2015-04-08 8:34 GMT+02:00 Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>om>:
I was referring to the qualifications, benefits and
limitations of the
different kinds of grant programs. The way that they're structured provides
some ups and downs for affiliates when we have the option to choose among
A quick recap of the existing grant programs is available here:
In particular, a selected quote about the different types of programs:
* Travel and Participation Support: travel funding to participate in
* Individual Engagement Grants: comprehensive support for individual
and small team projects focused on online impact.
* Project and Event Grants: expenses related to organizing events and
running projects. For individuals, groups and organizations. [The
Grant Advisory Committee (aka GAC) works in the scope of these grants]
* Annual Plan Grants: funding the annual budgets and mission
objectives of affiliated organizations. [The Fund Dissemination
Committee (aka FDC) works in the scope of these grants]
FDC/APG's structure recieved a lot of attention in
few years. I think it would be good to take a step back and look
collectively at the grants programs, and to think about how to engineer
them with today's environment, goals and tools for affiliates, small teams
and individual grantees in mind; and to think about transition points among
Katy has for sure more details, but the APG/FDC process has built-in
from the start the fact that when the staff reaches out to a potential
applicant there is an initial discussion and assessment to see if the
APG is the best route for the given applicant to apply for funds.
There have been cases in the past (on top of my mind, Wikimedia
Hungary) of entities that have decided to go through the PEG/GAC
instead of the APG/FDC after the initial discussions with the FDC
staff and the committee.
So, possibly this is not completely formalized but as a process it
exists and there are precedents.
I would love to talk with you more about this at the
if possible (:
2015-04-08 8:54 GMT+02:00 Christophe Henner <christophe.henner(a)gmail.com>om>:
The Advisory group to the FDC actually made that very
To have a body who would look At the grant system as a whole and not juste
At one of its part.
Not sure if that would ever be implemented sadly.
It seems a most reasonable idea, my 2cents would be not to rehaul
completely the structure of grants because having a structure that is
stable enough (i.e. that is used for some years) is useful to compare
data between different applicants and provide some historical
and if I recall correctly up to date there have been the possibility
to have just one general impact report so far (for this you need
completed grants so we have those up 2013/2014).