APGs are the way that chapters and thorgs request funding from the Wikimedia Foundation. Usergroups are ineligible. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-23/News_a...

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:09 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

Katy Love wrote:

...

tl;dr:[0] Please join the community review for six annual plan grant proposals requesting USD $1.5 million in movement funds. Add your questions and comments to the proposals until April 30!

Hello Wikimedians,

Round 2 of the Annual Plan Grants program [1] is underway, and the Community Review process is open for your comments and questions. In this round, six proposals were submitted to the Funds Dissemination Committee, by the Centre for Internet and Society, Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimédia France, Wikimedia Italia, Wikimedia Norge, and Wikimedia ZA -- with total requests of USD $1,531,687. [2] These six proposals, developed based on the organizations' annual plans, include programmatic and operational costs, and are requests for general funding.

Hi.

I've looked through some of this briefly and I'm still unclear what an annual plan grant is, exactly.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG and your e-mail directed me to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information, but I'm still not totally sure I get it. Are annual plan grants open to anyone or just affiliated groups?

I took a look at this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2.

It seems like annual plan grants are (mostly?) for certain types of Wikimedia chapters? Are the grants considered one-time or recurring? Perhaps more specifically: how are the funds distributed throughout a year? I also thought annual plan grant might mean that the money is specifically intended to fund annual plans of other organizations, but I'm struggling to find a clear definition on Meta-Wiki at the moment.

MZMcBride

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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.

HTH, Pine On Apr 7, 2015 9:09 PM, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

Katy Love wrote:

...

tl;dr:[0] Please join the community review for six annual plan grant proposals requesting USD $1.5 million in movement funds. Add your questions and comments to the proposals until April 30!

Hello Wikimedians,

Round 2 of the Annual Plan Grants program [1] is underway, and the Community Review process is open for your comments and questions. In this round, six proposals were submitted to the Funds Dissemination Committee, by the Centre for Internet and Society, Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimédia France, Wikimedia Italia, Wikimedia Norge, and Wikimedia ZA -- with total requests of USD $1,531,687. [2] These six proposals, developed based on the organizations' annual plans, include programmatic and operational costs, and are requests for general funding.

Hi.

I've looked through some of this briefly and I'm still unclear what an annual plan grant is, exactly.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG and your e-mail directed me to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information, but I'm still not totally sure I get it. Are annual plan grants open to anyone or just affiliated groups?

I took a look at this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2.

It seems like annual plan grants are (mostly?) for certain types of Wikimedia chapters? Are the grants considered one-time or recurring? Perhaps more specifically: how are the funds distributed throughout a year? I also thought annual plan grant might mean that the money is specifically intended to fund annual plans of other organizations, but I'm struggling to find a clear definition on Meta-Wiki at the moment.

MZMcBride

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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 grant types.

I would love to talk with you more about this at the Wikimedia Conference if possible (:

Pine On Apr 7, 2015 11:20 PM, "Luis Villa" lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

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...?

Luis

-- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hi Pine,

2015-04-08 8:34 GMT+02:00 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:

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.

A quick recap of the existing grant programs is available here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start

In particular, a selected quote about the different types of programs: * Travel and Participation Support: travel funding to participate in mission-aligned events. * 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 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 grant types.

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 Wikimedia Conference if possible (:

2015-04-08 8:54 GMT+02:00 Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com:

The Advisory group to the FDC actually made that very proposal.

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 analysis. (cfr. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_at_the_Wikimedia_Foundation) 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).

C