Grants:IEG/Committee/Workroom

round 1 2016 schedule

round 2 2015 schedule

Grants disbursed: December 2015 – January 2016

Primary roles:

1. Provide feedback on the talk page of grant proposals in all 3 stages: ideas, drafts, and final submissions.
2. Evaluate finalized proposals: Review finalized proposals and community input, and score proposals according to rubric determined by selection criteria.
3. Recommend proposals for funding: Recommend a shortlist of proposals for funding based on the available budget and projects.
4. Organize into working groups to accomplish all of the above.

Secondary roles:

1. Help recruit new proposals and ideas, and spread the word about IEG and committee openings during open call periods.
2. Make recommendations to WMF about grantmaking practices and help improve the IEG program and committee process.
3. Become a project advisor. If you’ve become familiar with a project and we’ve funded it, following its progress to completion is a great way to stay involved between open call periods. Read reports, highlight results, check-in with grantees from time-to-time about what they’re producing, help troubleshoot or connect them to others if needed, etc.

1. Encourage Wikimedians to write up new ideas and proposals.
2. Define a budget and schedule for each round with community input.
3. Maintain program pages and information for proposers and grantees.
4. Provide feedback on the talk page of grant proposals in all 3 stages.
5. Determine and communicate eligibility of proposals.
6. Nudge proposals to move from draft to proposed status.
7. Maintain proposal pages with formatting and categorization to ensure committee has easy access to proposals with all info needed for completing review.
8. Prepare scoring rubric and other materials to assist with committee review.
9. Facilitate committee review process, aggregating scores and other info for discussion, bringing in expert opinions and information as needed.
10. Help communicate committee recommendations outward.
11. Complete due diligence on recommended grantees.
12. Approve and disburse grant funds.
13. Support grantees from onboarding through final reporting stages.
14. Support specialized committee roles in facilitating the grantmaking process

Edit the committee roles section Review Coordinator:

1. Close committee discussions in proposal review.
2. Transfer committee feedback and other key findings generated in the proposal review process from private channels (e.g. aggregated scores on iegcom-wiki) to Meta.
3. Communicate committee feedback to proposers in collaboration with staff, when a point person is needed.

Member: — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Keeper of the Clock:

1. Keep track of upcoming deadlines in the review process and IEG schedule.
2. Email the committee with helpful notices and calls to action.

Member: Steven Zhang (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Communications:

1. Spread open calls by reaching out to the broader community through Village pump posts, wikimedia-l and announcements mailing lists, Signpost, etc.
2. Announce new committee members, IEGrantees, etc via similar channels.

Member: Steven Zhang (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Documenter:

1. Maintain record of ongoing and new committee practices and policies on Meta.

Member: Add your name here!

Coordinator / Crat:

1. Control permissions on the private wiki and mailing list.
2. Close committee discussions on committee candidates.
3. Coordinate open calls for new members.
4. Oversee the vetting and approval process of new members.
5. Coordinate welcoming and orientation of new committee members.

Member:

• Thehelpfulone
• Hahc21

Project Advisor:

1. Follow along with an IEG project of interest.
2. Read grantee's midpoint and final reports and provide feedback on talk page.
3. Participate in occasional check-ins with grantee and provide advice or feedback as needed.
4. Help communicate about grantee's project to others when there are relevant updates to share.

Members: Discuss with the grantees, then add your name as an advisor on the project page of an active IEG project!

The committee communicates using a variety of channels, including:

• Proposal talk pages
• This meta Workroom and the Workroom talk page, for discussion and organizing
• an internal wiki, for scoring and deliberation purposes only
• iegcomlists.wikimedia.org (currently private)
• Skype or Google Hangout may also be considered if voice becomes necessary for reaching consensus

Some guidelines we've agreed to during the review period:

• Members are strongly encouraged to communicate directly with grant proposers in the IdeaLab and proposal discussion pages, to make suggestions, to ask questions, and give feedback.
• Members are also encouraged to communicate with grant proposers after grants are announced to discuss how proposals that were not selected could be improved or to share revision suggestions if the proposal may be submitted in future rounds.
• Active committee members should not communicate with recused members or grant proposers regarding private committee discussions about specific proposals during the scoring and recommendation periods.
• WMF grantmaking staff, with the assistance of the committee, will post a one-time release of aggregated scores and comments after the scoring phase has concluded.

The committee handles conflicts of interest from active members who submit proposals as follows:

• 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 all working groups that formally review proposals in the same category during that round.
• Members who have submitted a proposal may continue to serve in a working group reviewing a category of proposals for which their own proposal is not included.
• Members who have submitted a proposal will recuse themselves from the final deliberation and recommendation of all proposals when their own proposal has moved from a working group to the all-committee shortlist.
• Committee members and WMF grantmaking staff who take on a role of advisor to the point of becoming a champion for any given proposal should recuse themselves from the process of reviewing or giving final approval on the proposal.
• Committee 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.
• Committee members should follow the WMF Conflict of Interest Guidelines, which is currently in a draft form at Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest. Any potential or perceived COIs must be first and foremost disclosed proactively to the Supervisor of the allocation of funds. The Committee must be informed of any recusals that take place, but not necessarily of the reasons involving them.