Grants talk:IEG/Outreach and partnership with University of Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)

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

Comment and constructive feedback about Grants:IEG/Outreach in two French speaking Universities of Belgium are welcome on this page. To do it, just click on the tab "Add topic".

Metrics[edit]

The metrics are sensible, but very broad. They seem to consider you want to develop a community of dozens of editors in these two universities.

Could we develop these metrics, with acute and numeric objectives? Here some of my thoughts and an estimate metrics proposal.

Could you also develop what partnership with which museums and libraries are you exploring? Who did you contact and what content are they offering to share? What are their technical needs to achieve that (the book scanner for example is not suitable for old manuscripts)?

For the user groups creation, a sensible metric could be for example « at least two user groups, one in each university, with at least 5 active contributors after 6 months ».

For the courses creation by teachers on Wikiversity, have you already a contact with at least ONE teacher interested to REALLY publish courses on CC licenses? As far as I know, ULB and UCL put a lot of pressure to their teachers to join the MOOC bandwagon. You need to find at least one teacher okay to contribute, so you and them are a live example of Wikiversity contribution, to inspire other teachers to join the project.

The Schedule of activities (workshop, editathlon, etc.) on Wikimedia Belgium website. should be refined in a number of workshops and editathons you want to organize. A sensible metric could for example be "at least 3 workshops, one for GLAM content, one for ..., one for ... and two editathons, one in each university".

--Dereckson (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour Dereckson et merci pour ces différents remarques pertinantes. Je vais te répondre en français puisque c'est notre langue maternel à tous les deux.
Voici donc pour répondre à tes remarques :
  • They seem to consider you want to develop a community of dozens of editors in these two universities et could be for example « at least two user groups, one in each university, with at least 5 active contributors after 6 months.
Je n'ai pas d'idée précise sur la quantité de personnes que je vais contacter ou mobiliser. Je peux juste m'engager, si le financement m'est accordé, sur quantité de temps que je pourrais. Bien sûr je pourrait comme tu le proposes, faire des estimations. Mais à quoi cela servirait-il ? A me mettre une pression inutile et risquer de produire des frustrations si jamais le « quota » n'était pas atteint ?
  • Pour la question de investigations partnership with which museums and libraries, contact with at least ONE teacher interested to REALLY publish courses on CC licenses, Schedule of activities (workshop, editathlon, etc.) on Wikimedia Belgium website et autres démarches couteuses en temps et en argent.
Je suis bénévole au sein des projets de la Wikifondation depuis plusieurs années déjà. J'ai effectuer pas mal d'actions hors ligne au bénéfite du mouvement wikimedia. Tout cela m'a déjà couté beaucoup de temps et pas mal d'argent en frais de communication et déplacements.
Tu sais très bien, grâce à nos contacte régulier lors de rencontre ou d'échange de mail, que je vis avec un budjet de 500 € par mois et que je que j'ai aussi la garde de mon enfant de 4 ans 10 jours par mois.
Cette demande de financement est une façon de mettre un terme à mon volontariat hors ligne au bénéfice de Wikimedia. Sans apport d'argent, je me limiterai à mes contributions en ligne sans plus.
C'est aussi parce que je bénéficie d'une certaine expertise au niveau de la connaissance de Wikimedia, que j'ai décidé de déposer cette demande de finacement. Le but étant ici de transformer des activités bénévoles en activités remunérées.
Dans ce contexte, je n'ai donc nullement envie, bien que cela ai du sens je l'entends bien, de consacrer du temps, de l'argent et de l'énergie pour commencer un projet sans savoir si son financement sera accepté. Si le financement est refusé, tous le temps et l'argent que j'aurai investit sera perdu et de plus les personnes avec j'aurais pris contact pour monter le projet seront comme moi, frustée tout comme moi et cela n'aura d'autre effet que d'entretenir une nouvelle image pour wikimedia. Des gens qui vienne nous voir, nous propose un tas de choses et qui finalement ne font rien.
Donc, pour résumer ma réponse à cette remarque : Oui, il y a beaucoup de chose à faire dans le cadre de ce projet, mais je ne les ferais pas en tant que bénévole, ni avant que le fianancement soit accorder.
Maintenant si tu veux t'associer au projet et faire ce travail bénévolement, soits le bienvenu ! :Ce projet est ouvert comme il est indiqué et tu as toute les qualités requises pour remplir toi même les démarches que tu souhaites dans l'ouverture de ce topic. Tu vis en Belgique francophone et tu es même globalement plus compétent que moi au niveau de la connaissance Wikimedia. Tu pourrais peut-être même accomplir toutes ces tâches plus facilement que moi. Vas y fait le, je t'en prie !
  • Live example of Wikiversity contribution, to inspire other teachers to join the project
Il y a les cours, mais aussi la recherche sur Wikiversité. Voici quelques exemple de contributeurs membres de personnels académique (ou suposé l'être) et investis dans le projet fr.wikiversité:
Ambre Troizat, Karima Rafes, Dr.mbl, RP87, Oudetbetc, TOWOU, etc.
Enfin, Mamagalubru est sans doute l'utilisateur ayant donné l'exemple le plus aboutis de l'utilisation de fr.wikiversité dans le cadre d'un enseignement académique.
Il y a aussi de nombreux étudiants universitaire inscrit sur fr.Wikiversité que tu peux retrouver au sein de cette liste. Il ne sont pas toujours très actifs, mais leurs présences spontanées encourage à croire que si une motivation leur était offerte, il pourrait d'investir plus activement dans le projet.
Bonne fin de journée à toi, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 13:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
P.-S. Dereckson : je viens aussi de trouver cette page concernant les utilisateurs Wikiversitiens venant d'universités.

Budget[edit]

I question the budget here: 7000 euros per University is an awful lot, especially for only one and a half days of work a week. I'm a big fan of education programs in general, but 7k euros per university is too much for reward, especially when much work is done (even in highly developed OECD countries) on education programs for significantly less. Kevin (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oups... Maybe be I've made a mistake in my calculation... What is your gross salary Kevin ? Or what is the gross salary of an employee in the Wikimedia Foundation ? Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 22:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not currently employed w/r/t anything involving the Wikimedia movement. I can tell you that even most Wikipedian-in-Residency positions have the WiR accepts a salary considerably lower than they would otherwise accept in order to facilitate the work of movement. I can also tell you that if I didn't screw up my unit conversions, you're asking a lot more than I was paid as UCB's WiR, that I'm aware of any WiR anywhere being paid, and more than some fairly senior WMF figures in terms of an hourly basis. 22k Euro (which is what you ask for for salary costs annualized) is about 24k USD, yes? Yet your plan calls you to work for 1.5 days per week (that is not considered halftime I would hope, even in Belgium?) That would have your salary cost at about $85 USD per hour, assuming you intend to work for 1.5 days per week, assuming an 8 hour work day, and ignoring the incidentals (some of which, like transportation, I would frankly expect you to just pay yourself if we paid you half that much.) Even if you had considerably experience with the things your IEG calls for, your costs are simply far too high; it would be better to not have the participation of these two universities than to pay the costs as you list them. Also, from experience, 1.5 days a week is simply not enough time to be effective at two universities. The commitment on the side of the universities also appears pretty low to be honest - at Berkeley I had the ability to use any classroom on our campus that was not prebooked, from our 15-20 high tech testbed classrooms, to our normal 30-40 person rooms, to 300-400 person rooms and an 800 person auditorium. I also had firm commitments to engage from quite a few professors across five departments (although an episode of severe septic shock means I haven't written my findings up yet for the community) and previous experience organizing with universities. (I also received 0 WMF or WEF funds for that project.)
Please correct me if I made a conversion error somewhere, or I misread something. As it stands though, this is too much money to spend to potentially do some good at two universities that have made what are very tentative committments, and the hourly rate you have budgeted yourself is too high, even for a country with a higher cost of living than the United States. Please correct me if I've made a major error (like misread 1.5 days as 6 days a week,) but if I'm reading this grant proposal right, it's just not something that the IEG can/should fund, especially since the results from tentative committments from two universities (and no strong administrative or professorial investment) are just not worth the grant money.
None of this is meant to be mean-spirited, just a reality check, which is one reason I am providing feedback so early in the IEG process - so that you can adjust the grant as needed, or understand on an earlier-than-scheduled final decision basis that this grant is unlikely to be accepted as is. Kevin (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
For sure it should be a misread, or misunerstood. In Belgium the minimun net salary (without sociales charges and taxes) is 1 501,82 EUR per month (janv. 2015). Less than 1000 € to live is considered like povrety. I ask for a half time job that's mean 20 hours per week. I was ready for a full time job, but for a starting project, testing with a half time job is carefull. For the rest, I just want to receive a regular salary for a regular job (in respect with Belgium laws). If you want found information on the net and rectify my budget proposition, please do it. You're welcome Kevin. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 19:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I did overlook the fact that you said one day a week at *each* university - I read that as one day a week at both universities, and half a day a week at the chapter - so that would be 20 hours a week (which is a half time job,) rather than the 12 hours a week I was initially thinking. It also looks like I was misreading your request as in euros when it in fact looks to be in dollars - that's another error on my part, for which I apologize. That'd be about $24 an hour, for which I have no issue in a country like Belgium - I would in fact support a slightly higher wage if I didn't have other issues with the grant, but for now, let's put the wage issue aside from this thread (others may bring it up) if $24/hour is something that would satisfy you. Keep in mind that IEG's are inherently unusual - most Wikimedia work, including most offline education outreach, is done on a non-compensated (or lowly compensated basis,) and most online education outreach is done on a voluntary basis. Surely, Belgium has a provision for volunteerism, although I have no issue with your currently requested wage. The volunteerism vs paid issue is something that may be brought up by others, since it tends to be a sticky one.
Currently, you have yourself scheduled as doing half a day of paid work at the chapter itself. As far as I know, there are fairly complex rules about chapters having paid staff, and I'm not sure what the current guidelines are - someone more knowledgeable than myself can surely shed more light on that issue, though. My initial question about this is: have you discussed it with the Belgian chapter? I don't see their endorsement on the grant request (though it is early still,) and surely their cooperation would be needed for that at a minimum.
To be honest, now that the budget errors that were altogether my fault are cleared up, I just have one major issue left with your request as it stands - the amount of time spent at each university, and the committment of each university to the project. Speaking from experience, one day a week a university is not a sufficient amount of time to conduct all of the activities that you plan to do unless you have extensive buyin from that university's faculty and administration, as well as a lot of experience with the education program and running editathons - and even then unless you run yourself to the bone, it'll be extremely difficult. It might be enough for some of the metrics to succeed, but with one day a university, I can guarantee that you will not succeed in getting everything done that you've intended to get done. (Do you have prior experience with education cooperation? If so, it still wouldn't be enough to get it all done, but I could see making a modified version of the grant request fundable.)
There isn't much evidence of university buy-in in your proposal. An offer to let you use a 40 seat room at one of the universities in question is an offer that many universities make to their own students. Unless you have a lot of experience training, a head start on interested professors, and prior experience in training (as an aside, on every WP I've seen the language WP with the edu extension makes for a better tool for cooperation than the language WV does,) I don't think you have the university buy-in to run a single highly successful class at either of them. Honestly, my suggestion would be to contact the chapter immediately and ask about their education plans and feelings, to cut back two university to just one, to start putting together a solid idea of how you want to go about running educational assignments the occasional editathon and picking interested professors that are a solid fit NOW (because otherwise you won't get a single class run successfully in the grant period,) or to choose to focus on library and museum cooperation and the occasional editathon at one university, to find curators who are interested in cooperating with you NOW (rather than after the grant has been selected,) and to start building a more solid plan of attack on that aspect.
My advice comes from four years of experience in the US, and I strongly suspect most of it applies to Belgium. Also, although I could see that the Belgian chapter might have need of the scanners you request, I can guarantee you that the universities you are dealing with already have the same, and although you may need librarian or curator buy-in to use them, you're unlikely to succeed without librarian buy-in anyway.
Basically, I would really strongly advise you to cut down to one university for an initial six months, cut down on your planned activities (because otherwise I guarantee you will not get them done,) ensure the Belgian chapter is on board on both you working out of their office half a day a week and on the planned equipment purchases, and to ensure you have sufficient administrative and faculty OR curator/librarian buy-in for a trial. My advice comes out of quite a lot of experience here doing quite similar work. (I'd actually support raising your wage to at least $30 usd/hour from your combined funding sources - although I will say, although I understand euro unis are different, getting a university to agree to support a fraction of your project costs is a good way of guaranteeing that you have the administrative buy-in that will let you succeed.)
Also, realize that in all likelihood there willl will be strong pressure from one community or another to check all student work for plagiarism - whether using an effective automated tool, having instructors or TA's effectively do it, or doing it effectively yourself, and that buy itself can take a lot of time. Best wishes, Kevin (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Kevin: Above, when I asked if there were already some contacts made with professors or GLAM institutes (I share your preoccupation for the "NOW" to see this project succeed), the answer were « Dans ce contexte, je n'ai donc nullement envie, bien que cela ai du sens je l'entends bien, de consacrer du temps, de l'argent et de l'énergie pour commencer un projet sans savoir si son financement sera accepté. » ("In [a context of financial hardship], I have no willingness, even if I'd understand that would be pertient, to dedicate some of my time, some of my money and some of my energy to start a project without knowing if the proposal will be or not granted.").
It seems any motivation of unpaid volunteer work of the proponent is currently extinguished, mainly for personal reasons.
What could we do to offer Lionel a plan to minimize the energy/money/time needed to make such first contacts to ensure these cooperations? --Dereckson (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussing in English for me is difficult in term of spending time and enery. So please Mister Kevin if you use simple english, it will be easier for me. In the other hand I say you thank a lot for your recomandations. Very clever. So, I will reply as complete and short as possible.
  • I've contact with the recent belgian chapter. I'm one of the founding member. And two of the tree endorsment come from this chapter membre. One for the vice president the only guy with me to be French native speaker on the actual team. We should have a board meeting to discuss the project. But Belgian chapter run actualy only with volunteers and some time it's painfull just to fix just a date for gathering ... Project based only on volunteers actions can be uncertain project to.
  • I've contact also with the Université de Louvain-la-Neuve where I'm curently studying a certificate in economical and social ethic. The tutor of my curse option is one of the most famous person in the university and he is very implicated on academic stuff. I met him every week and keep contact by mail. With him we already talked about three different concrete actions:
    • Organise even arround the ceremony of Doctor Honoris Causa in 2 of Febery where Jimmy Wales will receive the title.
    • Organise the month of contribution on march.
    • Stand up a student residencial group involve in wikimedia mouvement.
  • Add to this we can add regular workshop, editathlon, and
  • Add to this we can add regular workshop. I've meet the manager of science library wich is also an open space working. The contact was very good and he explain me all oportunity of the site showing me the differents auditorium and working room.
  • About digitalisation of library content.I've recently receive a mail form the fondator of a fablab working inside the University complex (http://makilab.org). He is intersted by the project and I've made the proposition to build with his lab an atomatic book scanner. My contact with the responsable of all labraries of the University tell me about a zénithal scanner but not an automatic machine.
  • I follow the idea of Kevin to focus on the only one university where I'm studying now. And let's down the other one where my main conctact don't look very serious.
  • About my motivation... Organize and coordonating this kind of project is a big deal. Nothing to do with editing a wikipage. Like I've juste showed, in my University, all contact are already done. What I've tried to explain to Dereckson is I don't want to go to the next step without garanty of professionalism. There no sense to edit project in academic progam or making advertising in university for workshop, evens and so on if we are not sure than some one will be garant for this. In volunters sphere there is tipicaly people started to be involved for sudenly dissipear when it's time to act. That's why I'm thinking about a employment contract for put professional garanties on a serious project.
  • I'm not crying for money even I'm living with 500 € per month with a kid 10 days per week. I'm happy like that. Free like a bird. Waching contemporain slaving organisation arround me. Definetly, I prefer to be volunteer than employed, no boss, no obligation, no contract. But suproting this project will be a real job. Full of stress and contraints. Also this adventure will engage the reputation of wikimedia movement on a very specific environment of university. And the issue of this experience can be determinent for the futur. That's why I think contracting some one to do this job can be a garanty of success at least of professionalism that meens basicaly, capacity, ponctuality, respect of engagment and shedule.
  • This project is open. Every on like Dereckson or M0tty can joint it and do all or a part of tasks like volunteers or even like employees. I'm not here fighting to get a job. That's has to be clear.
  • Now, I inform you than I've spend more than two hour for translate, understand, find information, links, just to do this reply. I don't want to spend so much time in this perpetual and tipical wikipedian critisim. If some body, don't like some thing in my grant submission, please change it directly adding information and not asking to me to do it. This is an open project on a wikisite. If some thing is not ok with you on this project submission, don't complain, don't critisise, don't saying it should be better like this. Just do it your self ! A nice day for every one, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 22:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Budget[edit]

Lionel stp remets un budget convenable avec des montants bien défini car WMF ne va pas te donner un cheque en blanc. Pour un salaire utilisez les chiffres suivants salaire net de 1500 € + cheques repas = brut env 2500 € = en cout global (pour le employeur) 49000€ par an soit 4100 € par mois environ + 650 € mise en route et 100 € de frais administratifs.

Translation:

  • A belgian net salary of approx 1500 € / month (basic admin employee)
  • the total annual (employer) cost is 49,000.00 € or approx 4100,00€ monthly
  • + 650 € initial setup cost (once) and
  • + appro 100€/m admins charges.

Clarification about work and salaries in Belgium : If Lionel is going to run this show he will have to be paid as an employee, he doesn't know it yet (i assume) but in his situation (unemployment benefit) working as a volunteer in such a project would be considered as "work" even if he doesn't earn a dime, due to qualification will lose his benefits and allowances that currently make up his income. Yes, in Belgium the unemployed are punished when they do volunteer work for Wikimedia (and other NPOś) ... In order to avoid that undesirable situation the project will have to employ lionel - WMBE will have take charge of administering his employemnt contract and pay for his salary from the budget in the IEG , because legally he cannot employ himself to do this job ... --DerekvG (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC) WMBE treasurer

Thanks a lot DerekvG for starting to advise this project. here is few reply to your post :
* by lionel remarks removed for privacy reasons --DerekvG (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I insist on the fact that this project is open and there is no obligation to employ me for doing tasks, other people in French speaking Belgium are as qualified as me to take the post.
if you are not going to do this who else is available . --DerekvG (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Before fixing the budget, I'm still waiting two meetings. One with the Belgium Chapter Board to discuss about salary and employment costs and a second with the funder of the Louvain-la-Neuve Fablab fir fixing the price needed to construct a automatic book scanner.
French version.
  • 2016 € brut sur base du salaire moyen retenu de 3192 € brut portés de 38h à 24h par semaine
  • 1414.3 € net par mois après déduction des cotisations sociales, précompte, etc.
  • Possibilité d'un remboursement de trop plein d'impôt en 2017 de 0 à 1997 € si pas d'autres revenus dans l'année (2016 € brut, cela ait 1752.51 € de brut imposable, soit 332.84 € de précompte professionnel prélevé à la source, c'est une avance sur tes impôts que le fisc te rembourse après déclaration et calcul)
  • 16 987,23 de € coût salarial total, incluant ton salaire brut, de même que cotisations patronales à payer par le chapter (32.44% du salaire brut à 100%, intervention double pécule de vacances à 92% de la rémunération annuelle, divisé par 2 puisque contrat 6 mois, fonds de participation CP 200 (c'est celle qui remplace la 218), etc.)
  • Soit 19 170 USD
mon calcul est basé sur une simulation par un secreatriat sociale sans tenir de compte de réduction pour un premeier employee ou age de l émployee --DerekvG (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
English version.
In this case, you have to add employer costs (cotisations patronales) for the chapter. They come in addition to the brut. And as it's not a full-time CDI, that wouldn't qualify in the different schemes of cotisation reduction for non-profit.
I can make a comprehensive calcul once Lionel has chosen the net or brut they want.
For a 24 hours per week contract at 2016 € brut (3192 € currently used as base by Lionel / 38 * 24), the cost for the chapter is € 33974.45 per year or for this 6 months grant, 16987.23 €. That would give Lionel a 1414,3 € net, but they will also get a reimbursement of a part of the précompte professionnel (1997 € of précompte paid) in 2017 from the SPF Finances, if they doesn't have any other revenue in the year.
If this solution is fine, the budget line should be 19 170 $ (don't forget Belgium is the country where the work cost is the more expansive).
--Dereckson (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2015[edit]

IEG review.png

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2015 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2015 begins on 20 October 2015, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Marti for this good news. Just a question. May I change the title of the grant to Grants:IEG/Outreach and partnership with University of Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium). I want to focus the only one university where the project start to be very concrete with the venue of Jimmy Wales the 2 of February for title Doctor Honoris Clausa delivrence. And on the other side, my referent person for the University seams not very serious. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be maybe preferable to choose the university where you can succeed the most according the metrics, and so the university you've the more serious contacts in. --Dereckson (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Lionel Scheepmans: Thanks for your question. I think focusing effort on one of the universities makes good sense if your contact at the other one is not sufficiently committed to the outreach efforts you've planned. So yes, changing the name of the grant should be just fine. You should be able to simply move the page here to the new title; there is a little maintenance work I need to do once a redirect is created, so could you ping me when you move the page? Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to reply I JethroBT (WMF). Here is a ping for you. Have a nice day, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 17:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Commitment for online education from the rector of UCL[edit]

I remember when he was elected rector, Prof. Blondel supports online education.

Quote from his program :

Enseignement en ligne et edX

L’UCL a récemment rejoint le consortium d’enseignement en ligne edX avec 30 autres universités prestigieuses, ainsi que le groupe d’universités francophones « Océan ». Les quatre premiers cours de l’UCL disponibles en ligne ont déjà recueilli plus de 40.000 inscriptions issues de plus de 170 pays. L’UCL doit rester attentive au développement des nouvelles formes d’apprentissage et à leur impact sur les pratiques de formation de nos étudiants. Je souhaite que

notre université joue un rôle pionnier dans ce domaine.[1]

Hope this helps,

Jona (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note edX means MOOC and every university has a lot of pressure to join the MOOC train.
That won't include any warranty of participation to low-impact, smaller projects like Wikiversity. --Dereckson (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Open-source automatic book scanner[edit]

The idea to build an open-source Linear Book Scanner with the Fablab of Louvain-la-Neuve is getting more and more concrete. After a meeting with Jona one of the three fonder members of the lab, and visit to the Makilab, here is how we imagine the project :

  • The prototype will be build in the Makilab with members, students or people interested by the project.
  • According to linearbookscanner.org, the he maximum cost of the scanner should be 1500 €. The founding could be done by the Wikimedia Foundation with an hypothetical appointment in material or founding from I.R.I.S. company witch stays very close from the fablab.
  • A hypothetical budget in benefit to the fablab should be decided by the fablab team.
  • If the project will be totally or mainly founding by Wikimedia, the machine will stay the propriety of Wikimedia Belgium association.
  • The machine should be transportable and used on different places like libraries but also evens and show rooms to promote Wikisource, and the Makilab.
  • To run this project, we need a leader in term of works coordination and organization (Contact with different partners, Inform people and students about the project, organize participation (time work and local access, etc.). This leadership can be include in this global grant project.
  • The project could be joint by a hacker team for automatize ocr program and upload to Wikisource project.
  • The project can be reproduce in other place in the world.

Jona, feel free to adjust what's I've written before or add some information or comment

Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 21:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Great idea to build the open-source automatic book scanner. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Budget required to continue to committee review[edit]

Hello Lionel Scheepmans,

In the earlier version of your proposal that I marked as eligible, you included a budget that is no longer a part of the current draft. The committee will begin scoring proposals tomorrow. You must have a finalized budget included in your proposal by the end of day today in order for your proposal to be considered complete and eligible for continued review. Let me know if you need help finishing today.

Thank you! --Marti (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Marti (WMF) and thank you very much four this important message. That's true, I have to fix the budget and before it, I was waiting for the come back of the last board meeting of Wikimedia Belgium. But this meeting was done yesterday and I wasn't there unfortunately for family reason. Now, I was waiting for the minute but still not on the site. So yes, I need help to fix the budget and especially the part about the cost of the half time salary post. So, I gone right now complete the budget par on the front page before the ultimatum but if some body could be check if it's sound good, It should be better. Maybe User:DerekvG could also help me to fix it like teasuror of our chapter and advisor of my project, but I don't know if he will see this message at time. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Marti (WMF), Modified Lionel's budget, although I think he underestimates the salary expences, Ivé added a 15 % unforeseen expences provision.--DerekvG (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Marti (WMF) and DerekvG, I just realise than after the new edit on budget done by DerekvG the total budjet reach to 31361 $ when the limit for a IEG is normally 30 000 $. Also, there is a misunderstood about the Theme-based shared flat. This shared flat project could not start before the next academic year and is completely lead by the university in term of finance and organisation. The Wikimedia envoy's job will be to train more or less than 8 students team which will live in the flat during all the 2016 - 2017 academic period and more long time if the team success to be reselected for next years. That's mean organize a lot of Wikimedia activities oriented to the students public. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 18:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

Important news : Contact endorsement and advisement of the project by the president of social and political science school of University of Louvain-la-Neuve[edit]

I've met my professor of digital anthropology and actual president of social and political science school of University of Louvain-la-Neuve. This professor was my teacher during my master in anthropology and my thesis promoter. He is very interested by my project and ready to endorse my grant and be my tutor and adviser inside the University.

Concretely, he tell me about a possibility to submit grant proposal inside the university for the development of pedagogic project witch can very match with wikimedia project. He tell me also about a FNRS policy and the obligation for searchers to put under creative commons licence all academic works financed by the public money. That's mean a huge opportunity to increase contain of Wikiversity projects but also Wikibooks, Wikisources, Wikispaces with academic researches.

We are already talking to fix a talk about wikipedia during a session of his seminar of digital anthropology.

Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Contact with the co-president of the General Assembly of UCL's Students and probable endorsement.[edit]

I've established a new contact with the co-president of the General Assembly of UCL's Students. He talk to me about the great interest in his organisation about open knowledge and creative commons licences. He tell me also that in the actual team they miss people aware about this topic. We talked about the possible partnership UCL - Wikimedia project and exchange contact in the expectation to share informations and knowledge in the future. Sunday, during his comity board meeting, they will talk about endorsing this grant submission. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Contact with the Louvain Learning Lab[edit]

In the context of a brainstorming day organized by the Louvain Learning Lab in UCL, I've proposed this topic. The Louvain Learning Lab would be a designed partner to organize Wikimedia workshop with teachers. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 14:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Outreach and partnership with University of Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)[edit]

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background) Score
1=weak alignment 10=strong alignment
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities?
  • Does it have potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
6.6
(B) Innovation and learning
  • Does it take an Innovative approach to solving a key problem?
  • Is the potential impact greater than the risks?
  • Can we measure success?
5.4
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months?
  • How realistic/efficient is the budget?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
5.4
(D) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
  • Does it support diversity?
5.6
Comments from the committee:
  • We need Belgium. They are now a blank spot in the participation graphs of Western Europe. Belgians are trilingual in Brussels and bilingual in other parts of the country. Their potential to participate on en- nl- fr- and de- wikis is huge.
  • Increased participation, online impact, long term effects are certainly possible.
  • This project fits the priorities to improve quality (by partnering with libraries and digitizing important resources) and increase participation (through university outreach). There is potential for online impact but it may be minimal.
  • The project appears to be motivated by the opportunity to capitalize on Jimmy Wales being at the Louvain-la-Neuve University.
  • There is not a clear plan for sustaining the project. I am concerned that the larger goals of the project (establishing a Wikimedian in Residence post, creating a themed student flat) are expensive and won't be supported after the project ends.
  • This will be a first in Belgium if it moves forward. Groundbreaking.
  • Project is not innovative: the proposed events are all well known, and cooperation with universities or GLAMs is not a new idea. Not sure that the proposed impact can be realised. Has unclear and vague measures of success.
  • There are some really innovative ideas here such as partnering with hacker/makerspaces and exploring living arrangements to engage people in WMF projects, but not enough justification is given for what problems these ideas would solve. The risks are also quite large as the budget is big and there is no clear support or commitment from the university for the proposed activities.
  • Measures of success are provided but are not specific.
  • The project has great ambition about what it wants to accomplish. It may be too ambitious to achieve in 6 months. Such institutions are often move slowly and it may take a lot of time to put things actually into practice.
  • The budget mainly consists of the salary for the applicant. Since his plans are rather vague, I think it difficult to decide whether the budget is justified. Also I have some concerns regarding the applicant’s expertise in project management.
  • The scope is too large. The creation of a WiR position requires a lot of time and money and to be realized and successful needs to be the only focus. The applicant seems to have some relevant connections and experience in the Belgian community A commitment from the university is key to success.
  • Though WMBE is still small, it looks like they have support
  • This project has a target community and support.
  • Communities have been notified and the project seems to have the support of the Belgian Wikimedia chapter.
  • Seems interesting and nice project, though the budget is high.
  • Definitely. I would like to see something like this in the Netherlands as well
  • Planning is just too vague to justify 6 months' employment. Maybe it’s better to start with a few smaller events (series of editathons) around Jimmy's event?
  • The project is basically to pay a project leader for 6 months. May not have strong impact.
  • This requires a lot of administrative experience. The local Wikimedians should be involved.

Point by point reply to commitee's comments[edit]

  • We need Belgium. They are now a blank spot in the participation graphs of Western Europe. Belgians are trilingual in Brussels and bilingual in other parts of the country. Their potential to participate on en- nl- fr- and de- wikis is huge.

Indeed, the trillingual but also tricultural specific Belgium context don't help the wikimedia movement participation but this project should be one of the first big action to solve this issue.

  • Increased participation, online impact, long term effects are certainly possible.

The main idea of this project is effectively to spring Wiki movement into the city and University of Louvain-la-Neuve and by the way increased participation, online impact with long term effects.

  • This project fits the priorities to improve quality (by partnering with libraries and digitizing important resources) and increase participation (through university outreach). There is potential for online impact but it may be minimal.

The risk of a minimal impact exist but every things will be organize to maximize the impact through a very large domain of application.

  • The project appears to be motivated by the opportunity to capitalize on Jimmy Wales being at the Louvain-la-Neuve University.

That's true. By giving DHC tiltle Jimmy Wale, UCL prove by investing money and time the interest about wikimedia movement. Wikimedia community should be react to this present by making the venue of the Wikipedia co-founder a successful promotion of wikimedia movement whiting the University.

  • There is not a clear plan for sustaining the project. I am concerned that the larger goals of the project (establishing a Wikimedian in Residence post, creating a themed student flat) are expensive and won't be supported after the project ends.

This part of the grant wasn't clear indeed but time after time, contact by contact, since the beginning of the grant submission the Univesity commitment start to be more and more clear. It's now possible, to see clearly the Univesity commitment in this part of the project named Partner_engagement but also on the actual budget part.

  • This will be a first in Belgium if it moves forward. Groundbreaking.

Let's go !

  • Project is not innovative: the proposed events are all well known, and cooperation with universities or GLAMs is not a new idea. Not sure that the proposed impact can be realised. Has unclear and vague measures of success.

This comment seams in position with the previous one. Probably the question of innovation ask for personal point of view. But concerning realistic aspect of the project and the messure of success, you can check on the grant actual updates witch be done to clarify this aspect.

  • There are some really innovative ideas here such as partnering with hacker/makerspaces and exploring living arrangements to engage people in WMF projects, but not enough justification is given for what problems these ideas would solve. The risks are also quite large as the budget is big and there is no clear support or commitment from the university for the proposed activities.

The commitment of the University was clarified in the budget part of the grant and problems are still present in this section.

  • Measures of success are provided but are not specific.

Specific measures of success are now updated.

  • The project has great ambition about what it wants to accomplish. It may be too ambitious to achieve in 6 months. Such institutions are often move slowly and it may take a lot of time to put things actually into practice.

Keep in mine than the 6 months activities concern the beginning of a long term project of Wikimedia in residence founded partially or completely by the University.

  • The budget mainly consists of the salary for the applicant. Since his plans are rather vague, I think it difficult to decide whether the budget is justified. Also I have some concerns regarding the applicant’s expertise in project management.

The salary activity was updated on the grant. For the question of applicant’s expertise in project management, here is my online CV. When I was 22 hold, I was already managing important project.

  • The scope is too large. The creation of a WiR position requires a lot of time and money and to be realized and successful needs to be the only focus. The applicant seems to have some relevant connections and experience in the Belgian community A commitment from the university is key to success.

One more time keep in mine than the 6 months activities concern the beginning of a long term project of Wikimedia in residence founded partially or completely by the University. The part Partner_engagement of the grant could also clarify the commitment of the University in the project.

  • Though WMBE is still small, it looks like they have support.

WMBE is still small but member are very active.

  • This project has a target community and support.

The issue of the project will be obviously determined by Wikimedia projects communities welcoming online participants, a online outreach have to obviously be done.

  • Communities have been notified and the project seems to have the support of the Belgian Wikimedia chapter.

The support of the Belgian Wikimedia chapter is clarify in this part of the grant.

  • Seems interesting and nice project, though the budget is high.

The budget would have been two time higher if the university had not supported the project through a logistical help visible in the budget part of the grant.

  • Definitely. I would like to see something like this in the Netherlands as well.

Let's go ! We have connection with Wikimedia Netherlands by a commune member. If this experience success, we can easily export them to various University of the world. Let's talk about this in Italy during the next Wikimania.

  • Planning is just too vague to justify 6 months' employment. Maybe it’s better to start with a few smaller events (series of editathons) around Jimmy's event?

Planning was updated on the grant few smaller events will waste capitalization on the first, maybe unique, venue of Jimmy Wales to UCL.

  • The project is basically to pay a project leader for 6 months. May not have strong impact.

Impact of this project, however, seems very wide. Lot of Wikimedia projects are concerned and a big potential in term of new editors, edition and upload seems perfectly pointed in this updated part of the grant.

  • This requires a lot of administrative experience. The local Wikimedians should be involved.

The local chapter is in fact stongly Involved.

A pleasant day for every one, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to request received by email via Marti (WMF) from IEG commity[edit]

Email contain 

On Saturday, the Committee convened to discuss the grant proposals received in the current round. They are very interested in funding your proposal, but there are significant revisions they are requesting before making a funding decision (see summary below). You will have until Monday, November 30th to revise your proposal before the committee reviews the changes and finalizes a decision.

Here is a brief rundown of the committee discussion.

  • Since IEG funds individuals, not organizations, the committee would prefer to fund you (Lionel) as an individual, rather than via an affiliate fiscal sponsor, in keeping with the usual terms of the program.
  • The committee is concerned about the lack of focus in the scope of the project. They would like you to choose one or two focal areas to further develop and drop the rest. In those focal areas, provide more specificity about activities and deliverables.
    • Note: The committee showed less interest in the establishment of the Wikipedia Education Program or of a Wikimedian in Residence, and more interest in the Wikipedia-based project dorm and the DIY book scanner. They have suggested that you focus on establishing the dorm, possibly making the DIY book scanner the first year project for that dorm, and working to design a sustainable model for the longer term.
    • If the DIY scanner becomes part of the project, one of the committee members has suggested he could help connect you with the Internet Archive to make sure there is adequate support for establishing appropriate protocols for book scanning.
  • They would like to see a reduction in the budget appropriate for the narrowing of the scope. Since there are various risk factors with this project, the committee would prefer to start with a more modest investment. If the project is successful, a renewal could be considered.
My reply point by point 

On Saturday, the Committee convened to discuss the grant proposals received in the current round. They are very interested in funding your proposal, but there are significant revisions they are requesting before making a funding decision (see summary below). You will have until Monday, November 30th to revise your proposal before the committee reviews the changes and finalizes a decision.

Here is a brief rundown of the committee discussion :

Since IEG funds individuals, not organizations, the committee would prefer to fund you (Lionel) as an individual, rather than via an affiliate fiscal sponsor, in keeping with the usual terms of the program.

  • I understand very well the first point about individual founding and it seams possible to deal with the situation, starting self-employed status (contractor in english ?) For checking legal issue, I need to know if Wikimedia foundation needs any kind of official document like contract or invoice concerning the money delivred. In other words, the grant will be a pure donation, a payment of invoice with contract ?

The committee is concerned about the lack of focus in the scope of the project. They would like you to choose one or two focal areas to further develop and drop the rest. In those focal areas, provide more specificity about activities and deliverables.

  • Organize activities with an institution like a University, a fablab and a student team mean spending time to contact different partner, fix a commune idea about project and activities, include them in current already existent schedule of university's activities, found and reserve the activity place, by material if necessary and start promotion of the activities thought the target audience. This is in fact a part of the job for witch I'm asking founding. In one hand, I can't do it in 5 days, in second hand, I don't want to do it for free and and disturb academic partner without guaranty of the sustainability of the project through financial support from the Foundation.

Note: The committee showed less interest in the establishment of the Wikipedia Education Program or of a Wikimedian in Residence, and more interest in the Wikipedia-based project dorm and the DIY book scanner. They have suggested that you focus on establishing the dorm, possibly making the DIY book scanner the first year project for that dorm, and working to design a sustainable model for the longer term.

If the DIY scanner becomes part of the project, one of the committee members has suggested he could help connect you with the Internet Archive to make sure there is adequate support for establishing appropriate protocols for book scanning.

  • It seams that it's still have a misunderstood about the specific dorm called Kote à Projet. The student shared flat won't exist before the next academic year for two main reason : first all shared fat of the University are already in use for all this academic year and second even academic authorities give to the project a commitment to create this shared flat for the next year, there still have a procedure of submission for the project and for the constitution of the student team. So that's mean only the creating process of a wikimedia student shared flat project on the University make part of my project grant.
  • In the other hand, on my grant proposal I've clearly specified than the linear book scanner will be build in the Makilab during the 6 month and be use in the central library exclusively for uploading book to wikisource. That's what I talking with partner until I've start the grant submission. One more time, I can't discuss and change all plan with partner in five days (less 2 days week-end).
  • I'm also very surprise that the Committee don't talk about Jimmy Wales venues in the University. Is not a unic occasion ? Also, the project partner is a University. That seams normal on my point of view to have a big interest about education program and fatally about a wikimedian in residence.

They would like to see a reduction in the budget appropriate for the narrowing of the scope. Since there are various risk factors with this project, the committee would prefer to start with a more modest investment. If the project is successful, a renewal could be considered.

  • On this point, I will propose to reduce considerably the budget of the grant, removing all the part added by DerekvG for only keep a budget for my work libeled by hours.
Conclusion 

I will remove all thing concerning the Belgium Chapter involvement and administration support to reduce considerably the budget of the grant but I will maintain activity plan and deliverables as they was fixed with the University partner. I have definitively no time and no energy to change every thing before December 30 th with my son at home.

A other option that could be fine in reference to the disinterest of the pedagogical aspect of the project and the interest to the technical part of it, is limiting the grant to the construction of the scanner and dealing directly with the fablab for building it. The scanner could be delivered to the student team when and if the shared thematic flat is created next academic year. For this project 2000 € could be enough and every things could be managed by Jonathan co founder of the lab. In this case I transfer to him the grant management and leave the project.

Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would advise my friend Lionel strongly AGAINST engaging in this way (contractor/ self-employed status) in the project for 2 reasons
a) your cost calculation is unrealistic, and thatś a euphemism
b)the consequences financially, fiscally, and for your social and healthcare cover.
Moreover i would also advise you that, given my knowledge of your particular situation, if you should engage in this project as an unpaid volunteer, there might be also undesirable consequences that neither the Foundation ( for lack of information) nor WMBE (for lack of means) will be willing or able to cover, one of those consequences being that your unpaid engagement will be considered "work" and that consequently you are hiding income, therefore you will be taxed on "estimated"income and fined for failing to declaring that income and as a consequence you will be fined again for not paying social contributions on that undeclared "estimated income" and you will not be able to prove that you did not receive any compensation so your claim will be rejected (i refer to the athlete Marc Herreman's case).
My advise - given these discussions and my talk with Jimmy recently in Amsterdam about this - is to drop the project and hand the organisation of the DHC celebration back to the WMF and the UCL .
Lionel, don't try to save this , itś like a beached whale, it quickly starts to smell in a very unsavoury manner --81.242.63.29 --DerekvG (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to take care about my motivation and my energy invested into the Wikimedia movement 81.242.63.29 . During a video conference with Marti (WMF) yesterday, I've already express my disappointment and my decision to stop investigation about this project. From now, I will change drastically my position about Wikimedia project : Keeping my commitment into online activities and stay in the bright unconditional, altruist, and most democratic part of the global project and leave my commitment into offline activities witch are for me the dark conditional, speculative and less democratic part of the global project. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 12:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
i was not logged in earlier --DerekvG (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Lionel, I'm following up to document our conversation via video call last Wednesday. As we discussed, the IEG Committee would like to support your work at the University of Louvain-la-Neuve, but has requested a more focused scope of work and a more detailed implementation plan. I've offered to provide support in revising your SOW and plan, but my understanding is that you prefer not to make revisions at this time. Instead, you prefer to proceed in an unfunded volunteer capacity. Given that this is the case, may I ask you to change your proposal's status to "withdrawn"?
As we discussed, I believe that many of your proposed projects are very promising and well-suited to funding support from WMF with further development of your plan. Even if you withdraw your proposal from IEG, PEG funds are available to support projects and events. My understanding is that the tight deadline with IEG is part of the reason you are not inclined to revise your proposal at this time, so I want to reiterate that PEG has a rolling submission deadline and you may choose to revise and submit portions of your proposal in that program. Mentorship and support is available for development of your proposal even before you submit it, so please do reach out if you would like help in thinking through the best way to match your own vision with the context of our funding programs. The partnerships with the University of Louvain-la-Neuve that you've been nourishing are very valuable, and we would be glad to think with you about how you might make use of WMF resources to further support them. If this appeals to you, please reach out to me directly and I will facilitate that support.
Thank you for all of the good work you are doing and will continue to do, Lionel. I really enjoyed speaking with you as well as your team of advisors. It's been exciting and inspiring to learn about the partnerships you're fostering, and I hope there may be other opportunities to support your efforts.
Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually Marty iḿ very disappointed for my friend Lionel, some of the comments were very unfriendly and clearly revealed that the project was not understood or totally misconstrued by some of the unidentified members (how that came about is not of my concern). Could you or the members of the committee tell me how they think this project should be executed ? the whole thing clearly requires a dedicated person, that is a WIR position which was not considered probelmatic, I clearly pointed out to you why for legal reasons I stepped in as WMBE to support Lionel administering it : I repeat a private person cannot hire himself as an employee, if Lionel should accept to work as an independant self-employed WIR he will lose his social security and health cover (will WMF engage to reestablish that cover ftr the project ?) , the cost for his engaement should therfore actually go up rather then down, and Lionels expertise to run this project is lost. One of the most objectionable comments implies that lionel should do this unpaid as volunteer work - afaik slavery has been abolished in the US on December 18, 1865 (cfr en.wikipedia), France abolished slavery in 1794 and the UK celebrated 200 years of the abolishment in 2007 ...- which of the committee membres would work 6 months about 480 hours for free , amd spend the rest of his time be at the university as unpaid volunteer to more of the same train uni-staff, students and volunteers, manage the project, support volunteers, make sure contents gets uploaded correctly in wikisource etc etc , nobody unless that person disposes fo a regular source of income or could live of its capitalincome. I urge the comitee members not to require other people to do unpaid work they are not willing to do themselves (that is imho slavery) in an unpaid manner.
I'm also very disappointed becuase I had a very motivated frenchspeaking volunteeer who was willing to engage in a worthwile project that could have some side-results like the wiki education program material for frenchspeaking part of belgium. In general belgain volunteers are hard to come by because they often leave their wikiproject because of harassmaent like situations, most of our memebres a re tri-linugaul but they are predominatly of ducthspeaking origine, therfore frenschspeaking volunteers are even more diffcult to come by, now Iḿ left with a disappointed and disgruntled volunteer which - I think - is totally burned out, because of the lack of confidence, wchich reflects on WMBE, - if not mistrust - shown for his endeavours and people like Lionel take such things personally, itś not business as usual, and iḿ sorry to tell you I don't think you may ever enjoy the collaboration of another opportunity to support Lionel again. today I lost 50% of belgiums qualified french speaking volunteers.
Wednesday I met Jimmy Wales at the award ceremony in Amsterdam, and he was preoccupied with the preparations of his DHC title at UCL, I didn tell him about this porject because I didn feel confident it would be accepted, quite rightly so, please feed back into the WMF hierarchy this funding debacle, WMBE will not be able to "invent", "plan" "grant" and "execute" any event surrounding this celebration because we don't have the time nor the resource (lionel) to do the work

--DerekvG (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disappointment[edit]

Hi Marti (WMF) Hi committee members,

  1. AddisWang
  2. Anne Delong
  3. Bellayet
  4. Hahc21
  5. Hubertl
  6. Ilario
  7. Jane023
  8. Kirill Lokshin
  9. MarkAHershberger
  10. Nhasive
  11. Poupou l'quourouce
  12. Rjensen
  13. Steven Crossin
  14. Superzerocool
  15. Thehelpfulone
  16. Thepwnco
  17. Wikicology
  18. YuviPanda

I've just loose two hours to reply to Marty comment before loosing all the text by mistake. I don't have energy enough to restart a complete text, I'm tired about this grant submission and I want to sleep. So, here is roughly point by point what I have to say or what I remember.

  • No proposal's status to "withdrawn" assume you choice.
  • I've spend or wast more than one month, 224 edits, more than 24 hours non include the talk page (probably much more I express my self in English with lot of difficulties).
  • Don't use unconditional donations received thanks to volunteers by a so conditional way when volunteers asks a grant. don't use it at all should be better. I was happy before knowing grant existence. Each submission refused is frustration not only for me. Stop it please and spend your time to edit project, it should be better and much more ethical. The donation could be used to improve friendliness in online project witch block so much all project potential.
  • Refuse to mix IEG PEG and so on is for me typical bureaucratic deviance.
  • I've explain two time than I can't give you more detail on the project because that's a partnership with a University and that's need lot of time to contact people by mail an face to face making meeting to decide every thing together in respect with the academic possibilities and agenda. AND all of this have no sense if the grant is not accepted.
  • Give me a ultimatum of five day to sham this task with the help of a person living with 9 hour decay, during his thanks giving holiday is not correct.
  • If you want to change the project at your convenience better to switch grant process with staff employment.
  • I hope you are loving your volunteer activity like committee member because I hate my volunteer activity during this grant submission (only benefit should be to improve my English) .
  • I've forgot the rest but what ever.

I wish you a very pleasant day. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Round 2 2015 decision[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee sees tremendous promise in the exciting partnership developing with the University of Louvain-la-Neuve. We also recognize and value the special opportunity presented to deepen awareness of the Wikimedia movement through Utopies pour le temps présent during this year’s 500-year anniversary celebration. However, because of the lack of clarity and focus in the plan as presented in the current proposal, we ultimately felt it was not yet sufficiently developed to be a candidate for funding at this time. As the partnership evolves and your vision cements into a more fully developed and concrete plan, we would be happy to see some of these ideas return in the future, either in Round 1 of IEG in the spring of 2016 or earlier in the PEG funding program.

Next steps:

  1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
  2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
  4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.


Reply Marti (WMF)'s email & Round 2 2015 decision[edit]

Email contain : « many committee members expressed their disappointment about this decision.  The committee values the promising partnerships developing, the opportunity to support outreach in Belgium, the passion of your volunteer efforts and the good will of the University of Louvain-la-Neuve.  However, because of the nature of the IEG program, the committee relies heavily on review of proposals for clear and concrete information about each project's plan and intended outcomes, and in this case, all were in agreement that the proposal is not yet developed enough to fund at this time, though they would like to be able to support the initiative. »

The process is now close and I still have three questions :

- Why the committee don't understand that the concrete information about each project's plan and intended outcomes is a part of the job for witch the grant is needed because nobody will contact partner, discuss, and plan project activity for free ?

- Why planing the project even for free (like volunteer) before getting guaranty to have the budget to pay some one to accomplish the plan ?

- Why after three times asking this two same questions, I didn't receive any reply from Marti (WMF) AddisWang Anne Delong Bellayet Hahc21 Hubertl Ilario Jane023 Kirill Lokshin MarkAHershberger Nhasive Poupou l'quourouce Rjensen Steven Crossin Superzerocool Thehelpfulone Thepwnco Wikicology YuviPanda ?

I will be thinking about ways we might be able to support the 500-year-celebration at UCL and the opportunity it presents to promote free knowledge.  I will keep you both abreast of any developments on this front.

Thank you Marti (WMF).

And don't forget than like you, and like every employee, I prefer to be paid for a job and get dignity by this financial and social recognition than staying volunteer living thanks to the social assistance.

If you need a salaried to accomplish a job planed in any plan or project, welcome.

For the rest, I've waisted enough time in this pointless bureaucratic affair of grant submission to be disgusted. Never more even for money.

Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 00:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Lionel, I very much regret your disappointment and I would love to tell you this in French, so that communication would be somewhat easier, but, je suis desolée, my French is rather limited (and I am no native English speaker, either). It seems to me that you have maybe misunderstood the scope of IEG funding. From what you write above I get the impresson, that your idea was, that we fund you for a certain period of time, and during that time you will then develop more detailed plans for various activities and events. I agree that planning and designing such events and activities is cumbersome and time consuming. But on the other hand it is very difficult for us to assess in order to make a good decision, which is fair and balanced also with respect to other applicants (there are many more applications that we cannot all approve). Therefore we have asked you to give us some more substance for our decision. It is a pity that this request in itself seems to have de-motivated you so much, that you did drop the proposal in total, rather than try to amend our concerns.
Thanks a lot Poupou l'quourouce for this reply. I'm don't agree with you. My de-motivation came after updating my grant submission two times. And only when Marti (WMF), propose to me to change every thing with an ultimatum of 5 days the day before the venue of my son at home and during Marti's thanks giving holidays. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please try to see also our perspective: we face a great number of enthusiastic and optimistic proposals from volunteers worldwide and we have a limited amount of money to spend on these proposals.
Your perspective seams biased by the grant system. Your mission to distribute a limited amount of money between unlimited grant submission make more frustration than productivity and in the end create a very bad feeling of competition between grantee. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
So we have to chose those proposals where we feel money is spent best.
How can you know with such a distance and without knowing the grantee, his environment and his partner witch grant proposal are best ? Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
For this purpose, we ask questions back to applicants, so that we can be really sure before we decide.
I've replied two time to yours questions back but no return and not decision.Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I very much hope that you will overcome your current disappointment and come back with new ideas and a good plan in the next round.
I'm sorry, but the grant system is definitely not adapted to support any partnership whit institution. No way for a comeback. Also I feel very much useful editing article or research than grant submission. In my point of view the grant system has serous problem in term of deficiency and ethic. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Best regards,--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank again for this reply and don't feel personally attacked that the grant witch is not good, all volunteers like your are very nice to spend time probably to make the best what they can. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lionel, si tu attends ma réponse, donc je donne ma réponse. Je ne l'ai pas fait avant parce que les projets étaient sous évaluation et il ne me semblait pas juste pour les autres personnes qui ont présenté un projet. Le temps pour la discussion était déjà fermé, discuter de dernière minute aurait pas beaucoup changé le résultat final. Honnêtement, je n'ai pas voté pour ou contre parce que le projet est intéressant et peut être corrigé, mais la gestion d'un projet nécessite de bureaucratie, différent est le cas où il ya un exécuteur. On ne peut pas quitter un projet inachevé parce qu'il ya divergence de vues ou parce qu'il ya beaucoup de bureaucratie.
Je n'ai pas quité un projet inachevé. J'ai quité une demande de subvention pour la quelle je n'avais ni le temps ni les moyens de faire ce qu'il m'était demandé en 5 jours. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Une cause majeure d'échec est l'inflexibilité. Dans ce cas, le montant réclamé était grand, je pense que la vérification des doutes exprimés est un devoir et tout pour que le projet soit un succès.
Le montant a été reduit de 1/3 sans réaction de votre part. D'autre par, si c'est la quantité d'argent qui vous bloque, il faudrait alors peut-être penser à réduire le montant maximum autorisé et de plus limité le dépos de candidature de tel sorte à ce que vous puissiez en théorie accordé un financement à toutes les demandes si jamais elle était toutes valables. Encore une fois c'est le système de financement qui est mauvais et vous oblige à mettre le demande en compétition ce qui est parfaitement improductif et générateur de frustration au niveau des personnes comme moi qui les soumettent mais aussi probablement au niveau des personnes comme toi qui les sélectionnent. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Je crois toujours que le projet est bon et je crois toujours que tu es une personne qui peut le faire avancer, mais il a besoin d'une figure d'une personne qui pourrait t'aider à gérer la bureaucratie et les aspects diplomatiques qui sont fondamentales.
En voici le preuve. Tu dis toi même que le projet est bon et que je suis compétent. Mais c'est la bureaucratie et la diplomatie qui le bloque. C'est problème bureaucratique et diplomatique sont créer par le système de grant. Au niveau de l'Université, tout se passait très bien. C'est le système de financement qui a tué le projet. Pas moi, ni toi. Quand un projet est bon, il faut le soutenir pas lui mettre des barrières bureaucratique. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Quelle est pour toi la bureaucratie, est appelé ailleurs "planification" et un projet bien planifié a une excellente chance de succès, un projet improvisé a de nombreux risques.
Je ne suis pas d'accord avec toi et c'est ça que personne n'a voulu comprendre au sein de votre comité. Je vous ai expliqué deux fois, sans aucune réponse ni réaction de votre part que planifié le projet en 5 jours comme vous me le demandiez et donc sans consulter l'avis des acteurs de l'Université, c'était justement improvisé n'importe quoi avec de nombreux risques. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Je n'ai donc rien contre Lionel, rien de négatif contre le projet, j'ai seulement considère que le chiffre était très élevé et que les risques étaient gros. Je suis désolé que tu as voulu voir tout celà de manière négative, mais honnêtement, il n'y avait aucune attitude négative. --Ilario (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Moi non plus Ilario, je n'ai rien contre toi. Je sais aussi que tu es bénévole comme moi jusqu'à présent et c'est pour moi une chose très positive. Je ne vois rien de négatif non plus dans tous les membre du comité. Ce qui est négatif pour moi c'est le système de grant, l'organisation du travail, le gaspillage d'énergie, la création de frustration, la perte de temps. Encore merci d'avoir réagit à mon commentaire Ilario et bonne fin de journée à toi Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 01:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC).