Grants talk:Simple/Committee/Workroom/Assessment tool

Winifred: I boldly edited overleaf. Please revert anything you don't like.

R2: "Based on past performance and current plans, the organization's resources are focused on programs and activities with matching potential for impact"

The organization's resources are based on past performance and current plans? I think not.

Resources are focused with matching potential for impact, or programs and activities have matching potential for impact? And what is expected to match with what?

"with" is going to be hard for second-language speakers.

Noted that this mixes up track record with the proposed plan. Is that OK for committee assessment? Should both be averaged?

I wonder whether "matching" is needed here. Doesn't it say at the start that expectations are in relation to capacity?

Tony (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. Great edits. I've left most of them. I think I've cleared up the ambiguities you've pointed out. Good catch, especially around how certain criteria apply to past performance or the proposed plan. These are the sorts of things that can get really confusing the first time you use a score card like this, unless they've been thought through. I know using the first version of the FDC staff assessment was a nightmare because of ambiguities like that. I hope we can save the new committee such pain :) Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 01:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1:P1-P4 are about the proposed plan, O1-O3 are about the past, O4 is about the proposed plan, R1 is about the past, R2 is about the proposed plan. Do you think it's more clear in the text now? If so, I think I'm going to go ahead and move this over to the main space. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 01:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer)|Winifred, it's looking very good!

I made some tentative edits. Nice visual design, except that for my eyes the upper-level headings weren't standing out enough. I bolded and capped them, then removed the bold; it looks ok to me, but see what you think. I see you bolded the "Criterion" and "Description" right at the top—but the syntax doesn't display it; I don't know how to fix that.

I corrected a typo in one of the descriptors. In P1–P3, the heading includes "plan". To me, any opportunity to save words is good for second-language speakers (and natives)—both applicants and reviewers. Also, in C2 I changed "plans to" to "will" for the same reason—and it does make the expectation clearer and stronger, which again will be assessed in gradation.

See if you like my removal of the repeated "Planned"; I did this in P4 because "will" makes it utterly clear. On that matter, P2 and P4 are inconsistent in certainty-level—please consider making both "are likely to" or both "will". Since these indicative statements are being graded anyway, I see nothing wrong with "will" (P1 and P3 are indicative) ... As well, P2 already contains a softener: "will lead to impact on", not "will impact on". (I think I made both "will")

C1: I changed it from present to future. "significant investment"—this scheme is for significant funding only, I presume. If you don't want to frame that on the surface, just replace it with "the invesment". Worried that those English clauses bumping against each other might be misread by second-language speakers (and translators)—specifically, the "which". What about "This applicant brings thematic or local expertise that is valuable to the movement; this expertise makes a significant investment worthwhile." It is the expertise you mean, right?

E4: I thought about adding "suitable" to qualify "volunteers", but didn't. Unsure. I know you changed it back, but "doing" a plan is a bit weird. As well as being a dull thud, "do" in English is a catch-all that might well be unclear to second-language speakers. (There's also an "aspect" difference: English verbs emphasise completion; in many other languages (like Mandarin) they emphasise activity, not completion, which they'll be aware of and possibly uncertain about when they read English. I'd make that clearer.)

Tony (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I somehow missed these helpful comments you made back in September. I've integrated some of these changes you suggested. I also added a section explaining how the committee decided to end up using the tool. In the end, they decided not to publish scores for applicants, although they have found the tool to be helpful in their internal discussions and decision making. From my experience working on the staff proposal assessments, I do think the clarifying the phrasing of each criterion is important when making decisions or having discussions as a group, because ambiguities end up wasting so much time, so I wanted to thank you for all your attention to this document even if my thanks are a bit late. :) Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 04:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]