Grants talk:Project/Louvain Coopération/Wiki 4 Coop

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

Project Grant proposal submissions due today![edit]

Thanks for drafting your proposal for a Project Grant. Proposals are due today! In order for this submission to be reviewed, it must be formally proposed. When you have completed filling out the infobox and have fully responded to the questions on your draft, please change status=DRAFT to status=PROPOSED to formally submit your grant proposal. This can be found in the Probox template found on your grant proposal page. If you have already done this, thanks for your submission, and you should be receiving feedback from the Project Grants committee in the coming weeks. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I JethroBT (WMF), I'll tried to finish that today before 24h00 UTC. Have a nice day, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 10:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions from Superzerocool[edit]

Hello Lionel Scheepmans, thanks for submit your proposal. I have some questions about your project:

  1. In the proposal, there is a plan to visit "the global south" (or emerging countries ;)): what countries, places, cities or community are you think are the best election?. (I've visited the Louvain Cooperation site, but I'm think is valid write the places in Meta, just to know it)
  2. I don't see the Kiwix endorsement as participant. I don't want a signature from them, but just with a "we're in" is sufficient.

Regards Superzerocool (talk)

Hi Superzerocool, nice to see you interested by this grant. Here are reply to your questions :
  1. Louvain Coopération have projets and local partners in asisa (Cambodge), latin america (Bolivie and Perou), and Africa (Burundi, , RDC, Madagascar, Benin and Togo). Benin and Togo will probably make part of the first destination because these two countries have a commune border and national director. The second destination has to be choose after evaluation of opportunities and need on the field. Do you live in Latin America ? Do you know the situation of Wikimedia movement in Perou and/or Bolivie ? If yes It could be interesting for me to speak with you by video conference. Just tel me if you are open for this.
  2. Emmanuel is busy in this moment, and his colleague Sthephane is on holiday. That's probably why they are not so reactive now. I'm still waiting a email from Emmanuel to check the precise prise of Kiwix plugs to adjust with precision the budget section of this grant. I'm gone send hi an email right now.
Have a nice day, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 14:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Lionel Scheepmans, thanks for your answers. About your question, I'm not familiar with Wikimedia initiatives in Peru and Bolivia. I think you could ask to Iberocoop members (maybe Galio or B1mbo) about status of both countries. (AFAIK, Bolivia has an UG and Peru is trying to reach users to establish its group). Superzerocool (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok Superzerocool, i keep on view this information, thanks ! Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
P.-S. Superzerocool, if we refer also to the list of partner countries of Wikipedia Zero, the only one matching with Louvain Coopération projects countries is Peru. This information could influence the county choose. I'm also planing to make socio-anthropological research and Phd about the use of internet and ITC on global south before and during my field work.
Hi Superzerocool, I'm back and have endorsed the project. Stephane (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Stephane (Kiwix):, thanks! :) Superzerocool (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions abouts the PM and technical expertise 90 € / hour rate[edit]

720 € / day (90 € / hour) is a standard rate in Belgium for senior independent consultants, with an expertise in a specific field.

Project managers can be hired from 300-400 € / day.

Could you develop the "technical expertise" part?

By the way, how do you know the experts you want to hire will accept to work and will require this price?

Do you also have someone to hire and interview them, check CV, references, etc.? --Dereckson (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dereckson and thanks for your questions. You found a mistake in my budget calculation. The real cost is in fact the price of one working hour as project manager in Louvain Coopération. If we take into account the other simulated loads we arrive at +/- 53.595 € gross/year or an hourly cost of 32.36 € gross/hour for 36h/week. The idea is to share the cost of my working hours on benefit to the Wiki 4 Coop project in half part between Wikimedia funation and Louvain Coopération. Sorry for this mistake, I gone correct it right now thanks to you. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 09:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
P.-S. So, to be perfectly clear, the project management will be done by me during my working time in Louvain Coopération. My NGO is ok for this only if there is an half part financial compensation from Wikimedia foundation. Other wise, my NGO have internal tool and solution for sharing his capitalization with its target audience. Unfortunately, Louvain Coopération work until now with CC.NC license witch are incompatible with wikimedia projects. Here an example of website done by Louvain Coopération but published on CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 BE. For the rest, I've made some change on the grant presentation to make clear the separation between this present small scale project (Wiki 4 Coop / 1) and an hypothetical next large scale project grant submission ((Wiki 4 Coop / 2).

About updating the grant submission[edit]

Hi I JethroBT (WMF), just a question to know if I can continue to update informations on this grant submission or if I have to do it on this talking page. We are still in discussion within the NGO and for example the choose of CC.BY.SA 4.0 was made to apply on the seven NGO's Website contain. I would like also transform the table of the project plan to make it easier to read and understand. Could you please tell me what were and where I can do all of things ? Thanks in advance, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 07:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lionel Scheepmans: Thanks for your question. These sorts of changes to the table and small updates based on discussions with the NGO can be made directly to the grant page. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks for the reply I JethroBT (WMF). Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 07:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not eligible for the current round (2017/1) of Project Grants[edit]

Hello Lionel Scheepmans and Louvain Coopération,

Thank you for submitting this proposal. Please note that the application deadline for the current round was March 14, 2017. Your proposal is not eligible for review until the next round because it was submitted past deadline for the current round. For that reason, I am changing your proposal status back from 'proposed' to 'draft.' Please feel free to resubmit your application for the next proposal deadline of September 26, 2017.

We have some application support information available in the following places:

Kind regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Marti (WMF),
Thank you for your message.
Is it possible to protest against this decision ?
Here are few reasons to do it :
  • The not eligible information came the 3 April when it could be done the 15 march.
  • I ve receive notification about dead line change draft to proposal less than six hours before it. That very short time to react. Specially with hours delay between world regions.
  • I've inform your college User:I JethroBT (WMF) about the fact than I will finish my proposal the 15 of march Belgium time and I didn't receive any reply.
  • The 29 of March User:I JethroBT (WMF) inform me than I can continue to edit my grant submission during review process.
  • If the grant can be edited during process review, that's means that the ultimatum is just based on the change of the word « Draft » to « Proposed ».
  • The staff eligibility review has to be done between the 15 – 21 March but the notification came the 3 April, with an important delay of many days to inform me than my delay of 20 hours block the proposal of my grant. There are for me double standards in grant submission process.
  • If it's the case, I see one more time a real distortion between online and offline culture witch could be damageable for our movement by creating frustration, loose of motivation and bad feeling from on side to the other.
The whole wikimedia movement relies on the work of a thousand volunteers who do not count their hours of free working and do not deal with any kind of edit timing. Why the wikimedia foundation witch should be support the movement has she claim, don't respect volunteer culture ?
Yes, the end of proposal have to be organize. But please not like this. Not by refusing a submission just because the word "draft" was change to "proposed" few hours later.
If you or your team decide to keep this grant not not eligible for this current round, so please tell me where I can leave complain or who can I contact to address my complain.
Kind regards,
Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 22:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
P.-S. Hi Marti (WMF) and I JethroBT (WMF), if I don't have reply form you tomorrow, I will start to share this present grief with the wikimedia staff and community. Best regards,
Hello :Lionel Scheepmans,
Apologies for my slow reply. I didn't immediately see your response here. We do understand that sometimes life gets in the way and that not all deadlines can be met, so we have a lot of flexibility built into our program design to allow for that. However, we are strict about the proposal deadline and we don't make any exceptions for late submissions. Unfortunately, your proposal is not eligible this round. You are welcome to submit in the next round.
The notification you received six hours before the submission deadline is merely a courtesy reminder we provide for our applicants. The submission deadline was announced on Wikimedia-L on February 13 and March 6. It has been posted on the Project Grants Start Page throughout the open call.
We have a deep respect for volunteer culture and all of the projects we fund are intended to support volunteer culture in some way. Our deadline does not apply to volunteers, however. It applies to prospective grantees. While volunteers are welcome to work at a pace they set, prospective grantees seeking funding through this grant program must submit a proposal before the submission deadline.
I appreciate your feedback about your preference to get notification of ineligibility sooner in the process. I am sorry for any extra disappointment caused to you by the delay. In fact, it is my usual practice to post about eligibility as soon as possible after the submission deadline. Because this is an especially large round (larger than the last two combined), eligibility review was more complex and time-consuming that it has been in the past. If we continue to see such large rounds, I may need to extend the eligibility review period. In addition, many staff were preparing for and then attending the Wikimedia Conference in the last several weeks, making review more difficult to schedule. In any case, know that your desire for quick notification is heard.
Thank you for your feedback.
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank for this reply Marti (WMF), I will give you an next feelback tomorow. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 08:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm back Marti (WMF). That's true when you say than "Our deadline does not apply to volunteers, however. It applies to prospective grantees." I was a long term volunteers on Wikimedia projects before to submit this grant as NGO staff. My reaction was a bite influenced by it, sorry for this. However, if a great grant structural was done by Wikimedia Fundation, it seems to my eyes than the grant review process wasn't change.
I don't understand for example why you still maintain two turns of submission for project grant when rapid grant are reviewed on a weekly basis by WMF staff with opportunities for revising proposal few time. If the target is to help prospective grantees to achieve projects on the the best way possible, a continue review with weekly feedback could be really much comfortable for every Body. By the way wikimedia volunteer newbie grantee could be framed by the grant system without feeling pressures of dead lines and frustration of grant refused - No rush time for wikimedia staff and committee, a continue review by the communities like every where on online wikimedia project, and no stress of dead line for de grantee. By the way, wikimedia volunteer newbie grantees could be framed by the grant system with a good feeling because no grant will be refused but just reported until the total approbation of all stakeholder (staff, commitee, community). That more or less what's happen in Wikimedia online culture and that's can inspire all grant system. When I say « Wikimedia staff should join online communities's ethic and culture », that's what I mean in fact. The construction of wikipedia is a incredible success story. We can be inspired by its ethic and culture all over our movement including Wikimedia staff organisation and MetaWiki activities. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 12:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Lionel Scheepmans
Thank you for this response. I thought I had added this talkpage to my watchlist after my last response to you, but I see I made a mistake, so I didn't initially get your follow-up.
I really appreciate your understanding about the difference in the responsibilities we hold as grantmakers funding grantees. I also hear how much you value the open and free culture around time that is fostered on Wikimedia projects, allowing volunteers to work without the stress of any deadlines. This is something that I value, too, and I think that everyone involved in grantmaking would share in that value.
There are several very active volunteers on WMF's grantmaking team, and all us volunteer at least a little bit. Furthermore, we have designed our grantmaking programs based largely on our understanding of the online community's ethic and culture around volunteers, and around what those volunteers have told us they would like to see in a grantmaking program. Our grantmaking programs are actually very different from the vast majority of grantmaking programs in the world, for this reason. We run an extremely transparent process, with most exchanges occurring on Meta where anyone can comment or provide feedback, and with all stages involving volunteer participation. Our decisionmaking committees are made up volunteers, who participate in an intensive review process. As far as we know, we are the largest participatory grantmaking program in the world, and we are really proud of this.
In reality, even volunteers have to meet intrinsic deadlines sometimes in order to perform their work effectively (as one example, an editor who maintained the Wikipedia article of a public figure would need to act quickly if they wanted to update the page in time for the article to be ready for the wave of google searches likely to come from the public as the media announces the death). As a grantmaking Foundation, we also have accountabilities that make us subject to deadlines. For example, we are accountable to our donors, to the volunteer grant committee members who give intensively during the review period, to the Board, and to the governmental regulations here in the United States which prescribe how we may and may not grant money. These kinds of accountabilities sometimes come with requirements and deadlines that we do not have the power to change. In response to them, we design internal deadlines that help us to make sure we can meet our responsibilities.
As you noted, we offer Rapid Grants specifically in order to support grantees who prefer not to be faced with submission deadlines. We can do this only because the smaller funding threshold reduces the risks and accountabilities we have to consider as grantmakers. There is a cost to this, though: the Rapid Grants program does not include any volunteers in the review process, which is what allows staff to make nimble decisions and process grants quickly enough to manage ongoing submissions. When we give out larger grants, as in Project Grants, we see it as imperative to include volunteers at every stage. This is one of the central reasons we need submission deadlines--it allows us to stage the intensive volunteer committee work in a way that is respectful of the impact on the people giving their free time. It also allows staff to process grants more efficiently, allowing us to make more grants than we could otherwise afford to offer.
I hope this clarifies some of the reasons our programs are designed as they are.
If you prefer to avoid deadlines, I encourage you to make use of Rapid Grants. Applicants can and do sometimes submit a series of requests over time in order to be able to run programs.
Kind regards,
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Marti,
I'm glad to receive detailed informations from you about grant making. I feel you and other persons involved on the project grant evaluation process open mine and responsible. Thanks for this. The topic of this conversation look for me very important in this context of the Wikimedia movement strategy building. I would like to transfer this topic and this starting discussion some where in the process. Are you ok with this? Are you also welcome to participate to this strategy building as WMF staff? - It looks obvious for me, but ve never know... - And finally do you know where could be the best place to transfer this post ?
Just now a question to finish this topic and for narrow the conversation on this grant submission : I've finished the update of this grant submission for next turn. Is there somebody designated to tell me if every think is ok on the presentation aspect or other ? Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 10:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Lionel Scheepmans,
In regard to your question about the Movement Strategy discussion, my own opinion is that this discussion we are having here is not relevant in that context. I say this because our conversation here is very focused on the details of WMF's present-day grantmaking programs. By contrast, the strategy process is intended to support extremely large-scale visioning looking into the future to 2030. I do believe your high level comments about what you would like to be true about WMF grantmaking in 15 years would be a meaningful contribution to that process. I would encourage you to dream as big as you can, rather than focusing on the kind of programmatic details we are discussing here. It is certain that WMF grantmaking programs will be very different 15 years from now. So if you contribute to that conversation, think about what your ideal Wikimedia movement would look like and communicate about that. You should know that the conversation is happening at a very high level still--meaning that we are currently working on a general, big-picture strategic direction. We will not be sorting out the fine details of how to get there until later. So bring your biggest and highest-level thoughts to that discussion.
Returning to this specific thread, I am guessing that your concern is about making sure that your feedback has been heard. Is that true? If it is, I can tell you that your comments about the present-day grantmaking programs structure have been received by all WMF staff directly involved with Project Grants. Of course, it's also publicly documented here on Meta for anyone else to discover. I see you have already posted a link in the Project Grants Forum. That is the most relevant place for this conversation to be posted.
I want to affirm again that your concerns reflect underlying values that we share and that we took into consideration in the present program design--balanced against additional values that we and other volunteers saw as also important. We have sought to listen to and understand all the needs that have been expressed to us, and we make program design decisions that we hope will meet as many needs as possible. So far, the majority of feedback we've gotten from the volunteers who have engaged with our new program design is very positive, so we think that, on the whole, the program is working. That said, we will continue to revise our design as we move forward, based on what we hear back from participants, including yourself.
Thank you again for your feedback.
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You're right Marti about switching to Movement Strategy discussion and change the scale of my vision and I trust you about the rest.
Just again before closing this topic : I've finished the update of this present grant submission for next turn. Is there somebody designated to tell me if every think is ok or if I have to change something before the dead line ?
And finally, a last question : a new Grants:Project/Rapid/Lionel Scheepmans/Wiki 4 Coop was published with regard of your recommendations, but one week later, I don't receive any notification. Is that normal ? Do I have to send a email to rapid grant email or something else ? A nice day to you, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 17:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lionel Scheepmans, we are glad to offer feedback about draft proposals. This particular round is exceptionally large (with the total request from all applicants summing up to 2-3 times the total request from previous Project Grants rounds). This means I am going to be exceptionally busy from now until the new grants are announced in late May. After that point, I will have a lot more availability in my schedule. Perhaps we can arrange to meet in early June to discuss your proposal for the Open Call scheduled for September 2017? If that works for you, I will make a note to myself to email you in early June to follow up.
In the instructions for submitting a Rapid Grant, I believe it says: "When you are ready to submit the application, change the status in the probox to 'Proposed' and send an email to rapidgrants@wikimedia.org." If you have already done both these things and have not received a response, I do generally recommend that you send a follow-up ping. In this case, I will send a quick note to my colleagues about your proposal now and ask them to acknowledge receipt of your proposal.
Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for these informations Marti. Ok for booking a meet-up with you in June. May the Force be with yo for this round ! Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Change of grant adviser[edit]

Hi Marti, just to inform you than I won't be the Louvain Coopération adviser for this grant any more, because of what is happening on this page. However, you can still contact me by email if necessary and sepecially in june has we have already fixed a meet-up. I wish you one more time good luck with this exceptional project grant session. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 09:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC) P.-S. to Marti. I've change the grant statute from draft to proposed for the next round project grant to be sure to not make the same mistake by doing it to late.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Louvain Coopération/Wiki 4 Coop[edit]

Scoring rubric Score
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?
  • Does it have the potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
4.0
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
4.0
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?
  • Is the budget realistic/efficient ?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
2.8
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
2.8
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • I have not seen any evidence of interest or demand for the content of Louvain Coopération from a local community (and Louvain Coopération does not have the same name recognition or authority of say UNESCO to merit a partnership without that evidence). I don’t fully understand the long-term goals related to collaboration between Wikimedia and the Belgium government and D4D project; I am also skeptical relationship-building at this level would be successful without the support of Wikimedia Belgium.
  • Specific project not easily scalable in my opinion.
  • There are a number of risks - for one, the grantee keeps referring to project activity as paid editing. Measures of success need work and it would be nice to have more information about what kind of content we could expect to gain from this project (specifically related to the estimated # of pages that will be created through the grant)
  • Budget includes items not accounted for in proposal, including €4000 for travel for anthropological research.
  • Very few endorsements and no community engagement.
  • There is no evidence of demand for this collaboration or for the content of Louvain Coopération - even if there was, I’d still have concerns related to paid editing and conflict of interest editing. More details are needed to assess whether the proposed activities are even achievable under the grantee (whoever that may be as there is no identified project lead at this time). I also am concerned about the history of this project and the conflict/tension between one of the participants (Lionel Scheepmans) and Wikimedia Belgium
  • In my opinion the delivery of the project is small. It can be done reducing the cost. I have concern about the quality of the material they would upload in Commons,
IEG IdeaLab review.png

Opportunity to respond to committee comments in the next 7 days

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal. Based on their initial review, a majority of committee reviewers have not recommended your proposal for funding. However, before the committee makes an official decision, they would like to provide you with an opportunity to respond to their comments.

Next steps:

  1. Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback carefully and post any responses or clarifications or questions on this talk page. If you make any revisions to your proposal based on committee feedback, we recommend that you also summarize the changes on your talkpage.
  2. The committee will review any additional feedback you post on your talkpage before making a final funding decision. A decision will be announced no later than March 1st, 2019.


Questions? Contact us.


Louvain Coopération NGO and Lionel Scheepmans, please see note above about the opportunity to respond to committee comments before they finalize a decision on your proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Round 2 2017 decision[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

This project has not been selected for a Project 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!


Next steps:

  1. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.


Round 2 2017 decision[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

This project has not been selected for a Project 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!


Next steps:

  1. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.