Grants talk:APG/Eligibility/2012-2013 round1/Checklist

Wikimedia Österreich was a payment processing in the 2010/2011 fundraiser and received a grant in 2011 for 2012. So I changed column 4 "no" to "yes". --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 17:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note the criterion is not just the receiving of a grant, it's the completion of a grant. And WMAT has not yet completed its grant, so it's still a "no", I'm afraid. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of complete? And by what date does it need to be complete? The current wording is a little ambiguous (one of those things you only notice when you actually start applying it!). WMAT will have completed the spending of the grant (but presumably not reporting on it) by the time the new FDC grants are paid (but not by the time they are applied for). Keeping a chapter out just because the timing of the last grant doesn't quite tie up with the new process by a couple of months seems a little petty to me... --Tango (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The definition of 'complete' is in the Notes under the eligibility status table - a grant needs to be completed by 30 June 2012, and its grant report accepted by October 1st, for it to meet this criterion for *Round 1* of the 2012-13 FDC process. The reason we have firm dates is to make it easier on chapters/entities, rather than more difficult, by having fair and objective cut-offs for eligibility status. Please remember that any chapter/entity whose grants' completion process does not meet the timing of Round 1, is welcome to apply for funds in Round 2 (proposals due March 1st, 2013), if they meet the eligibility requirements. If there are urgent activities that need support in the meantime, any chapter/entity can apply to the Wikimedia Grants Program. The cycles of funding will become much easier, I think, once the FDC is in operation through a year; there will always be some difficulty with timing, in the first round of a complex process such as this. --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did those notes come from? I don't see them in the framework. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tango, the framework couldn't have anticipated every detail of this timeline. As Garfield and the team worked on the eligibility status, we did have to clarify cut-off dates. The deadline of October 1 has always been clear in the framework, and so has the compliance criterion around grants. In order to be more inclusive than less, in fact, we worked backwards from October 1st - if grant reports are due by October 1st, and the agreement is that any grantee submits a grant report within 3 months of the projected completion date, then the date of completion needs to be June 30, 2012. We didn't include the additional 60 days that are technically available for grant review, agreeing that any grant report shared with the Wikimedia Grants Program in this period would be reviewed as quickly as possible. --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A date of June 30 for completion of a Grant for an annual plan still doesn't make sense. The annual plan is for one year, 2011 was the first year such grants have been given, so the grant can be completed on January 1st 2013 earliest possible. By that time the chapter needs already an ongoing grant.

For WMAT this is the death-sentence - we have just hired a person based on our Grant and the confirmations with WMF (Barry) that we can move into that direction. Now you tell us because we can't complete our Grant until June 30 we won't be eligible for a further annual plan grant. This is sick! --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 05:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Since Asaf said at Wikimania that GAC grants won't fund staff, I can certainly see the problem here. Hopefully he'll make an exception in this case as a transitional issue, but it is still rather unsatifactory. The main problem I see is that you could have easily submitted separate grant requests for each item on your plan, some of which are presumably completed by now, and then you would have qualified. But, because you did the sensible and responsible thing and submitted the entire annual plan together so that it could be considered holistically and with minimal administrative overhead, you aren't eligible. It's a completely arbitrary interpretation, and not one that makes any sense when actually applied. --Tango (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The Wikimedia Grants program will stretch in this first year to accommodate those cases where chapters have had explicit approval from WMF for certain commitments (primarily staff), and WMAT is not the only one. WMAT will be able to submit proposals to the Wikimedia Grants program including a component funding its existing staff, if/when needed.

This first year of the big switch in how our movement funds work is certainly going to creak a little. We are committed to support each and every one of the chapters, FDC-eligible or not, and we will make something work. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Anasuya, could you clarify who "we" is? My understanding is that you aren't involved in the eligibility assessment process, since you are part of the FDC staff and it was very explicitly decided that assessment of eligibility would not be done by FDC staff. --Tango (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We, in this case, is the Bridgespan team, Christine and I. Gbyrd (talk)

Tango, to add to Garfield's point above, Garfield and team have led the eligiblity assessment process, while I've been responding on the Talk pages to overall FDC process-related questions because I see my role as supporting both the FDC and the chapters/entities, particularly as we go through a pilot first year. I hope that helps make the distinction clear. --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that - your use of "we" concerned me a little. --Tango (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor change

Wikimedia Kenya received 2 grants from WMF in the 2010-11 fiscal year. So I'm going to change the "Has completed (including the submission and acceptance of grant reports) two grants from the Wikimedia Foundation" from a "no" to "yes". Abbasjnr (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a minor change, it changes you from "No" to "Yes if". By a strict reading of the rules, you are correct, but I think a little common sense is required. Those were a grant for the launch event of a project and a grant for the project itself. I don't know why they were submitted as two separate grants requests, but they don't meet the intention of that rule. The intention is that entities have a track record of handling grants well. Two grants at the same time for the same project doesn't contribute anything more to your track record than one grant would have done. I think it is important to apply the spirit of the rules, rather than their letter, especially the first time through. In future years, we'll be able to refine the wording so that the letter of the rules actually does what we intended. --Tango (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Tango in principle, I will add more context:

1. I'm afraid non-incorporated entities are a priori ineligible, and WMKE has yet to legally incorporate or open a bank account. This can be inferred from the second criterion, which calls for a non-expired signed chapter agreement, which WMKE does not have, as it is unable to sign contracts before legally coming into existence. I am therefore changing the first column to No.

   (Yes, this could be made clearer in the criteria, and it seems to have been assumed/implied in "recognized entity", but as we know, our usual process allows recognizing unincorporated groups, who then sometimes take a long time to incorporate and get set up.)

2. During the eligiblity assessment, those two grants were not considered by us to be WMKE grants, but rather grants to the group that undertook to perform that work. At the time, WMKE was far from recognition. We were counting the Grants:WM KE/Start-up grant as WMKE's first grant as WMKE, even though it is largely the same group.
3. As a minor point, that group has not yet gotten its second grant report accepted. It is yet to respond to questions on the report talk page.

I hope that clarifies things. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have likewise changed other unincorporated entities to No, in the checklist. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How to edit the table when updating an entity's eligibility gap(s)

Suggesting that entities use strikethrough to indicate that certain eligibility gaps have been met once the information required is linked to from the Reports table on Meta, rather than changing "not found" or "not in English" to "yes" or "found" or "in English". Moving forward, try and stick to this convention in order to be consistent. Here's an example:

Suggested: Change "not found" to "not found" when a requirement is met.

Not suggested: Change "not found" to "found" when a requirement is met.

Wolliff (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)