Hi Luis (wow, I didn't expect to see you here at this hour!)
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
grant types. FDC/APG's structure recieved a lot of attention in the past
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
I would love to talk with you more about this at the Wikimedia Conference
if possible (:
On Apr 7, 2015 11:20 PM, "Luis Villa" <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Pine W
Just noting that annual plans can go through APG
or PEG, but the
qualificattions and scope are different. Some chapers choose to continue
with PEG funding becuase it is more flexible. The main limiter on PEG
funding is that it will not pay for full time permanent staff; however
according to Meta it may pay for part time or temporary staff.
APGs and PEGs for annual plans are usually recurring, but PEG funds a
variety of programs in addition to annual plans.
This is the kind of conversation that I hope Luis and his team will be
considering holistically in the next several months.
Katy of course is part of my team, so we're here, having a conversation :)
Can you elaborate a bit, Pine? You've done a good job answering MZ's
question, so I'm not clear what conversation you meant to highlight -
simply suggestions on how to improve the pages MZ linked to, or...?
Sr. Director of Community Engagement
*Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge.*
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: