On 17/08/2011 12:56, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17 August 2011 12:52, Charles Matthews
So I'm envisaging individual editors being
encouraged to show what they
can do with small grants and coming back for more when the results are
visible. I think this kind of emphasis should be built into the system.
ideas for macrogrants could lend themselves to a microgrant
trial-run, not all will. I don't think there should be an expectation
that you apply for a microgrant before you apply for a macrogrant.
That is not what I meant,; and indeed the other thread on digitisation
suggests that some macrogrants could be (a) initiating, not following on
from microgrants, and perhaps (b) not to individual Wikimedians, nor
directly concerned with WMF projects, but in effect to companies doing
work to professional standards that is considered worthwhile in its own
right. But on the other hand I think there is great merit in the concept
of having grants that are awarded only on track record. It's
egalitarian, cuts out bureaucracy, and encourages the development of
knowhow and constructive relationships (of members with the chapter, the
chapter with specific things going on in the projects, board members
with people who are involved with assessment).