Grants talk:Project

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

Email Address bounced back[edit]

Hello, I tried to send an email to the address provided (projectgrants [at] wikimedia.org), but I received the following message:

We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (projectgrants) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:

  • You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
  • The owner of the group may have removed this group.
  • You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
  • This group may not be open to posting.

Hi Barrioflores. Thanks for letting us know about this issue. We're looking into it. Until it's resolved, please email grants(_AT_)wikimedia.org. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Barrioflores. It should be fixed now. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference to Travel & Participation Support program[edit]

"Travel to present at non-Wikimedia events is funded through the Travel & Participation Support program". This type of grant is inactive, please replace by " Conference & Event Grants program". MADe (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MADe. Please note that TPS is still active. It is listed as an option for funding on Grants:Start. The Conference Support program is for funding large conferences/events. Thanks. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Round 2[edit]

How it works Round 2? I applied for Round 1, can I apply for Round 2? And how can I apply? --Luca Polpettini (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you may but I advise you to rework your proposals to incorporate the feedback that you have received. Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Grants too late?[edit]

Is it too late to propose a project for a grant? Michael Ten (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For Round 1 is too late. For Round 2 it is not. Ruslik (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Grant $ 100 to buy books[edit]

How to obtain a grant to buy books on the results of the census of Russia to make data ruwiki and wikidata? I wrote to user Ocaasi, but he did not answer. With respect Игорь Темиров (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Игорь Темиров: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn seems the best venue. --Dereckson (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dereckson. Thank you. I'll try.

Look please my application. Apparently I have something not so designed. My application has all the time status of the draft. Игорь Темиров (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Игорь Темиров. I have updated the status to proposed. We review Rapid Grants on Mondays so will provide feedback on your request early next week. Please watch the discussion page. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Alex Wang, thank you very much. Игорь Темиров (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsure how to prove capability[edit]

Hi there!

My proposal, Arc.heolo.gy, was denied for a second time. I had taken feedback from Round 1 and incorporated it into my proposal, but still did not meet expectations.

How does the review board like to see "proof" of capability in the development context? Links to participants' githubs? Resume? Listing current job? I expanded on the backgrounds of all participants, but still received comments like this:

  • "I have some concerns about the sustainability of this project."
  • "The project can be executed with 8 months but there is little information about the grantee. I am not sure they have the ability to execute the proposal."
  • "Not sure that it's realistic: don't know who the grantee is as there is no previous wiki experience"
  • "I am still not sure that the author of the proposal has the ability to execute it."

While I understand I have very little participation in previous wiki projects, the team I have collected has 5+ years each of professional development each, including participation in dozens of open source projects, and I would like to come up with a concise and powerful way to express that while we are not direct participants in the development of Wikipedia, we are huge proponents of it and have the abilities to execute on our plans.
What sort of community participation does the review board like to see?
In addition, I am unsure how to improve my participation in the feedback to rally community support. For both entries, I have posted in the appropriate mailing lists, and they got 0 feedback.
Any recommendations would be hugely appreciated, as I plan to participate yet again in applying for a Project Grant!

Thank you for your time.

--Ianseyer (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You are a new user to the Wikimedia projects, so I recommend you to participate in them for some time in volunteer capacity. After you learn more about them and their needs you may try again. Ruslik (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Do PGs also replace renewal IEGs?[edit]

Hi,

I am a current IEGrantee and would like to apply for a renewal of my IEG project if possible. I am aware that Project Grants are replacing IEGs now, and that IEGs are no longer accepting applications. However, does that apply to renewals as well? Should I then apply for an IEG renewal via the old process, or should I apply for a Project Grant instead?

Thanks! Misaochan (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

At least one renewal was sent to through the regular IEG process. Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Ruslik0:, thanks for pointing us in the right direction. The renewal proposal is complete and currently receiving endorsements here. What should our next step be? Many thanks! Misaochan (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly[edit]

Schedules seem to change around quite a bit. But mostly... the page claims this is quartely. Except that this call will start mid february whilst last call was september. This does not look like quartely to me.

This makes it difficult to anticipate. For example, if the grants were really quartely... we would wait the second quarter to post a grant request for Wiki Loves Africa. But if the next call in 2017 ends up being in September... it will be too late for Wiki Loves Africa. So the question is... will there be a call in Feb, in May, In September and in December. Or only in February and September ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anthere, thanks for asking about this. I realize this departure is frustrating as an applicant in terms of planning. Open calls for Project Grants will be held twice a year instead of quarterly. Before I explain why, I want to let you know that if you have a project in mind that will be effectively interrupted by this new schedule, please contact Marti Johnson. We can work with you to make sure your project can be still be run appropriately, and that disruption from this new schedule is minimal.
When launching Project Grants, it is fair to say that our team (Community Resources) wanted to offer these grants on a quarterly basis. We knew community members wanted flexibility in being able to apply for these grants throughout the year. The reality is that trying to run Project Grants this often was too ambitious; our staffing resources are limited, an it has made it difficult for us to provide a sufficient level of support to grantees and their projects throughout the year in terms of advising and helping them work through challenges. Each open call also takes a lot of work to prepare, such as through scheduling, messaging, and meeting with grant proposers. By offering open calls twice a year, we'll be able to offer better support to both applicants and funded projects. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I do understand the challenge of running it 4 times a year. It makes it more challenging for us (we *really* have to anticipate lol). So I suggest that the Grants:Project page be updated to reflect the reality of things rather than the wish ;) Thanks for the clarification. Anthere (talk)

Complain and grief about not eligibility decision[edit]

Hello, I'm still waiting reply for this post : Grants_talk:Project/Lionel_Scheepmans/Wiki_4_Coop/1#Not_eligible_for_the_current_round_.282017.2F1.29_of_Project_Grants. Could people who read this message help me ? I would like to know whether there is a system of appeal in grant submission system ? Thank in advence and best regards, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 14:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, after this message, a response was provided by WMF. Effeietsanders (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Open points on grant proposal[edit]

At Grants_talk:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician#Aggregated_feedback_from_the_committee_for_EveryPolitician, the comments include:

  • "Please define clearly the impact and the deliveries. In my opinion the cost is to high to have only an automated import in Wikidata."
  • "I want to recommend it cautiously for funding but the progress should be closely monitored and the funding continued only if there is a reasonable prospect that they will achieve their goals."

Is there any follow-up on these points? Has the grant actually been paid out? As some of the contributions appear to amount paid editing, it's not entirely clear what WMF is paying to be delivered. --Jura1 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Something had been posted on Grants:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician/Timeline and there's more on Grants:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician/Midpoint. --Nemo 16:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

This is stable and may be marked for transdlation? --Kaganer (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@AWang (WMF): ? --Kaganer (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kaganer. MJohnson (WMF) is considering making some changes so let's hold off until she confirms the timing. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@AWang (WMF): - ok, thanks, I'm waiting for a notification from MJohnson (WMF). --Kaganer (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
By way, there is these same question about Grants talk:Project/Rapid. --Kaganer (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@AWang (WMF) and Mjohnson (WMF): - any notes about timing for these pages? --Kaganer (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I...[edit]

I created my project grant proposal today. How and when does it get to the page where the drafts are listed. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS). It looks like your Project Grant proposal is showing up in the correct place. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Grant submission failed[edit]

We are submitting a grant and it does not work! Help! --Nattes à chat (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nattes à chat. It looks like your Project Grant proposal is showing up in the correct place. Let me know if you still need help. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Translation of the tab labels in the grant program navbars[edit]

@AWang (WMF), Mjohnson (WMF), Harej (WMF), I JethroBT (WMF), and Haytham abulela: Hi all! As i noticed, in some pages for some grants programs currently is used these navbar templates:

There templates contains parameters for localizing tab names, but they are not used when calling.

In my opinion, thesse templates is should not be marked for translation. Current scheme of grant pages design is very mixed, byt these navbars seen as "design only". That is, all content must be included into Template:GrantmakingNavbar/Content, for future integration of them in Template:GrantmakingNavbar. See my changes for substitute translation for "Title" param as example.

Another question: who is currently the person responsible for the design and technical performance of grant programs' pages?--Kaganer (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: Maybe this topic needs to move into more appropriate place. If so, please someone do it. --Kaganer (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kaganer: This (and my talk page) were both appropriate venues to bring this up. I generally take care of these pages except the APG ones; but I'm on parental leave right now until the first week of November. I sort of...inherited these pages and done my best to work with them. At some point when I return, I would like to discuss with you about how to best setup translations, as this current system is pretty messy (not to mention that translation tags do not always play nicely with other kinds of markup and modules that are useful in grants). Can you e-mail me at cschilling(_AT_)wikimedia.org about when you might be available in November to chat? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF):, OK. --Kaganer (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this. --Nemo 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Written here. --Bramfab (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

SignWriting follow up projects[edit]

Hoi, once the SignWriting font is available, there will be school projects where students write stubs and articles to practice their skills. At this time there is only one project in the Incubator there could be more. German, Saudi Arabian and Brazilian are good candidates (because of their existing involvement in SignWriting. As a member of the language committee I have the opinion that Incubator is not the right environment because the technical issues cannot be properly understood.. (think MediaWiki messages in SignWriting).. I endorse this project because I have championed to them to have Wikipedias because that will jump start the number of people who will stop to be illiterate. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting dates for response[edit]

I received notification that the Project grant for the WiR with the University of Pittsburgh has been initially declined and that a response to comments from the committee are to be submitted within seven days of the initial decision. Later in the notice, the committee has said that they have delayed their final decision to December 15. I intend to make a comprehensive response to the questions and concerns of the committee and will do my best to finish by tomorrow (11/23). I believe that community members/administration from the University will also want to respond but are unavailable until Monday.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Committee pages[edit]

I noticed some pages seem rather stale or perhaps abandoned, have they been superseded or replaced?

  1. Grants:Project/Committee/Candidates (says October 2016 as deadline)
  2. Grants:Project/Committee/Working groups (all sections say "No pages meet these criteria")
  3. Template:Project Grants/Announcement (says "open project proposals are in review, decisions will be announced october 7", last modified in 2016, included in the previous page)
  4. Grants:Project/Committee (says "Invitations for Project Grants committee will begin in April 2016", a bit old; also "Each member each serves either a six- or twelve-month term" but either that's false or the list of members is outdated)

--Nemo 16:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about the denied of Various types of transclusions of Structured Discussions boards[edit]

Hello,

My proposal, Various types of transclusions of Structured Discussions boards was denied.

The Review Board's feedbacks from Round 1 could be classified in two:

1. The positive ones about the impact of my proposal:

  • «The proposal aligns well with Wikimedia's strategic priorities and will have a significant online impact if implemented.»
  • «It sounds like a useful tool»
  • «Flow should be in the interested of everybody, an encyclopedia from the XXI century needs a modern way to communicate, use of user's talk pages shows a lack of interested in the actual way of communicating. Most of the new users to Wikipedia are familiar with social platforms and devices with easy and familiar ways to communicate.»
  • «The success can be easily measured»
  • «The project will definitely impact a large audience. Grantee may look for a bigger target within WM sites/communities that already use flow.»

2. The ones questioning the sustainability of the Structured Discussions extension:

  • «Although serious concerns exist that it may not be sustainable in the long run as the development of Flow has stopped.»
  • «I see significant risk related to doing development for a dead extension. This can result in waste of money.»
  • «I do not recommend funding for this proposal unless my main concern related to the present dead state of Flow is addressed.»

In my understanding, the interest of the project wasn't questioned by the Review Board Members so I provided the following comments to prove that Structured Discussions is not dead:

However, my proposal was refused anyway and I didn't received any additional explanations except an invite to apply again in the future: « To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before »

I was hoping that my comments about the sustainability of Structured Discussions were meaningful but since the comments from Round 1 suggested that this was the only reason of the refusal, I would appreciate to receive a detailed explanation for this refusal.

Thank you for your time. --ClemFlip 10:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ClemFlip, thank you for following up. I'm going to reach out to the committee members who reviewed your proposal and ask for more information about the decision. It might take me a few days to get back to you, but I (or a committee member) will definitely follow up by Friday at the latest. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You proposal was still written with the old Flow in mind. You only latter changed the name to 'Structured discussions'. So, it was not clear whether the development initially aimed at the old and dead Flow will be relevant for new 'Structured discussions'? The project did not look clear enough in its goals and usefulness was unclear. Therefore a majority of the Committee members did not recommend it for funding. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik, thank you for your answer. Indeed, 'Flow' has be renamed as 'Structured discussions' during my Grant Application process. On October 23, I edited my application to reflect that change. However, this rename never changed the scope of the initial functional evolutions proposed in the grant. Meaning that the source code of 'Flow' that we initially planned to improve was absolutely the same than the one in 'Structured discussions'. I am hearing the feedback "goals and usefulness was unclear" for the first time today. I'd have been able to provide more informations if I had heard that in Round 1's feedbacks. Best, --ClemFlip 10:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
They were unclear because you intended to tinker with the old source code which may become obsolete in near future. Ruslik (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
But the source code has never changed! It was just a renaming... I can't believe our grant was denied just because the project was renamed. --ClemFlip 07:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I have never said this. You should read my comments again. Ruslik (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Projects funded in 2017[edit]

Hello, could we have in the list of projects those funded in FY 2017-2018 : [1]

Thanks

Anthere (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

For this Category:Project_Grant_funded_in_FY_2017-2018 needs to be created and filled in. Ruslik (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Ruslik (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Deadline?[edit]

Probably overlooking it, but: What timezone are the deadlines in? :) Effeietsanders (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Effeietsanders. It is not specified :) Basically, it needs to be submitted by 9am Pacific Time on February 1st, when the Program Officer starts to review all of the proposals. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex! Effeietsanders (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Í

Individuals and eligibility[edit]

In my opinion, project grants should not be focused on specific individuals: it's a warning flag for me when a project relies mostly on a single person running the show, or directs most money to a single individual. One reason is continuity: to build something sustainable, you need projects where other persons can step in. Similarly, the projects are assessed and approved collegially, with an open discussion and a committee decision.

Eligibility criteria include some requirements for individuals (search for "applicants"), which help build stronger proposals. However, individual standing with regard to some of those requirements could in theory vary after the approval of a grant. In my opinion, such changes must not affect the continuation of a grant.

  • First, on the decision-making side: if read literally and applied mechanically, some requirements would give an individual the power to override a collegial decision (e.g. I could just block any grantee I don't like on test.wikipedia.org): therefore, the only proper phase so assess eligibility is the period which leads to the committee decision.
  • Second, on the implementation side: an individual is just an individual. If a single grantee truly cannot complete the expected activities (think severe health reason), the project should be able to replace them with somebody else, or we should conclude that the project assessment failed to identify an excessive reliance on a single individual.

--Nemo 22:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, thank you for this feedback. We do take the considerations you have described into account when we make grants to individuals. We try to weigh the risks associated with funding an individual against the opportunity cost if we don't fund them. In many cases, I believe it is very worthwhile to take advantage of the opportunity presented when a passionate, talented individual seeks funding to implement a project idea, even in light of the risks. In fact, there have been rare instances in which health concerns or other issues have presented an individual from completing a project. In those cases, the individual either returns the funds, or works with me to find a way to complete a modified version of the project. In the years of making individual grants, I think the benefits to the Wikimedia movement have far outweighed the costs.
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it's not like I was proposing to discontinue individual grants. The points I made about assessment may have been obvious, as you noted. The points about post-approval changes I don't know. I just felt it was worth recording them here. Thanks, Nemo 20:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I see that there were updates to the requirement about blocks. I guess it's good to make it clear that a past block is not automatically disqualifying. Nemo 08:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Grants_talk:Start[edit]

There are many grant discussion pages. None of them get much conversation alone. The collective effect is that the current system splits similar conversations which ought to be together. Sometime soon, I will merge all talk pages for grants into Grants_talk:Start. Even with many pages merged together I do not anticipate that this one page will get much traffic in the near future.

Sometime soon I will merge this page! If you have comments, please post at Grants_talk:Start#Proposal_to_merge_talk_pages_for_grants. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing proposal after deadline?[edit]

Hi,

Are applicants allowed to modify their proposal after the proposal deadline as long as they have already submitted a reasonably detailed draft before the deadline, or are no modifications allowed? Thanks!

Best regards, Misaochan (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Misaochan: Sorry we didn't get a timely response to you on this, Misaochan. Edits other than minor ones should not be made after the deadline so the Project Grants Committee is able to review the same proposal during the review period. If major changes are needed for some specific reason, please contact projectgrants(_AT_)wikimedia.org explaining the rationale behind this request. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi I JethroBT (WMF), I just received this message on my proposal talk page and was a bit confused by it: "Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through January 2, 2019." I was under the impression that we should not be making changes to the proposal other than minor edits after the Nov 30 deadline? The message seems to suggest otherwise. Thanks again! Misaochan (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Misaochan: My apologies-- in my response above, I was referring to the deadline just before the committee review period, but I wasn't clear about that. During the more open community review period, you are able to make more substantive changes to your proposal. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, okay! Thanks for the clarification I JethroBT (WMF). Misaochan (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Email address bounced back (again)[edit]

Hey, the mail address you provide (grants [at] wikimedia.org) on your page does not seem to work. Is there another way to contact you? --Frimelle (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frimelle: Thanks for letting us know. What page was this on? The landing page for Project Grants lists projectgrants(_AT_)wikimedia.org as the contact e-mail for the program. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
On Grants:Project/Committee below the table --Frimelle (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

les sans pages[edit]

Hi we are trying to update our grant but are not able to do so. When we edit the empty pages the coding is that of the main meta page. Can you help? Nattes à chat (talk)

Hey Nattes à chat, I've been struggling to figure out why this is happening and have been unable to determine a cause. I've filed a ticket in phabricator to help address it, and I'll continue to look into this issue this and next week. In the meantime, what pages are trying to create? I can get them set up for you manually. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Endorse button doesn't work on mobile view[edit]

Hi

I just found this issue still exists (you click the endorse button but nothing happens, but it looks like you were successful) but isn't documented, is it possible to add a note under the endorse button saying 'doesn't work on mobile' or something?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Project list from Wikimedians in Residence[edit]

I wanted to share an attempt at group community review. The context is that the Wikimedia community typically does not organize in groups to review grants. This is a growing problem because the idea behind this process that the Wikimedia community is supposed to oversee the allocation of grants, but the community lacks the infrastructure and documentation to on-board reviews and direct them to what they should review.

I am coordinator for a the Wikimedia User Group called Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. At our December meeting we shared this list of Wikimedia grant requests in this cycle of proposals. I am unsure, but I think it previous cycles there were 1-2 Wikimedian in Residence themed requests. This time I found 11 proposals which either fund or depend on a Wikimedian in Residence.

Note that I am Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia, and 2 of these requests (machine learning research US$5000 and library public domain toolkit for US$21,000) are from me for my institution. I am also an adviser who would take no money in the ContentMine machine learning project seeking US$60,000.

Here is the list, and here are the minutes to the meeting where we discussed this - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network/minutes 2018 12.

I am posting all this in hopes of setting a precedent and starting a trend for more Wikimedia community group engagement in the grant review process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Hey Lane, thanks for taking the time to organizing these proposals, and for bringing them to the attention of the user group. It sounds like there's a lot of potential for good feedback and support for each other in developing good proposals. I would like to point out though that the community review period of the current round has passed, and the Project Grants Committee is also coming to the end of their own review and scoring period on the 28th this month. Because the committee members are volunteers, I cannot guarantee they will have sufficient time to incorporate additional community feedback left during this last week, but I will still inform them in case they are able to do so. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Please do not ask anyone to change anything they are doing.
Maybe in the next round we can organize more community review. In retrospect I am just reporting back for this time that I tried and this Wikimedia user group tried to organize some review. It is actually difficult to coordinate this, and we cannot expect that any of the community grant reviewers can further commit to respond to these kinds of efforts. Everyone here is already overcommitted and I cannot ask more of anyone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, and I will pass this on as well. Thanks again for your and the user group's effort, Lane. :) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Endose/Join buttons not working for me[edit]

I don't see any console errors. Is there a better place where I can report this? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I'm not on mobile, cfr. #Endorse button doesn't work on mobile view. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Hi Marco, I tried to replicate the errors you encountered using a couple of different browsers, but I wasn't able to and the buttons worked as expected. These buttons are based on the AddMe gadget, and normally errors would mean something needs to be fixed with the the relevant config file, but because you didn't have any console errors, I'm not sure what the issue could be at the moment. I'll need some time to look into this further. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Thanks for your reply. If you need more details such as my OS, Browser, etc. feel free to email me. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Video link broken for Section: "How will you know if met your goals?"[edit]

Hi, on Grants:Project/Tutorial I couldn't access the last video tutorial. Can you fix the link please? Thanks in advance. Best, Martin Rulsch (WMDE) (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Martin Rulsch (WMDE): Hi Martin, I've done some searching around this evening for this video. I don't have a complete answer for you yet, but a script is available and I'm fairly certain that a video was produced. My best guess right now is that the video was taken down for some reason. Unfortunately, I don't have immediate access to it and cannot find it on YouTube. The team members who may have access to it are on leave from work for several weeks. I'll do my best to continue looking into it while they are away and get back to you here when I have an update. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Thanks for your efforts. I don't need it right now I just wanted to let you know. :-) Best, Martin Rulsch (WMDE) (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Small grants available for Wikimedia GLAM projects in the Global South[edit]

Hi all

Wikimedia Sverige has a small grants application open for people in the Global South who are interested in events and other projects with GLAMs. Please do pass this on to people you think would be interested or suitable for a grant. The projects need to be completed by February 29, 2020.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FindingGLAMs/Minor_grants

FindingGLAMs can fund events that improve the quality and quantity of data related to galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAMs) and other cultural institutions on Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects. This could include, for example, events to train librarians to add information to Wikidata, research events with historical societies to find lists of cultural institutions in your country, transcription projects for Wikisource etc. The focus of the project is making more material available on the Wikimedia platforms rather than creating new material (such as by purchasing scanning equipment and digitizing books).

Funds can not be used to cover the event participants’ time or lost income from other work. Applications to cover trainers’ or organisers' time or lost income from other work have to be filed with and transferred through a local Wikimedia affiliate.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

About the Vietnamese Wiki Writing Contest: Request to postpone the grants for December and the months after that until prizes of past months have been paid[edit]

The prizes of September and October haven't been paid, because judge Tuanminh01 hasn't (or want to?) scored the points of another judge (ThiênĐế98). Although ThiênĐế98 has asked repeatedly, Tuanminh01 hasn't given satisfying answers yet, and now he ignores it, doesn't answer anymore. So I request you to postpone giving out the grant of this month, or give it to ThiênĐế98 because I suspect there's a misuse of grants here. Khủng Long (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Khủng Long: Thanks for letting our team know. We have contacted Tuanminh01 for an explanation and we will take appropriate action as needed. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@WJifar (WMF), LSmith (WMF), I JethroBT (WMF): I would like to inform you that all prizes since September still haven't been paid. Khủng Long (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about time and procedure to have funds[edit]

Regarding Grants:Project/Apply, there is a passage that probably is missed:
Let say a project is proposed, than approved for a certain sum of USD. Then WMF contacts the grantee with a grant agreement. Let suppose the agreement is signed on 1st June.
Let suppose the project is planned to start on 1st September.

  1. Has the grantee to start to pay the project and at the end of the project, after the final reporting, the USD sum will be sent, for example to the grantee bank account as a "refund", or
  2. the grant will be sent before the project start (let suppose on 10th June), or
  3. a part of this sum will be sent before of the project start and the remaining after
  4. or what else? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Daniele Pugliesi: Hi Daniele, thanks for these questions. Generally, we provide half of the requested funding before the Project Grant's start date. Later, a midpoint report is submitted by the grantee (usually after 6 months from the start date if the project is planned to take 12 months to complete). When this midpoint report is reviewed and accepted by our team, we send the other half of the requested funding. Sometimes, there are exceptions to this arrangement, such as when the Project Grant's schedule is significantly shorter than 12 months. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Overview of past funded projects[edit]

Sometimes, Wikimedia Foundation compiles a list of the project grants which were funded in each round. An example is wmfblog:2017/12/18/project-grants-awarded/ for some of the Category:Project Grant funded in FY 2017-2018 and [2] for Category:Project Grant funded in FY 2018-2019.

However it's pretty hard to have an overview of some data about them, for instance a single table with amounts and recipients of project grants: is Community Resources/Grants spending analysis the only place where some up to date data is collated? For instance, from that page I can see that the total assigned funds were $ 673,384 for project grants. If that's the only page where such information about project grants is available, it would be useful to link from Grants:Project and/or Grants:Project/Browse reports.

I would also be interested in knowing what's the tentative budget for this round of project grants. Nemo 12:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Re lists, I put together User:Yair rand/Project grants table, pulled from the application template parameters. --Yair rand (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Making small changes to project plan after the proposal deadline?[edit]

Hi,

We've gotten some community feedback about a few tweaks they would like us to make to the proposed features, and we agree with them. We won't be making any massive changes, just adding a task or replacing one of the proposed features with another. Is it acceptable for us to make these changes now that the deadline is past?

Misaochan (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Misaochan, thanks for your question. Yes, changes to the proposal based on community feedback are acceptable and welcome. One of the advantages of these review periods is that we want to give applicants an opportunity to revise their proposal based on feedback and ideas they receive from the community or committee members. We would encourage you to have these changes finalized before the Project Grants Committee feedback period begins on 17 March 2020 so the committee has a stable proposal to review. With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Need understanding on Community review process[edit]

Hi!

I am quite new to the Project Grant process. I'd like to better understand what is the Community review stage like. Is the grantee responsible to call/engage the community to give feedback on his/her proposal? --BamLifa (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@BamLifa: Thanks for your question. Yes, we would like to see applicants both 1) invite communities who are associated with or would benefit from the project to review the proposal, and 2) respond to feedback from community members and Project Grant Committee members on the discussion page. Proposals where community engagement is lacking, where applicants do not engage with community feedback, or where there is not a clear indication of support from relevant communities are unlikely to be funded. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF):: Thanks for this clarification. I have a new question related to the community. What if the target community is new to Wikipedia or other projects, how can we invite them to discuss our project online? Is there any tutorial that helps us get inspiration? --BamLifa (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@BamLifa: If that community is new to Wikimedia projects, a few possible approaches could be to gather feedback through a survey or have the target community e-mail projectsgrants(_AT_)wikimedia.org indicating their feedback, suggestions, or support for the proposal. This will be reviewed by myself and Mjohnson (WMF) and also provided to the Project Grants Committee for consideration. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@BamLifa: I will also note that even if participants with few edits or are new to Wikipedia endorse the project, it is important to know if those endorsements are coming from the community the project is hoping to engage with or provide benefits to. Endorsements from folks who are involved in similar kinds of work/activities proposed in the project are also helpful, even if they are not contributors with high edit counts. Please let your target community know that it is helpful to understand what background or association they have with the community or proposed work when providing feedback on your grant proposal. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
BamLifa
I love that you are reaching out about how to do community engagement! I JethroBT (WMF) has offered some good pointers. I also wanted to let you know that we have a library of Learning patterns where you might find more ideas, not just about community engagement but other project-related topics. A learning pattern is topic-based wiki page in which previous grantees share their learning. If you search the library for "community engagement," or another similar wording, you will find a number of different learning patterns have been written on this topic. Here is one called Let the community know that I think is useful.
I agree with I JethroBT (WMF) that community feedback on your proposal doesn't need to come only from the target community. Feedback might come from similar or related communities you have worked with on similar projects in the past who can share how the work impacted them and why think it would be valuable to do again. There may be others you can think of outside of the target community who might have valuable feedback.
In terms of the target community of people you mentioned, though, who are new to wikis, start by thinking about how you want to engage this group overall as part of the project, not just in terms of getting their feedback on your grant proposal. A request for proposal feedback is likely to be an awkward and confusing place to start a conversation, as you can probably imagine, so instead think about how you want to introduce them to the project and prioritize building a positive relationship with them, before making a request for feedback. You might focus on a small number of people within the target population who can speak to the needs of their community, and if they seem interested and willing to support your project, you can use the strategies like I JethroBT (WMF) offerd (e.g. emailing us) or if they are excited about the project, it's possible it could make sense for you to help them with the technical barriers to signing on to the wiki and endorsing your project. It's possible that might be a way of building enthusiasm for the project, depending on how it's done.
The main thing is that yu should use your own best judgement about what will best support the project. Prioritize building a positive relationship with the target community over getting feedback on your proposal talkpage. If you find you can't figure out a way to represent their feedback, just offer us an update so we know what's going on and we can continue to discuss what makes the most sense.
Good luck!
Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Marti (WMF), I JethroBT (WMF): thank you so much. You are helping us to succeed with this first project grant. We are going to gather tomorrow with the project team to see which strategy to adopt. I'll let you know. --BamLifa (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF):: We have discussed the matter with the team today. There is another issue that was raised. Our community is more comfortable in French-speaking. Is it allowed that they send and/or endorse in French? --BamLifa (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@BamLifa: Thanks for your question. Feedback can definitely be provided in any language. There are no requirements for applications or feedback to be provided in English. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I JethroBT (WMF) --BamLifa (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Projects advertisement[edit]

Hello. I can't find information about this topic: is it allowed to send mass messages asking for upvotes to users? — Vort (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vort: Hi Vort-- yes, you can invite feedback and support for your proposal via mass messages as long as it is consistent with community guidelines on Mass Messaging on that Wikimedia project. I would encourage you to try to invite communities who are related to or otherwise may benefit from your project. Finally, keep in mind that community support is only one factor by which proposals are reviewed, and we do not use the total number of supports on a proposal as a meaningful way to measure this factor. A proposal with a lot of community support that is lacking in other areas is unlikely to be funded. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Ok, thank you. Do Meta have such community guidelines on Mass Messaging? — Vort (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vort: See MassMessage and outreach:Best practices for reaching out to projects in multiple languages. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I was interested in slightly different method — sending of multiple e-mails via wikimail mechanism. But since MassMessage is allowed, then wikimail should be fine too. Thanks for the answers. — Vort (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Funding for COVID-19?[edit]

Talk:COVID-19#Wikimedia_Foundation_funding_any_Wikimedia_community_projects?

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the next step for Project Grant?[edit]

The committee review has ended and the schedule does not say more about the next step. --BamLifa (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@BamLifa: The review between April 17 - May 7, 2020 is an initial round of review and scoring by the Project Grants Committee. The remaining part of the month is scheduled for due diligence where the program officers consult relevant WMF staff and other experts on the proposals, and for a formal meeting with the Project Grants Committee to allow them to review scoring and discuss final funding recommendations. You can read more about these processes in Steps 3 and 4 in the Committee Workroom page. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find the list of funded Project Grants for this round, is it available somewhere? Thanks! − Pintoch (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Thanks for your question-- I've updated the Grants:Project/Browse_applications page to list these. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Grants to Grant Committee members[edit]

According to Grants:Project/Committee/Eligibility, grants may be awarded to members of the Grants Committee, although "they will recuse themselves from reviewing proposals in the same category as their own during that round". Grants may directly compensate the grantees for time spent.

From the standpoint of trying to avoid corruption, this sounds like a terrible setup. Perhaps a rule should be made preventing people from simultaneously receiving grant money and being on the committee that decides who gets grants? (Ideally, I think we'd even want a moderately long mandatory waiting period between them.) The current conflict of interest guidelines really don't seem sufficient, imo.

(Admittedly, I don't know very much about this topic.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Hello Yair, thanks for this feedback, and I can understand where you are coming from with these concerns. The suggestion here feels similar to WP:INVOLVED on en.wiki in some respects. I have some concerns about this kind of change in that it would weaken the committee's ability to review proposals effectively in some ways by forcing both new and experienced members out with relevant expertise and a history of productive engagement in community discussions, but I can also see the preventative benefits in reducing potential for bias. I'd like to discuss this idea more with other team members, and either myself or one of my colleagues here will follow-up once I receive additional feedback. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Oh, I forgot to mention that you can review the committee workroom page for more detailed information on process and the criteria used to support committee decisionmaking on proposals. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A possible first step is to collect and publish some aggregate information on how often the existing rule has been applied and to how many cases. How many grant requests from committee members were there each year? On how many requests did someone (have to) recuse for this rule, or for other reasons? Nemo 06:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to know how many members of the Grants Committee have received grants while members or immediately after leaving the committee. Even with recusal, there is a natural temptation to award money to people who are in a position to award money to you.
I started by looking at Grants:Project for a list of current and former committee members.
May I assume that [3] is an accurate list of current members?
May I assume that that [4] is an accurate list of past members?
May I assume that there are no other individuals who decide who gets money? I don't want to later hear something like "that's just the quarterly grants committee. We also have a rapid grants committee and three other ways someone can receive a grant. Plus, you can get money that is called something other than a 'grant' in the following ways..."
Next I looked for a list of grants awarded, maybe I am not looking in the right place. Where is this documented? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Rapid Grants does not have an associated committee, I think; perhaps the WMF makes the decisions? There is also a Conference Grants Committee, as well as a lengthy list of other grants programs, with no unified rule set to the best of my knowledge. (IIUC, a global ruleset for accountability and whatnot for funds dissemination is something that's going to happen, per the strategy recommendations, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were over a year away.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Nemo bis: quick list, based purely on page creator so I may not have caught everything. I used the same member lists as Guy Macon and got the grants from Grants:Project/Browse applications and Grants:Project/Browse applications/Inactive drafts.

On User:Alexis Jazz/The chain of accountability there is some information about grants. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I would say that this correct: a grant committee's member can apply for a grant but must recuse to participate in the discussion and process of approval for the specific grants where there is a conflict of interests. Personally I applied for Wiki Loves Monuments because there was the risk to don't organize it in 2017 but the request was done as a team. Anyways I recuse myself to participate in some other projects' discussione where I am not directly involved but where I feel to don't have the correct neutrality to evaluate a project like for instance if someone of the Swiss community applies for a grant because I am also employed in Wikimedia CH as community manager and it happened also that I abstain to evaluate where the discussion with the grantees, done during the evaluation of the project, has created an emotional involvement that would condition my neutrality. In this case I am really in the position that "preventing people from simultaneously receiving grant money and being on the committee" doesn't necessarily create a more neutral committee. I would suggest to check how many of the projects you are giving as example were approved and financed and to check the score of the projects, if you find some clear discrepancy between the quality of the proposal and the decision taken by the committee, it would make sense to say that the current rule is inefficient. --Ilario (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I strongly approve of the goals I see at Grants:Project/Wiki Loves Monuments international team/2017 coordination. Well worth doing, in my opinion.
I am interested in how many of those goals I, a complete outsider, can independently verify. To that end, I have a couple of questions:
  • Under "Budget" I see "Prizes: 7'000 EUR". Is it documented anywhere who got the prizes and whether the entire amount was given out?
  • Under "Budget" I see "Blog redesign and landing page templates: 500 EUR for branding and illustrations for the blog. The bulk of the work for blog redesign is expected to be done by volunteers." Was the 500 EUR spent? Where can I see what the blog looked like before and after the redesign? It also says "templates can be reused by national competitions". If I was part of a national competition, where would I go to copy the templates? Were any of the templates re-used?
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
(...Sound of Crickets...)

I've now searched the page contents as well:

Endorsement only

Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz Why is my user name being brought to this discussion? Am I not allowed to endorse projects? What rule does this violate? Please, refrain from doing this --and remove this list. This whole thread is getting abnormally offensive. --Joalpe (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joalpe: Nobody has said you're not allowed to endorse projects, but getting abnormally defensive over a simple neutral list and even saying the list should be removed doesn't help towards reassuring anyone of your integrity. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I should abide to your criteria of what integrity is and should be. For some obscure reason, you have decided to name and shame editors --like myself-- who have contributed volunteer time to improve the projects. Your level of civility is clearly at odd to what this community is about. As I said, please remove this and stop pinging me, now and ever. And I recommend some reading: Meta:Civility; these are directions we should all consider. --Joalpe (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
For the most recent list (based on wikitext), I was actually looking for projects where committee members were the grantee. As a side effect I also found endorsements (and advisors etc), and while there is probably nothing to be alarmed about with those, I figured I would include them to provide the full picture. There is no reason for you to be upset unless you have a guilty conscience. But as I assume your conscience is clean, I am completely puzzled by your reaction. I haven't even made any statement here. I'm not removing the list. It's a list, data. It doesn't accuse anybody of anything. It's practically the output of a script, only edited for readability. I'll feed Meta:Civility to the script, but considering there is no AI behind it I don't think it'll yield any usable output. Face-wink.svgAlexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I need to clarify that I indeed endorsed these grants: I know both CEE Spring and UNESCO teams very well, and I could not be neutral on them as I saw significant benefits, including to the projects I was working on or I care about. But in all these cases I did not participate in deliberations (typically being excluded from the call when the respective proposal was discussed) to avoid any conflict of interests — NickK (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I think it would be helpful to the discussion if you were to replace the individual names with "committee member" or some such, as the current list appears to upset the mentioned individuals, which I'm sure was not your intention. It can be useful to understand how often there is the potential for issues, but none of the individual cases should be considered as though it reflects badly on the members/applicants. --Yair rand (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: That would only make it harder to analyze the list. If there are any at all, it would make it harder to identify suspect projects. But it would also make it harder to confirm that there is nothing to be alarmed about. The list just provides a little transparency based on public information. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@NickK: Thank you for your response. That makes sense. Question: can we see who participated in the deliberations for projects? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: In theory probably yes, but too long and requires too much staff time for next to no added value. From what I remember most (if not all) cases you mention above were addressed during deliberations — NickK (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@NickK: What I meant was if a list of members who were involved in the deliberations was already available somewhere. I meant literally can, not may. This could be some English confusion: "Can I go the toilet? / May I go to the toilet?" with the former being humorously answered with something along the lines of "I don't know if you can, but I have no objections against you trying." — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I perfectly understand your question. The real answer is: in theory it is probably possible to obtain, but it is clearly not readily available and will require a lot of time. There are multiple stages of review: firstly we evaluate proposals in a tool (where each proposal will probably have a unique set of reviewers, with arrangements made to get every proposal reviewed by 5 or more people), then the feedback is discussed with the applicant on Meta (again, unique set of participants, but usually 1 or 2 per proposal if there is any discussion), then we have deliberations (usually a long video call or a series of several video calls, people may join or drop off during these calls, and we remove people with COIs from specific discussions, so again unique set of people for each application), and we can follow with an email discussion on the mailing list (again, unique set of participants for each application). Thus in theory it can be obtained by tracing all the respective logs / minutes but that requires a lot of WMF staff time, and I don't see the added value that would justify it — NickK (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@NickK: Perhaps I should have also clarified that by "we" I meant "any community member". So the answer is no, because "we" (any community member, like myself, Guy Macon, etc) don't have access to your video calls, logs and email. Another question (sorry to keep bothering you): what is the reason these reviews and deliberations aren't done publicly on-wiki? Or, in case you engage in background checks of potential grantees, what is the reason that deliberations about the merits of proposed projects aren't done publicly on-wiki? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I don't understand what you are looking for. If you want to know if COIs are managed, yes, they are, I routinely see a few COI declarations in each round (and write mine if any). If you want full logs, staff should be able to produce them but that's definitely not something they should routinely do for every proposal. The goal of the committee is to get all proposals reviewed, not to produce names of reviewers of each proposals.
It is not done on-wiki simply because it is not practical, it is much easier for 15 people to reach consensus on 30 proposals on a video call, while it would take a very long on-wiki discussion to reach the same result. Keep in mind that many decisions are not just yes or no but 'yes if' or 'yes for a different scope', so we often need to discuss more than two options. In addition, full publicity may lead to more risks both for committee members (harassment because one voted for or against a specific proposal) and potential grantees (some background information, from living in a dangerous country to having a bad track record of grant funds use, should not be public). The two key elements are always public: committee review (which reflects the first stage of committee feedback but without names) published on talk pages of all proposals, and final review (reflects committee decision) published at the end of the process. It is enough to understand reasons why that decision was made — NickK (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@NickK: Thank you. I was just inquiring what information was available. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unanswered question[edit]

I asked the following question a week ago and received no response. I would liketo broaden the question; is anybody willing to answer similar questions about any past grant?

I strongly approve of the goals I see at Grants:Project/Wiki Loves Monuments international team/2017 coordination. Well worth doing, in my opinion.

I am interested in how many of those goals I, a complete outsider, can independently verify. To that end, I have a couple of questions:

  • Under "Budget" I see "Prizes: 7'000 EUR". Is it documented anywhere who got the prizes and whether the entire amount was given out?
  • Under "Budget" I see "Blog redesign and landing page templates: 500 EUR for branding and illustrations for the blog. The bulk of the work for blog redesign is expected to be done by volunteers." Was the 500 EUR spent? Where can I see what the blog looked like before and after the redesign? It also says "templates can be reused by national competitions". If I was part of a national competition, where would I go to copy the templates? Were any of the templates re-used? Ping Ilario.

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, everything is here and here. Here the winners but as I know not all prizes were claimed (some winners were not reachable). The templates (Wordpress templates) were used in the website of Wiki Loves Monuments and shared with local organizers who asked to have it. Hontesly I cannot answer where it can be downloaded because I am no longer in the international team as the team added several nice volunteers and my support was not necessary anymore. --Ilario (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

#2 Round 2020 schedule?[edit]

  • Hi! I can not see #2 Round 2020 schedule...is it missing? delayed?--2020W (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I was wondering the same. What are the dates for round 2? Also, when will we have an update about in-person events in relation to COVID-19? Thanks, Amqui (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • +1 --2020W (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Same here, energy is back to submit new project proposals. Yug (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)