund organizations and individual staff of those organizations at the same time.
I certainly understand your explanation that you are the people most likely to get results with this plan, and if that's really the only option in terms of team composition, then the only option in terms of this grant are to wait until the grant or employment situation changes: i.e. either you are no longer employed by Ação, or the grant ends without renewing.
It is up to you to decide if it is more important to get this funded sooner or to have this run by you two at a later date. We'll understand either way. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Siko and Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants), I think that all problems/barriers can be fixed moving that proposal responsibility entirely for Lugusto, since he have a contract only until May 30 with no contractual clause pointing the renew possibility, he will be completely free to go forward with that project and proposal during the next months. Since my situation will still hazy until August 2014, I think that will be better for me to be involved only as an advisor as suggested by Siko, best regards!! Rodrigo Padula (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good. I still think PEG is a better fit for what you are proposing, and I would recommend resubmitting this as a PEG (using the PEG form). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the change to address the eligibility issue - I think that should handle the immediate issue at hand :) As for where you decide to submit it (PEG or IEG), ultimately Asaf and I have some shared ideas about this, but it will be up to you to decide. PEGs have no cap on funding, so I expect you could ask for the same amount via a PEG, and I think you may also find some helpful advisors via that grantmaking program in particular, since traditional GLAM projects are quite commonly funded there. In IEG we tend to select for online innovation and want to see you have a plan for beta testing new strategies that haven't been tried before, so that you can later enlarge them into broader programs. Regardless, now that we've solved the eligibility issue, you are welcome to see how the IEG committee scores your proposal during the review period before deciding if PEG is a better place for this project, if you like, so I leave this up to you. Best wishes, Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2014[edit]

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2014 review. Please feel free to ask questions here on the talk page and make changes to your proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2014 begins on 21 April 2014, and grants will be announced in May. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Hi Lugusto & team,

I've marked this proposal eligible, but wanted to point out 2 small pending issues:

  1. Scope for 6 months: Your goals & measures of success indicate you're planning for a 1-year project, but IEGs are supposed to be 6-month projects (with potential to renew for a second 6 months if success & need is demonstrated). So, I'd like to see what your goals & targets would look like for the first 6 months of this project. And in light of this, can you clarify which activities are in scope for the first 6 months? Finally, I'd guess that your budget request of 30,000 may also need some downward adjustment, if that budget covers a 1-year project. What is your budget request for the first 6-months?
  2. Content creation: I'm assuming actual content creation work (uploading scans to commons, etc) would be done by a team of volunteers being organized by the grantee, so that you aren't the primary content creator/uploader. I hope this is a correct understanding, if not please let me know :)

Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment purchases[edit]

We tend to avoid expensive equipment purchases in either IEG or PEG, because they involve a large up-front cost that could take many years of use in order to get a good return on investment, and after the project ends there is often no way to assure that they'll continue to be put to good use. Have you given any thought to what would happen to this equipment after the 6-month IEG project ends? Does $15,000 of equipment really seem necessary to achieve your goals in the first 6 months of a project like this, before contacts with institutions have even been made? Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also thought about PEG because for me it's not a scope of IEG: as I see, this should be presented by not individual but organization (like Wikimedia Brazil) as indivudual won't be able to keep such equipment at home and its use shouldn't be limited to some individuals, it should work for the whole Wikimedia movement in that region. As it was stated before on this talkpage, it would be nice to see what works are planned for 6 months period, how will it adjust cost of the project (as it claimed to be 1 year project, not 6 months). As an idea - is it possible to lease this equipment or buy and leaseback from any local leasing companies? That would allocate significant one-off costs to the whole period of equipment usage rubin16 (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DIY Book scanner[edit]

Seeing as how the DIY book scanner is so successful, maybe you can just go with that? The cost is much less and you might even be able to sell them directly to the institutions, so you won't even need this item on the grant proposal. Jane023 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

before the project starts[edit]

As the whole project is dependent on some roadblocks I need to ask this :) rubin16 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks rubin16 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal and the future[edit]

Hello fellows,

Thanks by all support, questions and information. We think that proposal is very interesting and a very important step to create and develop GLAM's projects and partnerships in Brazil, but we understand all barriers and difficulties to have it approved since great part of the requested budget would be used to buy an equipment(and IEG and PEGs are not the best . Since we dont have an office or a chapter to keep and maintain the equipment we understand all concerns about that proposal.

We will think more about that proposal , discuss a little bit with our advisors and try to find another way to move with that idea.

Best regards

Rodrigo Padula (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo, if no one has even enough money to make a DIY scanner, maybe you could start a Kickstarter project to gather the funding needed? Because I think the basic idea is really good, the equipment purchase is the only snag. Jane023 (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]