Questions from Pine
Nice overview, @I JethroBT (WMF):.
As I understand it:
- Requests for small amounts of funds, like a $400 request for starting up a new user group, could be funded as a rapid grant. (Previously, Cascadia Wikimedians was told that we couldn't get such a grant through PEG because our grant request was too small.)
- IEG-like project requests that are under the $2k limit might or might not go to the Rapid Grants program depending on their complexity; all IEG-like projects that are over the $2k limit will go to the new Project Grants program and have a higher limit than they have now ($100k vs. $30k).
- Affiliates and their personnel (e.g. board members) may receive funds from any of the 4 kinds of grant programs (a change from the current structure where affiliates generally aren't involved in IEGs, and TPS funds were only provided to individuals).
- Hey Pine. Thanks for your feedback and for checking on these points.
- Point 1 is correct.
- Point 2 is mostly correct. New experimental projects/grantees in Project Grants will still be guided to keep budget under $30,000, with room for reasonable exceptions so that’s why there is no hard limit below $100,000.
- Point 3:
- No change to TPS, still focused on travel for individuals.
- Affiliates getting project grants can apply for funding for temporary project-specific staff, and are indeed eligible for Conference Support
- Rapid Grants and Project Grants are both available to affiliates who aren’t already receiving an Annual Plan Grant. Affiliates with Annual Plan Grants should check with their program officer before applying for other grants.
- We'll clarify these matters in the revised structure. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): OK, I think I understand. What's happening with regard to the 4 grants committees (TPS, IEGCom, GAC, and FDC) and Grants Officer assignments to bring them into alignment with the new structure? I imagine that the committee roles, committee composition, and grants officer assignments will need to adapt. The FDC looks like it will remain similar under the new structure, but the 3 other committees may see significant changes, along with the associated grants officers. --Pine✉ 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Pine: Good question. FDC assignments will map onto full process APGs, so I don't believe there will be much changing in that alignment, as you noted. For the rest, it's reasonable to expect some changes in how committee and program officers will be aligned to the new structure, and we will be defining those and other implementation details as the new grants structure is gradually rolled out as noted in our timeline. Those plans will, of course, be developed publicly with the community. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- @I JethroBT (WMF): Ok. I will note that the kinds of knowledge that the GAC and IEGCom have are quite different, so there may need to be some careful thinking about committee re-alignments. When I was on IEGCom, for example, I would have been content to leave small annual plan requests to other people to evaluate, and I imagine that a good many people involved in evaluating small annual plans would not be interested in evaluations of software-related grant proposals, so my hunch is that there may not be a 1:1 mapping of current committees onto the new grants programs. I think that it may make more sense to align committees based more on type of expertise than on grant size. Also, the depth and amount of time for committee reviews will need to align with the intents of the new grants programs, with much more rapid evaluations for relatively simple grants that are under $2k, and a more robust process for large project, event, and "light" annual plan grants. --Pine✉ 22:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)