資助：計畫/維基媒體社群基金/區域資助委員會審查流程和框架
The Wikimedia Foundation Funds exist to support the strategic direction of the movement. We want to build a relationship of partnership with all of the people and organizations that are supported through these programs. For this reason, it is important to explain the review process within the new Funds strategy. Partners in the process: Applicants, Community Resources regional program officers and Regional Funds Committees.
The General Support Fund is being reviewed with the new Regional Funds Committees. These committees are decentralised and participatory decision-making bodies, composed of experienced and newer community members, and organised in 8 regions. For more information about the Regional Committee process and its current members see: Grants:Committees.
Our goal is to work with each applicant to explain decisions clearly. In the event the recommendation is to not fund the proposal as submitted we are committed to working with the applicant to ensure they understand what would be needed in the future and to support them in that journey.
Overview of the review process
A brief overview of the review process:
- Applicant submission: Applicants submit their proposal through the new grantee portal, these are available on Meta for general community review and comments.
- Due diligence: The Community Resources team organises the proposals and supporting documents for committee review. These supporting documents include any additional documents the applicants included in their proposal, such as strategic or annual plans, as well as background information about the organisation prepared by Program Officers based on several sources of information: such as Affiliate reports and surveys, review of past qualitative and quantitative results (from grant reporting), budget and staff growth, etc.
- Regional Committee review: Committee members take some time to review these proposals and supporting documents individually based on a series of criteria and questions. The categories and questions that can be reviewed below.
- Initial feedback : During this phase, committees may publish questions on meta so that applicants can clarify any aspects of their proposal. Community members in general may also be posting comments, questions or feedback that applicants should respond to via meta.
- Structured feedback from Regional Committee: The whole committee meets to discuss each project to consolidate a unified feedback document that will be sent to applicants. This feedback may include suggestions for adjustments in certain areas of the proposal or questions around issues that were unclear and the committee would like to understand further to review the proposal.
- Staff feedback shared with committee: At this stage Program Officers also share their Staff review of each proposal with Committee members. This analysis seeks to offer additional information or insights about the proposal based on Program Officers engagement with applicants throughout the process, but also other Foundation staff knowledge around thematic areas and learning from other programs and experiences. This may include analysis about the organizational growth and impact over time, the clarity of their approach and strategies, their staff and budget distribution, etc. Committees should feel ownership of the decision and be empowered to question and use the analysis from Foundation Staff as another perspective.
- Committee/Applicant meetings: In certain cases, committee members may request a live session with the applicants to discuss this feedback and ask questions. Program Officers may also organise these spaces to provide applicants with support to review this feedback.
- Applicant responses and revisions: Applicants have a set time to make necessary adjustments or clarifications. These should be done directly on Fluxx as the final proposal.
- Deliberations: Committee members hold a second round of formal deliberation sessions to make their final decisions on the funding. In this stage they take into consideration all the recommendations and adjustments, as well as the overall budget for the region. In the final Committee recommendation, some further recommendations may be made to applicants to support their implementation work, or for future proposal development.
- Committee funding decision and remarks: The applicants are informed of the funding decision via email, Fluxx and Meta and, if approved, begin the grant administration process.
The Regional Fund Committees use the following framework for the proposal review
Review resources
Useful resources used during review and decision-making:
維基媒體社群基金一般支援基金——提案審查框架工具
這個簡短的工具旨在透過將審核框架與申請流程連接起來，支援提案審核者理解和應用審核標準。
這同時旨在鞏固和組織您的思考過程，為資助審議討論做好準備。您的專案主任同時可以與更廣泛的區域資助委員會使用/共享綜合回應。請如直接向申請者講話一樣來撰寫您的評論，以便您的回饋可以更輕鬆地納入稍後發佈在申請人討論頁面上的建議中。請注意，您的意見和建議的清晰度可以幫助您的區域資助委員會成員和申請人閱讀綜合分析。您可以提供一些具體的例子，幫助申請人做出必要的澄清或調整。
提案標題：
受資助者的姓名：
資助計劃身份號碼（由專案主任填寫）：
| 申請表格中對應這些方面的相應問題： | 主要方面 | 評估標準 | 是 | 否 | 不清楚，需要跟進問題 |
| 5, 6, 8, 9 | 對「知識公平」影響的價值：
代表性不足群體的參與或代表性不足的內容貢獻，例如：
|
在活動、內容或目標群體中適當考慮「知識公平」的維度。 | |||
| 5, 6, 8, 9 | 對志願者社群的價值 | 在實踐中，社群志願者參與了計畫的規劃、實施和反思，得到了很好的證明，或者存在某種形式的社群對所建議工作的認可。 | |||
| 考慮維持或改善社群健康、安全和包容性的措施。 | |||||
| 有關社群對專案如何影響他們（例如他們的工作、技能或能力）的回饋已經或將被收集，並將為下一個策略或計劃規劃提供資訊。 | |||||
| 包括招募或保留志願者的活動。 | |||||
| 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 | 對維基媒體運動的價值 | 擬議的活動和策略很明確，並且能夠很好地應對所提出的挑戰。 | |||
| 建立的合作和夥伴關係有可能擴大專題領域/大規模活動/轉移到其他地區和背景，或在不同團體的活動中提供協同作用。 | |||||
| 應用有價值並可傳承的方法或策略（例如在主題領域或為社群注入生機）。 | |||||
| 13 | 活動符合維基媒體運動 2030 策略的建議與措施。 | ||||
| 如果您的答案是「否」或「不清楚」，您是否有在提案中實施的具體可行建議或澄清與提案帶來的價值相關的問題： | |||||
| 14, 15 | 擬議工作的可行性 | 擬議的資助規模和重要性是現實的，並且是該專案的成果（否則專案不會實現，並且不會與其他類似的專案和其他社群的活動重複工作/重疊）。 | |||
| 10 | 工作交付時間表證明了專案的可行性。 | ||||
| 11, 12 | 相關團隊成員、志願者、合約工和外部合作夥伴的能力和角色都很明確，並表明整個實施團隊匯集必要專業知識的程度。 | ||||
| 16-22 | 預算：收入和支出的計畫執行合理並體現永續性。 | ||||
| 如果您的答案是「否」或「不清楚」，您是否有在提案中實施的具體可行建議或澄清與提案可行性相關的問題： | |||||
| 我們看到的整體優勢（或如果受資助者是再次申請——積極的變化/改進/受歡迎的組織發展，例如在治理、財務管理或透明度實踐方面）： | 整體建議/我們看到的機會： | ||||
| 在元維基上後續/澄清的問題（如有）： | |||||
初始資助的建議（如果決定已經明確）：
| |||||
參見
維基媒體基金會的社群資源團隊支援維基媒體基金會的資助計劃。我們為維基媒體運動提供資助機會、指導和其他資源。