Grants talk:PEG/Strategic Priorities
Nice recent edits, Alex and Jessie. On reflection after the PEG evaluation meeting a few days ago, efforts by project designers and managers to increase quality might be seen as of two types:
- First, "top–down"—outsourcing judgements, such as (i) specifying an aim for the number or proportion of products to be promoted by community forums like featured and good articles, and valued pictures, on specified WMF sites; and (ii) jury-based judgements.
- Second, "bottom–up" efforts to improve quality through the community training of and advice to participants (even interim feedback and mentoring/facilitation through one-to-one online contact—something I've never seen in a PEG application), and making available information such as learning patterns (in translation if there's an impact in doing that).
I guess the first comes towards the end of a project and lends itself to numerical measurement; in an application form, I guess it tends to be weighted towards "Measures of success". The second is much more challenging, and is probably weighted towards "Scope and activities" in the application form; I suppose it's more likely to occur at the start and during a project, and to require a deeper level of community engagement. It's harder to express as "Measures of success", which are outcome-related rather than activity-related by their nature (am I right?). That's fine by me.
As a reviewer, it helps me to ponder where these two types of quality improvement measures might be located in time and in the application form. It might also help project managers.
Do you have any comments about this thought bubble?
On further reflection, and having seen the first bullet in A of the new experimental scoring rubric for GAC use, I have fundamental issues with these priorities.
(1) "Does [the proposal] focus on one (not all) of Wikimedia's strategic priorities?, says the bullet for scoring. Why is this approach being used?
(2) The three sections overlap untidily; so I'm unsure why the top level of heading is there, save for the idea (in reverse) of encouraging applicants to focus on one and only one of the three sections.