Grants talk:IEG/Committee/Workroom/Archive 1

Committee processes for pilot round

Timeline

We've got a really tight timeline for discussion and review in this first round. Anticipating questions about that (because I've been asking myself the same thing, during sleepless nights and working weekends), here is the background and rationale for how we got here:

2 reasons:

1. Giving grantees a timely answer to get projects started: We’ve learned from the German Chapter’s CommunityProject Budget program that some applicants drop out or disappear during a long committee selection process. We all know that the consensus process, though awesome, is not a super fast way to make decisions. This pilot process is structured to help us avoid losing applicants and give grantees as timely a decision as possible. We're going to try to push ourselves to do so by setting and sticking to a tight timeline, and then evaluating how well that worked.
2. Organizational timelines: WMF begins its annual planning process now and I wanted to get through as much of the pilot process as possibly during the early stages of planning, to help make sure we’re asking for the right budget and support for this program next year. We’ve also got a narrow window for processing IEGrant agreements and disbursements if we’d like to get grantee projects started this spring, because of staffing commitments for processing FDC and other grants as well. These are factors we just have to deal with for the pilot round. In future rounds, we should be able to schedule with a bit more leeway.

On the plus side, tight timelines will also help us learn a lot very quickly, focus on the things that matter most, and leave room to iterate and improve for the future. I think this is what the spirit of IEGrants is really about, and it has been a useful strategy so far for getting this program launched :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Public vs private work

Another question I've been asked by prospective committee members is how much of the committee's work can be done in public vs private. I'm proposing a combined strategy of public and private discussions for a couple of reasons:

1. Openness and transparency is important and we should aim for conducting activity on-wiki, in public, whenever possible. Giving feedback and asking questions on proposal talk pages so everyone can benefit from the discussion there is one way to do this. Having a public workroom where the committee discusses how we do things, we share the review tools and methods openly, and so on, also seems important. To help encourage us all to do this as much as possible, I'm advocating we not setup a private wiki as the FDC has, since the existence of one tends to encourage its use.
2. However, we’re grantmaking to individuals, and some sensitive topics will come up. Public discussion does not always allow for frank discussion. And as an individual grantee, having yourself and your ideas reviewed in public can be really intimidating. We want to encourage applicants, and don’t want people to self-select out of the applicant pool more than is necessary. We also want to encourage committee members to have really honest conversations during the deliberation process. For this reason, I'm recommending that scoring of proposals, conducting due diligence on an individual’s background, and each individual committee member’s selection recommendations will be done in private (via mailing lists, google forms, IRC, etc). That does not mean, however, that the outcomes of private processes should remain private. What I'd like us to do is regularly publish aggregate outcomes of private processes on-wiki. So, for example, although individual scores will be submitting privately, aggregate scores will be published on-wiki for each proposal in a timely fashion.

Curious to hear people's thoughts about this! Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes sense, it's a balanced approach that takes into account all relevant concerns. Raystorm (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely reasonable. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for handling conflicts of interest

Would this committee like to develop guidelines for how it handles conflicts of interest? In the membership criteria we've said, like with the GAC, "membership does not affect an individual's ability to request funds via the Individual Engagement Grants program. Members will, however, recuse themselves from reviewing such proposals." That is a somewhat broad statement, though, and now that we've got a multi-step review process laid out, it seems like there is room for the committee to decide exactly how you'd like to handle this case, which is bound to come up sooner or later. So, for example, should committee members be allowed to score and/or recommend any other proposals during a round in which they are submitting their own, or would that be the natural point for the member to recuse themselves from the entire selection process? Siko (WMF) (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Formal votes on 'competing' proposals: I'm a potential applicant and a committee member. I also do a lot of work with COI. The essence of COI is that assuming good faith doesn't work when there are external/competing interests. So while I'd love to think that I can meaningfully score other proposals, it is not out of question that intentionally or unintentionally (as bias often happens to be), that someone in my position would score proposals in an anti-competitive fashion to improve their own chances of being selected. Indeed, it is even the appearance of such improprietary that COI guidelines seek to avoid. So can I really be a full-throated critic of a proposal if it is up for the same funds as my own? Moreover, would I continue to be seen by others--and by the criticized proposers--as an unbiased judge? The simplest and strictest approach would be to simply say that you can comment on other proposals but not do any formal evaluation during the round in which your proposals are being selected. Another issue might arise is two comm members both submitted proposals. Without recusal from formal voting, (or even private communications, see below) there could be challenging dynamics related to resent or quid pro quo, that we may try to prevent.
2. Private communications: A secondary, and less clear issue is whether proposers who are on the committee could read or participate in closed committee discussion without using a formal vote. That's less of an obvious issue but some might find it undesirable. It's a risk I'm more willing to take because it's more private, but it's no guarantee of avoiding a clusterfuck.
3. Related membership. For example, both DocJames and myself are on the board of Wiki Project Med Foundation. If a proposal comes up that relates to medicine, would either or both of us be expected to recuse for that basis? I'm less concerned here because the missions overlap rather than compete, but it's still a potential area to give guidance in.
4. Mere relationships (good or bad). Another example, both DocJames and myself interact regularly on English Wikipedia. We get along ok. So in that instance, I wouldn't demand that he excuse himself from evaluating my proposal. On the other hand, would a proposer think it was unfair that James was evaluating my proposal? I think the number and variety of committee members makes this much less of an issue. It might be an issue, however, if I had a horrible history with James, in which case, we might consider him not participating in formal voting on my proposal, but still participating in the rest of the proposals as well as private communications.
5. Sequential rounds This is the last area I can think of. If I was party to internal communications in Round 1, in which I found out that DocJames voted against my proposal, then in Round 2 he had a proposal, would I be expected to recuse myself? Or if I knew that DocJames suppported my proposal, would there be a sense of quid pro quo when his came up for a vote? This type of scenario might argue further for preventing proposers from accessing private communications during their Round, to avoid these issues (as mentioned above in #2).

I recognize I'm being pretty cynical here, but that's what COI guidelines are all about. Ocaasi (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be good form not to have anyone vote on any proposals within a round in which they have a proposal presented. It is very important that no actions be seen as self serving.

I think it is fine for committee members to work on some of the proposed projects and to be associated with the projects. The committee members just must no receive any financial benefit either directly or indirectly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like recusing yourself from review (scoring, recommending, and private discussion - probably including mailing list access? - for the formal review period beginning with scoring and ending with announcing grantees) during any round in which you have a grant proposal submitted may be cleanest solution. What do others think? Siko (WMF) (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see I am the only one in this case now, perhaps its better to let me refrain from the review process. But I don't see a problem reviewing other proposals as long as we are considering other member's vote, if the review process is going to be separate for each proposals. Otherwise refrain the member from this "Proposal scoring & individual recommendations" round unless we are scoring separately. It depends how the process going to be. And if we are not reaching to a solution in given time, mo is not to get involved. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 11:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And being a member, if he gets to know the discussions happening, it should not be intimidating for him. I'd take it this way ;) (just a thought). Let's see what others say.-- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 11:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that if a committee member has an active proposal for funding, it would be best if they recused from the start of the scoring to the announcement stage. We don't want to create any sense of impropriety. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be sufficient to have a low level of abstention of the IEG member involved in a case of COI. The abstention by voting would be sufficient. This is what happens also in GAC. --Ilario (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ilario, at first I was of the same mind as you, that low level abstention as GAC has (simply not voting on your own proposal) would be enough. But I've realized thanks to comments like Ocaasi's that the difference between GAC and IEG is here we are comparing and selecting a few from many proposals - there is a bit more inherent competition built into this system - whereas in the GAC over 90% of grant requests are funded. For that reason, the COI seems to require somewhat different treatment from how GAC handles it. Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Siko's suggestion about recusing from any part of the review process (including scoring, recommending and mailing list access) for the formal review period. As Ansumang validly states, and per above discussions, part of the purpose of the private discussions is to ensure that anyone that's being reviewed doesn't feel intimidated by the reviewing (and in some cases frank criticism) of their proposal. Allowing committee members that have a proposal in this round to see private discussions about their own proposals but not participate in them is arguably worse than not allowing them to see the private discussions at all. Thehelpfulone 23:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Ideal solution would be for those members to have access only to other proposals but their own, so they can help with those, but not sure if it is technically possible to do that in time for this round (separate google docs for each proposal, limit access to them depending on coi? might be hassle, but that way we might retain their help for reviewing and scoring other petitions. Mailing list is a different story though. Not sure how that could be arranged). Raystorm (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be ok for members who are also submitting proposals to ask questions and make comments on others' proposals during the public comment phase provided that any potential COI is clearly disclosed in the discussion. But I agree that it makes sense to restrict access to the private communications during a phase in which their proposal might be discussed in private communications, and I accept the proposal that a member should be prohibited from voting during a round in which the member made a proposal. --Pine^✉ 20:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, it sounds like we're trending towards the following. Proposed guidelines:

• Members may continue to serve on the committee during a round in which they have submitted a proposal by continuing to participate in public discussions and other on-wiki activities.
• Members who have submitted a proposal will recuse themselves from formal review of all proposals during that round.
• Recusal includes abstaining from scoring and formally recommending proposals, and removal from the committee mailing list and any other private channels or documents in use throughout the formal review period.

Any more thoughts before we post to the Workroom guidelines?

I think this conservatively and reasonably reflects our discussion above. I'd go ahead and post it. We can tweak it over time as/if necessary. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done! Feel free to edit further as needed. Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Secretary

I feel like this committee may need a volunteer to act as secretary, to record guidelines like these once consensus is reached as well as be responsible for posting feedback to grantees once we've made our round 1 decision, etc. What do you think? Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If there's going to be an election for secretary I think that should be announced and done in a separate thread on this page. In the future that role might expand to more of a "chair" role which includes communicating with the Signpost or other organizations as a spokesperson for the Committee. That would also be useful if WMF intends the Committee to recruit and select its own members in the future. --Pine^✉ 21:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I leave it to you all to determine how bureaucratically/officially you want to handle a role like this - one one hand I can see that it would be good to share work among several members rather than putting all burden on one "chair," on the other hand I recognize that nominating a spokesperson can be helpful for accountability to ensure things get done. If you'd like to start a separate thread please do - this is your workroom, make yourself at home and organize as you see fit! Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with having a secretary to handle record-keeping and possibly basic outreach. I'm not sure why we would need a chair though, at least not at this point. Ocaasi (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I think the distinction between "secretary" and "chair", at this point, is only that a secretary wouldn't be a spokesperson for the group the way that a chair would be. I'm not sure that we need either of these roles yet but I think they're good to keep in mind as the group evolves. --Pine^✉ 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages

We seem to have a number of talk pages with similar purposes, such as this one, Grants:IEG/Questions, and Grants talk:IEG. I think we either need to make the distinctions clearer with explanations at the top of each page, or these talk pages should be merged. --Pine^✉ 22:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's how I see the distinctions:

1. This page should be the main discussion page for the committee. This is where you guys work together, and where staff like me would come to communicate with you on-wiki. If the words "committee discussion" at the top aren't clear enough, what should be changed to make it clearer?
2. The Questions page is a public-facing page for program FAQs that I hope to turn into actual FAQs + input for new program-related questions/discussion in the future. It is less committee-focused, more "hey, i just stumbled on this program, let's talk about IEGs." We tried to put the template on other non-active talk pages pointing to the Questions page to keep general discussion on that 1 page. Hit or miss success, it seems.
3. Grants:IEG talk page should ideally route traffic to Questions page, agree it is not helpful to have general program-related things scattered everywhere. It seems difficult to enforce this. Suggestions? Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about a redirect from Grants talk:IEG to Grants:IEG/Questions? --Pine^✉ 22:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing, lets redirect to Grants:IEG/Questions. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 14:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. If one of you would like to do this, please just make sure you move the existing discussions there to the Questions page so we don't lose anything :-) Thanks! Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have moved the content of Grants talk:IEG to Grants:IEG/Questions and established a redirect. I also realized that we had yet another talk page at Grants talk: IEG/Committee which I have boldly redirected to Grants:IEG/Questions but I moved its content to this Workroom talk page since all discussion seemed to be internal committee discussion. Outside of individual grant talk pages, I hope that the only two talk pages are Grants:IEG/Questions and this page of Grants talk:IEG/Committee/Workroom. --Pine^✉ 07:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Scoring process

Because the scoring worksheet is detailed and we have so many proposals, I'm not sure that all of our committee members will have the time to review every proposal with a good level of detail. What would people think about saying that each proposal should be independently scored by at least four committee members and that the average will be the final score? This way not every committee member will need to review every proposal. --Pine^✉ 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been thinking along similar lines. My thought was to ask that every member score a minimum of 15 proposals, and if we find any proposal is scored by only 2 members or less then we'll ask someone with time to score an additional few. Because you'll be comparatively recommending funding among proposals, it seems like a good idea to each score as many as possible so that you have a sense of the landscape overall, but agree that asking everyone to do all 23 seems like too much. Does 15 seem doable? Because we'll be using google forms for scoring anonymously and then aggregating the scores back to you all + community, I feel that it would be a good idea to give everyone a minimum number to shoot for as you're doing your own review work...if we started with only an "at least 4" rule I fear scoring will take longer because more back and forth would be needed by design. Siko (WMF) (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How would requiring at least four require more back and forth? If there is a running total of how many members have scored each proposal then it should be relatively easy for members to identify proposals that have fewer than four votes. Also, I would like to recommend that there be a way for members to recommend against a proposal without going through every step of the scoring worksheet. It will save members' time if they can vote for "speedy fail", similar to what happens in the Featured Pictures communities, and then spend the rest of their valuable time on detailed scoring of proposals that they feel are worth scoring on every metric. --Pine^✉ 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is no easy way in the current setup to give you a running total updated around the clock. I can check every day or so and post and updates here, if you like, but what often happens in situations like this is that many people will not start scoring until the last few days, and if they all come in at the end, without real-time updates this does not strike me as a very practical way to help you focus your own scoring. As for the speedy fail, I could update the form to make each scoring question not required, if you need this feature. But does that mean you don't think it is important to give proposers thorough feedback? They took the time to draft a complete proposal and will want feedback on why they weren't selected by the committee. This is a common complaint when people are turned down, and providing aggregated scores and comments is one way we can help them improve for next time. If you don't submit scores but just speedy fail, then we have little concrete to give them. In the featured pictures process, do applicants expect to learn what they could do better next time? If not, and there are zillions of pictures, then speedy fail makes good sense. I guess I'm also wondering how large of an issue you think this is in this round - are there many of the 22 that you would not be willing to spend the time to score? Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope we can encourage members to submit most of their scores before the last 24 hours. If people all do their scoring at the last minute, I think even in that situation knowing what the total number of scores was 24 hours ago is helpful. Also, in the FP communities, reasons are required for "speedy fail" votes and I think the same thing should happen here. The particular proposal I have in mind is the TapAMap proposal, although I'm hoping that you'll update the eligibility criteria such that this proposal is removed entirely. --Pine^✉ 19:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that adding new eligibility criteria once formal review has already begun is a good idea. If it is only the TapAMap proposal, do we really need to develop a new system right now in order to handle one case? You can just decide not to score that one if you feel strongly that it should not be funded, and use one of the private channels (doc or mailing list) to develop a statement from the committee about open source code that we can post as feedback. We can draft and point to a new program rule as well when we give the response to that proposal. And then before the next round we can review eligibility criteria again to see what should be added. What do you think, would this be livable for this round? Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If we have a "speedy fail" option I think that will be sufficient for this round, although I think it would be preferable both to have the "speedy fail" option and to add the sourcing and licensing requirements as a criteria. To use the ship analogy, even if the ship has sailed, I think we should be willing to call the ship back to port if that's what's needed to prevent an problem at sea like this. Anyway, for this round, I think "speedy fail" will be adequate unless the grant proposer changes his mind about the code. --Pine^✉ 08:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Google forms for lightweight piloting

I'm thinking of using Google docs/forms for the individual scoring/recommendations we'll do in this round. This helps us avoid having to setup our own private wiki, for reasons described above, aiming to keep wiki-stuff happening on a public wiki as much as possible. It's also a handy tool for me because it will dump everyone's scores into a spreadsheet so I can easily aggregate, slice, and dice results to serve back up to the committee to give you as much info as you need to make your final recommendations. In the future we might get fancy and build out some better scoring tool ourselves (what the scholarship committee uses for Wikimania comes to mind), but we need something fairly simple and pre-packaged for the time being. Thoughts or major objections? Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. If need be... Not a big fan, but will adapt if required. :P Raystorm (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to hear alternative suggestions! I don't love this as the perfect solution either, just can't come up with a better one that meets our needs quickly...Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We should definitely be using meta for most of what we do. Than create links from Wikipedia and other projects to meta. Agree much should be open so that new applicants can learn from previous applicants.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Scoring and voting for many things that are done in Wikimedia (ie FDC funding, Arbcom decisions, Wikimania scholarships and Wikimania presentations) is done in private, but the result itself (and often an explanation) is done in public. I think that maybe doing scoring in public would be an unwise idea. There's quite a few of us, and we're bound to disagree on the merits and faults of certain proposals. I think it would be most professional if we conduct internal discussions on the scoring/recommendations on the mailing list. Doing the actual scoring can be done in a google form, but I've not had the greatest experience with Google Forms before. It's probably the best thing we can use for now. Could we get in touch with the folks from the scholarship committee to see if we can use what they are? Steven Zhang (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They use custom-built software for scholarships, and it would require some changes for multiple uses. Doesn't seem feasible within 2 weeks, but it does sound like a good idea to reach out to them to investigate for future rounds. Siko (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The last time I tried to use Google for a complicated spreadsheet I found it annoyingly buggy and lacking the features that I needed for the very modest level of analysis I wanted to do, so I ended up doing all of my work in Excel and then copying the results to Google. Maybe Google has improved since then but is there a way that we could use a shared OpenOffice or Excel document instead? --Pine^✉ 18:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm I've not used it too many times but the times I have used it recently (in the past year) I haven't had any problems with it. I'm not sure how feasible it would be to use OpenOffice or Excel in terms of security (we can restrict access to specific email accounts etc with Google Docs) and ease of online collaboration (Google Docs allows multiple people to edit at the same time). Thehelpfulone 23:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Microsoft Skydrive has similar features although I haven't used it recently so I don't know its current capabilities. If Google Docs had more features and was less buggy then I'd be willing to use it. Maybe we can use Google Docs for this round, see how it goes, and adjust if needed for Round 2. --Pine^✉ 20:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Google Docs is the best option, I have been using it myself. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 21:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering timing and privacy/access issues - Gdocs would indeed seem the most efficient. Wittylama (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I've been building out the scoring input form in Gdocs and it seems to be working quite well so far. If you have bug issues when I share it on Friday, please speak up though and we'll figure something out. Siko (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Best way to share background findings with other committee members?

To evaluate some proposals well, we'll need to run around to various wikis and so forth, read lots of community discussions, dig into details with subject matter experts, etc. If a committee member has done the background work for a given proposal, it might be helpful to summarize what you’ve learned so others can benefit from it. Do we think it's a good idea to post it on the proposal’s talk page directly? Or, to avoid making applicants feel stalked and allow for sharing of potential sensitive information, should we use somewhere more private such as the committee's mailing list or a private doc to hold these first draft background notes for the committee, before deciding what should be posted as feedback on-wiki? Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a mailing list is that things quickly get buried in the archives, and it's harder to keep track of open issues. If a wiki is out of the question, a private doc might be much more useful to see the summaries of the proposals (and then people can be pointed to it via mailing list, a la WikiSignpost). Does it make sense? Raystorm (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As we will be investigating fellow editors we must do so in private and off wiki or else we will find ourselves banned per the OUTING policy. If we create a google docs folder and have one doc for each applicant, we can discuss sensitive issues their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the mailing list may work for this one. As an example I always use tags to organize my Gmail account that keep track of all discussions so that none get lost. I would also support the idea of Google Docs, although if private information will be handled there, we might be extremely careful. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Google Docs is probably the best and we can share data much easier. Email could work, but if information is updated, one would need to refer back to an email thread. With Google Docs, one of us can update the document and it's saved in the one location, easy. As for privacy of our discussion, well, we're all adults. I would imagine common sense would apply to keep internal discussion, well, internal. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we ask Arbcom people what their experiences have been using off-wiki tools to communicate. --Pine^✉ 18:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as a clerk for ArbCom, we manage most communication through our mailing lists. We have an IRC channel for immediate discussion regarding uncontroversial topics (keeping track of edits made to case pages, etc.), but the rest of the discussion is being held on the private lists. I agree with what Steven saida above. Personal, sensitive information should only be discussed at the mailing list, but documents can be stored on Google Docs. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If it works for Arbcom it'll work for us. Wittylama (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Although if the information gets personal to the point where we're discussing information that would be oversighted if it appeared on-wiki, I think it would be prudent to have members identify to the Foundation in the same way that functionaries do who have access to nonpublic data, in compliance with the WMF Privacy Policy and Access to nonpublic data policy. Note, "identifying" does not mean that members' names would be public. --Pine^✉ 08:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Tech support instead of cash

Could we hand out tech support rather than cash? The WMF is great at finding good IT engineers, community members are not so good and even if they have cash they may not be able to accomplish their goals with this. Sj thought it might be a good idea here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons the fellowship program was recently shut down was that we cannot hand out WMF tech support. So, no, we can't offer engineering time. :-) Tech is focused on key objectives like visual editor, and are often behind on recruiting for just those key positions, so tech support is actually the thing we're shortest on, while funding is what we've got. What I believe we can do though is fund collaborators, including a technical collaborator, to work together on a project. We can also try to provide a connecting hub for folks to find collaborators to help with their projects - we're starting that "participants wanted' section in the IdeaLab (more still to be built there, including better workflow for collaborators to signup). There has been some interest in the volunteer MediaWiki dev community to participate in this program, which could be a potential stream for technical help. Since we've got people sharing their skills in introductions, I could see one aspect of IdeaLab we might develop further in time would be an idea-skills matchmaking service...and when/if funding was needed to take the idea to completion, then we'd fund it with a grant. What do you think? Siko (WMF) (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading through the IEGs many of them however need tech support and may not succeed without it. It is unclear in many cases if the people involved will have the ability to put together the support they need. It sounds like we need to concentrate on tech recruiting at the WMF :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Although the issues you're raising are valid, I think concentrating on WMF tech recruiting is heading significantly outside of the scope of this program at present. I'd like to have the opportunity to pilot grantmaking a bit, and see how far we can get within WMF's current focus, having just been through one WMF job change already myself :-). Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The other thing that we can do is use volunteer tech resources where possible. If the projects require large amounts of technical assistance then it may not be a viable project, but if it's just a bit here and there, reaching our to our volunteer developer community may be the way to go. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Patching into Wikipedia

We need to patch into Wikipedia to bring that community on board not only to propose ideas but to help vet ideas. One option would be through this board if we can save it from deletion Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard. These could be created on other Wikipedia's and other projects if useful.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Whilst Wikipedia is of course our largest project, a number of our current drafts and proposals aren't necessarily solely related to Wikipedia so we could consider the main notice boards on the other sister projects too? Thehelpfulone 12:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

We will have the Individual Engagement Grants newsletter. We could put initially put some info in the Signpost and on community noticeboards of other major wikis, thereafter keep people updated via the opt-in newsletter. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

At the least informing the Signpost of the current status of the grants round, and perhaps a summary of the shortlisted applications(?) would be desirable. IEG needs buy-in and the Signpost is a good way of socialising it with the wider community as a non-token effort. Wittylama (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Signpost has included a mention of where we are in the process pretty much every week for the past month, and we did what one French community member called a "drone strike"of all 260+ language/projects Village Pumps to invite discussion a few weeks ago. We could use some more publicity this week, if anyone is willing to take on another round of messaging in the next day or 2...I had considered running a second Village pump campaign just for projects/languages that we think are most likely to be impacted by current proposals, and will go tip the Signpost again today if no one else has yet. Other ideas/things people would like to volunteer to do? Getting the word out is easier with more help :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go to WM-L with a reminder that public comment is welcome at this phase. I suggest that the table at Grants:IEG/Committee/Workroom#committee-review add "community" to the "who" cell for the first row. --Pine^✉ 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be great to have you post on that list, thanks Pine! Thanks to Ocaasi for tipping the Signpost again too - if others feel inclined to spread the word on other lists/pages as well this week, all the better. Good point about the table, I updated that to just say "everyone" now :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Project management

Many of the projects main budgetary piece is "project management". I assume that this means paying the user in question a wage to carry out the project in question. Do we have guidelines around this? And if not should we have guidelines around this? When does it become paid editing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

James, I'm pretty sure none of the projects fund direct content contributions, so it would be out of scope from the get-go for someone to be paid to produce content, i.e. paid editing. The eligibility criteria states: "Grants are not available to directly fund content creation. Projects can foster conditions that encourage editing by volunteers (e.g. editor recruitment campaigns), but cannot replace volunteer action by funding someone to edit articles, upload photos, or proofread pages." So I think we're on sound footing here. Ocaasi (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This one here appears to propose just such an arrangement Grants:IEG/Complete and improve ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders in portuguese Wikipedia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it would be ineligible then. Anyone can propose a grant, not meaning it's within scope, eligibility, and fit. Ocaasi (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just reviewed it and while it seems like wonderful work, it is content creation. It'd be different if the proposer was going to teach an entire medical school how to improve content, because that scales and is indirect, but this one person's work doesn't and isn't. I'm pretty sure it's ineligible. Ocaasi (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The final list of proposals that the committee reviews starting Feb 22 will not include ineligibles, but I'm sure there are some in there now - it's been about a week since I've done an eligibility pass, and will probably be a while still before I do another. Siko (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Licensing and open source

The current criteria for eligibility doesn't require that any code created with IEG funds, and any code on which the new code is dependent (with the exception of OS code), be open source and freely licensed. I think this should be an eligibility criterion, and that the TapAMap proposal should be ineligible for funding unless all relevant code will be made open source and freely licensed, with the exception of OS code on which the new code will run. --Pine^✉ 21:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to add even more eligibility criteria for this round at this late date (having just congratulated myself on finishing eligibility checks, whew). If others agree, what would you think about framing it in the rules section of the IEG page instead, the distinction being rules are checked/applied before funding is approved, eligibility is applied before proposal will be considered? Regardless of whether we make it a set rule for this round, I would be strongly supportive of an open source requirement being put forward by the committee before you would consider recommending a proposal for funding in this round - unless you all recommended the TapAMap proposal very strongly indeed, I don't see any reason we should fund it. Siko (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of saving the time of people who might be applying for funding with the idea that they can copyright the code that is produced with IEG funding or is a prerequisite for the IEG-funded code to work properly, and in the interest of saving committee members' time on scoring proposals that are unlikely to pass, I think that the open source and free licensing standards should be as early in the process as possible, which would mean that they would be in the eligibility criteria. --Pine^✉ 19:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, your point about it being as early in the process as possible makes great sense. For round 1, though, that ship has sailed - he's already spent the time to draft, the committee is already scoring. See my comments in the scoring thread above about how I think we can handle this particular case for this round. I'd be willing to add more eligibility criteria for future rounds, but I still don't think it is a good idea to do in the middle of the formal review period for this round. Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Pine that this should be a criteria. I see closed source software as being a no go with respect to funding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Restating some of what I said in the discussion above, having a "speedy fail" option for this round may be sufficient, and I additionally hope that the free licensing and open source requirements will be an eligibility criterion in future rounds. --Pine^✉ 08:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hired developers

I see few of the proposals are intended to hire developers outside Wikimedia? Do we have any criteria to assess them who are not familiar with Mediawiki? How are we going to know that the work 'd meet the Wikimedia requirements, blend in to Wikimedia interface? Or we are leaving that responsibility to the participants? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 19:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good question to ask any proposer who is intending to hire a developer but does not already have one. It should be their responsibility, but as funders I think we'd want to trust that they have the right idea about what sort of developer skills would be required before we would be comfortable funding. Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We are going to need a developer (probably volunteer) to help the committee decide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussions moved from other talk pages

Boldly moved here from other talk pages. --Pine^✉ 07:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to GAC (moved from old committee talk page)

Because the Grant Advisory Committee already has its own process and work to do on behalf of the Wikimedia Grants program, we've thought that it might make sense to start with a separate committee for Individual Engagement Grants. At some point, though, it may make sense to combine forces into one Super Grants Committee, with sub-committees focused on different programs or areas of grantmaking. It would be great to hear any thoughts people have about this - particularly if you've got experience serving on GAC, or the Wikimania Scholarships Committee. Siko (WMF) (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Question I haven't been on either GAC or the Wikimannia Scholarships Committee, but I would hesitate to combine the committees unless there is a clear benefit to doing so. At the moment I believe the committees will have enough difference in their specialization that keeping them separate makes sense. Would there be some meaningful benefit in combining the committees? --Pine^✉ 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

One meaningful benefit I could see is being able to run 1 campaign for new committee members instead of 3 - it takes time to recruit new committee members as long-time members wander off to other things, and pooling our resources to recruit and orient new members who all share an essentially evaluative grantmaking role could be useful. And perhaps to build some more common community around these grantmaking roles. On the other hand, I agree that many of the activities for each program are different, so this would only make sense as a common framework that got divided into pretty clear and different sub-committee roles. I don't think we need to decide any of this soon, though, just a thought for the future. Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you can run a single campaign to recruit for multiple committees. I have some more thoughts on this but I'm short on time right now. I'll try to remember to come back to this later. --Pine^✉ 22:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My experience is that usually there are more great people who apply than places – if you can run a campaign for multiple similar committees and then distribute the great applicants among more free places, that could be a good way to utilize more of the great people who offer to join in a single campaign. –Bence (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so let's separate the ideas of combining recruiting and combining committees. I think we could run a combined campaign once or twice a year, as needed, for lots of groups including those I list below.

• Individual Engagement Grants
• Grant Advisory Committee
• Flow Funding distributors
• Funds Dissemination Committee
• Wikimania Scholarships Committee
• Affiliations Committee
• Research Committee
• Ombudsman Commission
• Board elections coordinators
• Steward elections coordinators

I think combining IEG, GAC, and WSC, and possibly FDC, is a bit risky. I can foresee that turning into a wikibureaucracy and a wikipolitical mess unless it's managed carefully, probably with some role by the Trustees. On the other hand, a combined committee with a common grant application might provide better transparency about which programs may have applied for funding from multiple places including the FDC, and might facilitate committee members having a fuller picture of what a grant applicant is doing. So there are tradeoffs here. Maybe the downsides could be managed in a way that makes the risks worthwhile for the possible transparency benefits. But I'd want to be very careful about how committee members are chosen for a combined grants committee, and I'd want to be very careful about COI especially as a single group gets more budgetary authority, more members, and more possible ways for intentional or unintentional problems to happen. --Pine^✉ 03:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS (moved from old committee talk page)

I would suggest that all committee members identify to the Foundation and get OTRS access since it is likely that at least some grant information may come through email. It also may be that committee members will learn of investigations that are not public or get email questions from organizations such as universities and hackathons, and that also suggests to me that committee members should identify to the Foundation. Perhaps the committee should have its own OTRS list. --Pine^✉ 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Although most of the grantmaking should be done in public, I see your point that there may be things that end up coming in via email. I'd expect the most sensitive information is probably going to come at the point after grantees are recommended by the committee based on public applications - WMF staff will need to do some due diligence on the grantees (full legal names and addresses for checking against the terrorist watch list to comply with US law, gathering bank info for processing payments, etc) - but that information will be handled by WMF staff directly, it should not need to involve the committee. Nevertheless, your note about investigations or email questions seem plausible. Some volunteers do not want to identify to the Foundation, however, and I worry if we made this a requirement too soon, might it keep otherwise great people from joining? What would you think about waiting until the committee is fully formed (by Feb 15th we should have the membership list for round 1 finalized, I'm adding this to the timeline for the program in the pages we're building for next week), and then decide as a group if this makes sense to do? I also wonder if the need for an OTRS list will naturally materialize later on, or if you see this as something needed from the start. Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

At the time I wrote the suggestion above I wasn't aware that a portal would be used. I think the portal will address some of the issues that I had in mind, and it sounds like the Foundation will handle a lot of the confidential parts of the work. I think we can proceed as you suggest, without requiring OTRS for now but keeping it in mind as a possibly useful tool in the future. --Pine^✉ 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

IEG communications on IRC (moved from Grants talk:IEG)

I see that someone suggested having a dedicated channel for IEG on IRC. My experience is that the Meta channel is used lightly so I think we could use that channel for IEG discussions at this time so long as we keep our channel traffic to reasonable levels. The channel is #wikimedia. --Pine^✉ 23:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Never use IRC myself. Would prefer a private email list or wiki. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wary of specialist IRC channels - they tend to have low traffic, which means they're less useful for people, which means less traffic... a vicious circle. If we don't actually need much live chat, I think a different technology would be better. bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the channel was for committee members to discuss proposals (though not privately), not for random people to come asking about IEG--so traffic might not be the issue. It's up to the committee to decide what they want to do. :) heather walls (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bobrayner that a dedicated channel is not the way to go at this time. I think #wikimedia is appropriate for public discussions on IRC if people are interested in talking there. --Pine^✉ 17:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Since we seem to be pretty diverse in time zones, IRC, which is mainly for real-time communication, would not be very compelling to me. I would prefer the mailing list or wiki pages for interactions between members of this committee. Mailing lists would allow interactions that are done in terms of hours (or days). Wikis might be slower, but great for archiving. --whym (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Whym, though I don't which time zone s/he belongs. We have people from UTC, PST, IST.... And PST is 13.5 hours behind IST. Unless we schedule it before one/two days, its not viable. Or may be after removal of ineligible proposals, we can make few groups according to closest Time Zone, if we need live chat. ? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this point about the timezones, it might be a good idea to adjust Grants:IEG/Committee#ieg-members so that we can add our timezones there too? Heather can you work some magic? Thehelpfulone 16:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if timezones might make more sense to list somewhere in the Workroom, rather than the main Committee page here? When designing these pages, Heather and I thought of this page as being the high-level public facing info about the committee (we have one, these are the members, this is how you can join us, etc), and the Workroom page as the place where all the detailed info that you guys need to work together is better suited. I'm guessing you want timezones not so that everyone interesting in the committee as a general idea knows when you're awake, but more for internal coordination. What if we found a spot in the workroom to add info about people's availability or something like that? Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me too, I agree with your point that people should be contacting the Committee as a whole over individual members in almost all cases. Thehelpfulone 00:50, 15 February 2013(UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to list the time zones of the members of the committee, but I suggest that it may be used for internal co-ordination only. The best place to give the information, therefore, would be a subpage of the workroom. --Netha Hussain (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Is there any proposal from previous round? If we have any, how the review process should be? Are we going to sort/categorize the drafts and proposals according to the working groups? -- ɑηsuмaη «Talk» 13:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think proposals from the previous round that would like to resubmit with changes based on feedback should be allowed to do so, myself. I don't think many will, but they should be invited to make updates and mark their proposal as status=PROPOSED. And yes, I've got categories setup and will start tagging things when a few more proposals come in, and we'll surface them in lists for the working groups - sound good? Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! -- ɑηsuмaη «Talk» 10:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Working groups' tailored guidelines/tips for proposers and grantees in round 2 2013

Based on some discussions from this first round of IEG, the committee mailing list has had some ideas floating around it to create more support/guidelines/tips for grantees and proposers tailored to the type of grant project. I love this idea, and hope we can turn a discussion here into action :)

Suggestion: What about making sub-pages for the proposal guidelines for any working group that has specific advice/suggestions they'd like grantees to consider in their area? For example, tools guidelines could start at Grants:IEG/Proposals/Guidelines/Tools.

Would the Tools Working Group members want to own the task of starting a page like that? I'd be happy to contribute some thoughts about the important of having end-users and use-cases baked into a tools project plan, some suggestions about community organizing and integration with community workflows into the page, and I'm sure that many other committee members (in any working group) with expertise in community organizing, outreach, etc will add their suggestions too. Jeph paul has been doing a great job of community organizing around his tools grant as well and this could be a great way for him to share back some of the learnings he's picked up along the way. What do you think? Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Just linking the rest of these, I think it's a great idea and an excellent first task for the working groups. This round it may be a work-in-progress, but it's awesome to think we can collect best practices for types of grants and build on them from the experience/learnings/reports each round.

• Grants:IEG/Proposals/Guidelines/Tools
• Grants:IEG/Proposals/Guidelines/Online
• Grants:IEG/Proposals/Guidelines/Offline
• Grants:IEG/Proposals/Guidelines/Research

Ocaasi (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Specialized roles for committee members

Moving forward from some thoughts that came up on the committee mailing list recently, we started to draft a few specialized roles that committee members could sign up to take responsibility for. The idea behind these roles is to have volunteers leading IEG as much as possible, while also ensuring that we can keep moving on schedule, gain consensus in a timely manner, etc. Having a point person for certain activities might help us accomplish this better in round 2, as IEG grows. Thoughts? Concerns? Suggested changes? If you're interested in taking on one of these roles for round 2, please sign up! (and feel free to think about re-naming a role if you can think of something that suits you better :) ) Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In light of recent conversations, do you think the new member coordinator tasks should generally be merged into the crat role? To me this makes some sense because at the same time you'd be handling permissions and determining consensus on results, that is also when you'll want to be communicating with candidates, onboarding new members, etc. What do others think? Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with merging the two. To my knowledge this is in line with the practices of what bureaucrats do at least in some Wikimedia wikis (with different degrees on how much numerical or discretionary the "coordination" is). Explicitly describing the two tasks would help in any case. --whym (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)