Grants talk:PEG/SarahStierch/GLAM WIKI Santiago attendance

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

In name of Wikimedia Chile, the participation of Sarah at Encuentro GLAM-WIKI Santiago 2012 is very important and we totally support her Grant request.

Sarah's participation is fundamental to reach different GLAM institutions that will take part in the event. Her experience with different cultural institutions at Washington DC could be used as a model for new partnerships with museums or archives in the country (ie., the National Library, the National Archive, the Museum of Fine Arts, the Museum of the Remembrance or the National Historical Museum). With Sarah, we have planned not only to participate at the conference, but also to have some meetings with different representatives of cultural institutions, including some of the forementioned ones.

I hope this grant could be reviewed fast so we can work on the schedule of meetings as soon as possible. Thanks for your help. --B1mbo 00:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this was Osmar. If WM Chile is inviting her, I can't speak on the merit of this grant request. If you guys invited her, there is no place for me to speak. I would however just wish, her, or any future fellow's travel expenses are handled internally. My point below are largely structural, related to general grants issue. I hope she gets to attend Osmar. Good luck! Theo10011 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant[edit]

This is the third (maybe the fourth) grant being requested by Sarah, As I recall, all of the last ones were awarded. On top of which, she is currently a WMF fellow, while technically not an employee, her travel expenses should be covered by WMF. Asaf, do you honestly think awarding grants to the same person 3 times is a worthwhile use within a year is a good distribution of funds? especially when the person is a fellow, technically on WMF payroll. I find it interesting since I didn't see Liam requesting any of these during his tenure, It is also ironic that sarah mentioned that Liam was able to travel the world, promoting GLAM and attending conferences while not requesting a grant, in Laura's grant. Theo10011 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting there should be an arbitrary cap on the number of times a person can get reimbursement for work done for our movement? This grant request is for travel reimbursement -- either this travel is expected to have good impact and so be a good use of donor funds, or it isn't. I don't see how the number of previous grants has any bearing on this decision.
Regarding her fellowship -- her fellowship is for work on the gender gap, not GLAM, and would only cover travel if it has to do with her fellowship, which this does not; Sarah's involvement with GLAM remains in her capacity as a volunteer. Indeed, she proposes to volunteer her time and skills in speaking at this conference, and in participating in WMCL's meetings with GLAM institutions outside the event itself.
Do you have an opinion about the actual merit of this request, or were you only concerned about these technical questions? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 03:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know its going to be a futile process, since you probably decided already but let's see- Why isn't this a participation grant? From what I recall she already requested one or maybe two of those? Theo10011 04:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there going to be any limit to how many grants a person can request? Also, is there going to be some consideration if the person requesting the grant is currently on the same organization's payroll? (I know technically, fellows aren't employees but legally they are contractors or something similar ) Theo10011 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest an arbitrary cap but some consideration to how many times a person can receive a grant has to play into it, especially if the said person is technically a fellow, and already receiving dispensation for two other ongoing projects. You realize how large the movement is, and how small the grant budget is, in comparison, better than anyone. Of all the ROI discussions, can't you see the implication of preference here? Theo10011 04:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that this request should be approved. With the importance of Sarah being one of the leading people in Wiki GLAM it surely merits positive response. The structure of the request is usual, and I hope it's only a joke the number of grant requests submitted by one person to get into consideration. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski 23:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril, don't you think this should be handled internally? Sarah is on WMF payroll, technicality of it aside. I don't have anything to say about the merit of this grant but the impression it gives. And no, it is not a joke, after someone has not requested but received 3 grants, especially when it comes to attending events and conferences, the previous successful grants usually do play into consideration in other grant models. Theo10011 01:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even it is true that Sarah is on a WMF fellowship, she is not coming to Santiago working on this fellowship, so it's natural that she has to ask for a different grant. But I don't see what will be the difference... after all, if WMF is paying for it directly or by a grant, it will be the same. I prefer this way where it is public and subject to debate; if Sarah comes to SCL as a fellow but don't do work about her fellowship, someone could say that she is wasting WMF money.
On the other side, I agree that the number of grants awarded and not awarded should be something to take on account. Have Sarah's past grants been successful? IMHO, yes, they have. So a new grant would be for someone who we trust and we know how she can help the community. After all, the final decision should take account if the goal is worthy. --B1mbo 01:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every specific grant request should be discussed separately. If the request is good, it'll be approved; if not, rejected. It's weird to me to impose any precedence as a decisive criterion to evaluate a new grant request. Even it is again for a participation on a conference, we've clearly defined to accept applications requesting participation grants and evaluate them.--Kiril Simeonovski 03:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. How this relates to Sarah's fellowship status, why did she choose this way to fund the trip and what is the resolution of the WMF are critical questions that provoke inside information. I hope Sarah can share some comments with information allowed in publicity. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski 03:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. As stated on my fellowship announcement[1] and on my userpage, my work is focused, on behalf of WMF and as a community fellow, on engaging women to contribute and participate in our projects. I inquired with Asaf and Siko, about my potential trip to do GLAM work in Chile, and if I should apply for a grant or if I would apply internally, because I was unaware. I was advised by Asaf that I would go through this grant program in order to obtain funding since it did not relate to my gender gap work. To be fully transparent, I may meet with a women's organization at the University of Chile, but, it is not going to be "eating" into my time as requested by this grant. (Meaning, it will be during a personal day I intend on taking to enjoy the area.) One more thing - I can't apply for a participation grant because participation grants are for NON WIKIMEDIA related events. This is an event and series of meetings programmed by Wikimedia Chile. Thank you for your consideration. SarahStierch 17:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought participation grants were for any event. I know Laura received a participation grant for GLAMcamp in Amsterdam, which was hosted by a chapter. John Vandenberg 06:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also had a participation grant for GLAMcamp. Both were the first ones ever done so I guess the method was being developed at the time and now is for non-Wikimedia events only. --B1mbo 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Correct, Participation Grants are not intended for movement events, despite the fact some were granted in the program's infancy. We have since thought better of it. An announcement of this change is forthcoming, and was delayed for a technical reason to do with the program name. We will be communicating about this shortly on the main mailing lists. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant request amount lowered[edit]

Hi everyone. I just wanted to let you know that I was able to knock $294.85 off my original grant request due to some minor transportation changes. Thanks for the consideration, again. SarahStierch 15:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference I'm seeing is of $72. Can you clarify? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I striked it out above. Sorry about that. I have a math disability and I didn't get anyone to help me to double check this time. The plane ticket is cheaper. (However I assure you everything else was double checked!) Sorry! Let's just say I don't break up the check at group dinners! Sorry, it's a really embarrassing thing that I sadly have to deal with more than I care to admit. SarahStierch 21:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, thanks for the clarification. This request is approved. :) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:PEG/SarahStierch/GLAM_WIKI_Santiago_attendance&oldid=6695486"