Grants talk:PEG/Center for Intellectual Property and Information Technology (Strathmore University)/Creative Commons Community in Kenya Programs Grant

Incomplete form

Please complete the following fields on the grant application itself so we may proceed with review:

• Equivalent amount in US$ on the date of this submission
• List the exchange rate used to calculate the amount listed in USD

Thank you! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 19:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! Abbasjnr (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Scope Concern

I am somewhat concerned that while the cause the money is being requested for is good, it is outside the scope of the Wikimedia movement. Has money been requested from Creative Commons to fund this work? If not, or if CC was unwilling to fund this, why not? Craig Franklin (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

What do you mean by "outside the scope of the Wikimedia movement"? Hasn't the WMF Grants Program funded grants to like-minded, non-Wikimedia organizations in the past? AFAIK, this grant submission meets the Eligibility criteria. Abbasjnr (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer your second question, Creative Commons HQ is not as resource-rich as WMF and therefore does not have a grants program so chapters/affiliate organizations are solely responsible for their own fundraising. Just so you know, WMF has funded a Creative Commons event in Kenya and the outcome of that WMF-funded meeting led to this subsequent grant application: at the meeting, we drafted a roadmap for CC Kenya (which was forwarded to WMF Grants Staff) and this grant will help us in achieving the goals laid in the roadmap. Abbasjnr (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologise Abbas if you took any offense to my questions (or do take offense to what I'm about to say), please be assured that this was most definitely not my intention. However, I think we will have to simply agree to disagree on the scope question here. I do not see how assisting another organisation to set up a local affiliate in Kenya fits with the scope of this grants programme. Individual projects and events that intersect with our mission might, but "(enabling) CC Kenya to be increase its organizational maturity" does not, in my view. That aside, if Asaf disagrees with my reasoning on this, the budget looks about right and there are no serious problems if it is decided that setting up new CC groups is within our scope. But I just don't think it is, sorry. Craig Franklin (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC).

I do agree with Craig on this. One thing is to fund 2K USD to help a group of people organize an event. Other completely different is to fund a chapter from another organization (and I assume we would also need to continue to fund it in the future, as in there are no other sources of revenue listed). We do use CC licenses and all, but I dont believe fund a CC chapter fall under our scope. Béria Lima ^msg 05:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I completely reject the premise of the argument that it's one thing to fund 2K but when you come back next time asking for 20K, you become "another organisation". Beria, you assume that we'll "also need to fund it in the future". Well, isn't that equally applicable for the 2K event that was funded? I might want to host another event next year too...

Anyway, it might be good to clarify this scope that you are referring to in the WMF Grants Page: it'll save those of us coming from other organisations a whole lot of time not bothering to submit a grant application in the first place. Abbasjnr (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

My view. A lot of Creative Commons activities are not at all directly aligned with the Wikimedia Mission. For example, I've been to Creative Commons activities that endorsed both non-free content and non-inclusive approaches to knowledge. So I do agree with Beria that this is very different from asking for funding for a single event: in a single event grant we have a much better understanding about what kind of activities are going on. This kind of transparency is essential to fund organizations that are only partially like-minded. For fully like-minded organizations we could consider waiving this, but not for a Creative Commons oriented organization, however much we like the brand and the people involved. This isn't about affinity, it is about our responsibility towards our donors. Having said that, you are always more than welcome to request grants for individual activities that fit our mission. Cheers, --Solstag (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

How about you tell me which items in this grant submission that aren't aligned to the Wikimedia Mission and we can negotiate in removing them? I'm open to re-dacting/modifying this grant to align with the Wikimedia Mission. Abbasjnr (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness Abbas, I'll try to answer in that spirit. The application is quite open-ended and not specific about the details or even about what are the activities. It mentions specific activities but it is also leaves room for others of any kind. Most of the items there can be executed in a way not aligned with our mission and the CC brand and mission is not a guarantee of alignment. Only two of the specific items fit clearly within our mission: making a video about sharing and promoting the school of open. (However the very pictures in the linked blog post promote licenses misaligned with our mission, which does make me question even this apparently aligned part of the proposal.) In any case, for this part it would be much better to create an activity grant related to "Promoting the School of Open in Kenya", and not to generically support Creative Commons, even if it is carried out by the same people. In such a grant we could discuss the activity in detail and make sure we're talking about the same things, such as free licenses and free video formats for the video and making sure the school of open classes that better fit our mission are prioritized. If you want to keep this proposal because you have other specific activities in mind that are clearly aligned, you should remove all generic language such as "Undertake various projects that will increase the visibility of Creative Commons in Kenya.", and provide a list of specific activities that will be carried out, so we can debate them. Cheers, --Solstag (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Abbas and CC team. In my opinion, the startup grants will be priorized for the Wikimedia affiliated groups. Maybe you can search funds into the global network of CC affiliated groups or a crowdfunding project for have this basic startup. I think it's out of scope for our donors fund an initiative of a third part group. Also, I'm concerned about the costs of some topics.

• Translation of CC licenses. What do you mean with this? This could be done with some kind of volunteer work, or a project for a university? It must be backed with some kind of expertise by local laws?
• Research costs. Can you be more specific about this? Will be a scholarship, a donation, a direct payment?
• For an example, in Mexico CC are allied with us and other organizations of free knowledge. Do you have in mind add other organizations who can fund partially this project also the WMF?

Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. I would agree to support funding a project like this if it was financial supported also by other partners (CC for instance), but not to finance it 100%. --Ilario (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Organization or group?

Ni!

The proposal states this is on behalf of an organization, but that organization cannot provide local proof of non-profit status. From our eligibility requirements:

• Incorporated nonprofit organizations applying for funding must provide local proof of non-profit status, and in the US should be 501(c)3 charities.

So, regardless of other concerns - which seem substantial to me, - unless you resubmit it as a different type of proposal this is not viable by it's very nature.

=[

--Solstag (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Solstag,

I must admit that at the time of submitting the grant application, I wasn't sure of the legal status of CIPIT (the organisation that's in charge of undertaking this project). So here's some clarification: CIPIT is a research arm under Strathmore University -- which is a non-profit educational institution (and can prove that). So the funds will be wired to Strathmore University (which CIPIT is part of), and Starthmore University will be accountable for the grant. (FYI -- the employees that I indicated in the grants page are Strathmore University employees who are tasked to work for CIPIT). Abbasjnr (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, then you should update/correct the proposal page. --Solstag (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Declined

This grant proposal will not be funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. The major reasons -- brought up on this discussion page by members of the Grant Advisory Committee -- are insufficient direct impact on our strategic goals, and a very partial match in scope between general Creative Commons activities and the Wikimedia Mission.

Additionally, I would offer, as a learning point for future grant proposals, that we are puzzled by the applicants' failure to mention that they are not (yet) recognized as "CC Kenya", and that Creative Commons is yet to accept the group's proposal and roadmap. Whereas we have been aware of the efforts towards a CC group in Kenya, we find the omission of a disclosure of the group's (non-)status a significant oversight, that could have potentially led the Wikimedia Foundation to (absurdly) sanction and fund a CC group that CC itself does not (yet) recognize.

More generally, and as a learning for us from this proposal, we will perhaps call out in the grant criteria that proposals to wholly or substantially fund the work of other movements would generally not be approved.

Please do not be disheartened by this decision. We wish your group success in setting up a Kenya CC affiliate, and look forward to future opportunities for the Wikimedia movement to collaborate with CC on specific projects with a good strategic alignment. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Regarding the status of CC Kenya, I'd like to point out a few things: Yes, it was an oversight on my part to use "CC Kenya" without us yet being recognized (which is bound to happen in 2-3 weeks time, according to the CC Africa Regional Co-ordinator). However, I did realize my mistake and made the relevant changes to this page before you made the above comments. You can check the page history if you like. Abbasjnr (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)