Thanks Siko.
Also, @Brian: the last I heard is that the Committee would like more
members with software development experience. If that sounds like something
you would want to do, I think that the committee coordinators or Marti
would like to hear from you about joining IEGCom for the next round
(although it may or may not be called IEG any more as it joins up with the
new grants categories; the last I heard is that the new category will be
"Project Grants" and they will have some nice new features).
Pine
On Oct 7, 2015 10:06 AM, "Siko Bouterse" <sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Useful points as always, thanks! Marti and Quim have
partnered on improving
processes for technical IEG proposals and there's no doubt still room for
improvement, but always good to have feedback as they're building changes
into each round. Having separate application templates for different kinds
of proposals may be an option, but it will need significant thought to
implement well so we haven't yet gone that route (more choices before a
user can get started isn't always a good thing).
Templates aside, writing a great grant proposal or project plan isn't a
skill everyone has (no matter how good the form/guidelines are), and there
is a delicate balance to find between expecting an applicant to have
everything prepared up front and creating so many barriers to entry so that
good ideas are killed before the community has a chance to see them. We've
found the IEG community comments period to be a useful time to help some
folks improve their proposals significantly, get confirmation on those that
are already in good shape, and also to flag issues to the committee which
may seem obvious to you, but not to everyone.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Andre Klapper <aklapper(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 21:05 -0600, Brian Wolff
wrote:
It would be nice if before asking for general
review, the proposals
were vetted to have sufficient detail. Some of these seem to be "I
want X$ to do Y, and I'm not going to tell you how I plan to do Y, or
how I determined X$ is needed, or even give a detailed definition of
what Y is".
For a grant proposal, I'd expect to see budget justifications, time
estimations broken down by rough sub tasks, a general plan of attack,
potential risks and how the grantee plans to mitigate them, user
acceptance criteria, etc
Thanks Brian. These sound like very valid points.
I'm curious if application templates of other (technical) programs have
already been looked at for IEG and which conclusions were drawn. Seeing
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_programs/Application_template a
nd
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_programs/Life_of_a_successful_projeā¦
I can imagine there's knowledge to share
(*if* that hasn't happened
yet).
andre
--
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Siko Bouterse
Director of Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. *
*Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org> or click the "edit" button today,
and help us make it a reality!*
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l