Grants talk:Project/DannyS712/Continued work on GlobalWatchlist extension

Add topic
Active discussions

Comment by JoalpeEdit

Thank you for the work you do for the movement, DannyS712. There was quite some engagement in the previous grant request, and I would suggest editors that contributed to the previous grant and communities in general are surveyed to provide more feedbacks --than just bug report, which is most of the activity on the phabricator list you have brought up here-- on the development of the GlobalWatchlist extension. If a survey is not feasible right now, I recommend you ping editors who have contributed on the previous grant so that they can re-assess the tool. Having this kind of feedback would make a much stronger case for the extension you are requesting a grant for, IMO. --Joalpe (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Joalpe I'll send a notification to the users that commented on the last grant, and post some other notifications. I thought that should wait until after the WMF review DannyS712 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Oh, I thought eligibility assessment was already made, as it was scheduled to happen by March 25. If it did not happen on this proposal, you should definitely wait. To be clear: I am a member of the project grants volunteer committee, but this does not entail I have any say on the eligibility of your proposal. Sorry for the confusion. --Joalpe (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Joalpe I haven't gotten any notifications about eligibility DannyS712 (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@DannyS712: The grants team has been very busy with the relaunch of the grants strategy and a large first round of project grant requests; there have been some changes in staff as well. This is probably the context for the lateness of notification. Don't hesitate to getting in touch with the team for more information if needed; I am pinging MCasoValdes (WMF), as she might want to review the schedule of this round. Cheers. --Joalpe (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

DannyS712, please feel free to go ahead with notification about your proposal. Joalpe is correct about the cause of staff delays with eligibility review. We have been extraordinarily busy and I regret confusion that may have caused. Unfortunately, because of constraints related to timing of the Wikimedia Foundation's end of fiscal year, we are not able to further delay scoring, despite the staff delay in eligibility review. As a result, we will ask the committee to take this into consideration when reviewing community engagement in their first round, understanding that some applicants may have delayed notification. At this point, I do encourage you to begin community notification right away. Warm regards, Marti (WMF) (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Joalpe @Mjohnson (WMF) notifications sent, thanks DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Eligibility provisionally confirmed, Round 2 2021 - Research and Software proposalEdit

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've provisionally confirmed your proposal is eligible for review in Round 2 2021 for Research and Software projects, contingent upon:

  • confirmation that the project will not depend on staff from the Wikimedia Foundation for code review, integration or other technical support during or after the project, unless those staff are part of the Project Team.
  • compliance with our COVID-19 guidelines.

Schedule delay

Please note that due to unexpected delays in the review process, committee scoring will take place from April 17 through May 2, instead of April 9-24, as originally planned.

  • Please watch your talkpage, which will be the primary method of communication about your proposal. We appreciate your timely response to questions and comments posted there.
  • Please refrain from making changes to your proposal during the scoring period, so that all committee members score the same version of your proposal.
  • After the scoring period ends, you are welcome to make further changes to your proposal in response to committee comments.

COVID-19 planning for travel and/or offline events

Proposals that include travel and/or offline events must ensure that all of the following are true:

  • You must review and can comply with the guidelines linked above.
  • If necessary because of COVID-19 safety risks, you must be able to complete the core components of your proposed work plan _without_ offline events or travel.
  • You must be able to postpone any planned offline events or travel until the Wikimedia Foundation’s guidelines allow for them, without significant harm to the goals of your project.
  • You must include a COVID-19 planning section in your activities plan. In this section, you should provide a brief summary of how your project plan will meet COVID-19 guidelines, and how it would impact your project if travel and offline events prove unfeasible throughout the entire life of your project.

Community engagement

We encourage you to make sure that stakeholders, volunteers, and/or communities impacted by your proposed project are aware of your proposal and invite them to give feedback on your talkpage. This is a great way to make sure that you are meeting the needs of the people you plan to work with and it can help you improve your project.

  • If you are applying for funds in a region where there is a Wikimedia Affiliate working, we encourage you to let them know about your project, too.
  • If you are a Wikimedia Affiliate applying for a Project Grant: A special reminder that our guidelines and criteria require you to announce your Project Grant requests on your official user group page on Meta and a local language forum that is recognized by your group, to allow adequate space for objections and support to be voiced).

We look forward to engaging with you in this Round!

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants   wikimedia  · org.

Marti (WMF) (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Continued work on GlobalWatchlist extensionEdit

Scoring rubric Score
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?
  • Does it have the potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
7.3
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
7.7
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?
  • Is the budget realistic/efficient ?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
7.8
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
7.3
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • The project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities and can probably be scaled and sustained in the future.
  • It is a concern that Danny is the main/only maintainer and that code stewardship from WMF was provided on the volunteer basis only. Otherwise, the proposal looks is good.
  • Code available in Gerrit, bugs - in Phab, everything open for others to contribute
  • Proposal is the continuation of the development of a tool that improves cross-wiki work, thus our services.
  • The project seeks to fit wikimedia strategic priorities. It is a tech related project and its already in operation. It can be used and adopted elsewhere.
  • Since this project is a continuation of a previous grant, I think it still fits with Wikimedia strategy priorities. Having read the previous grant, I believe this project can be scaled and further expand to support other tools. I don't know if the grantee will continue the request for funding for every update but I think it should create a platform for other volunteers to support in future.
  • The project is iterative. The potential benefits are high while the risks are manageable. There is a clear evaluation plan.
  • iterative replication of prior project
  • The project seeks to use innovative approach to solve it using technology. The impact of the project is highly great us compared to its risk. The project was a successful in its development in the initial stage, so what it’s seeks to do at the moment is to upgrade.
  • Global watchlist extension has proven useful for Wikimedia projects, so improving the existing one would be useful. Again, I am vouching for this project because it is a continuation of an active Wikimedia extension tool.
  • The scope can be accomplished in 12 months and the budget is realistic. Based on the results of the previous grant the grantee has necessary skills.
  • Certainly, the original developer continues to work on his project. Need information about the availability of prior code reviewer and technical advisors from WMF
  • The scope of the project can be completed in 12 months or less. The budget of the project is realistic but if there is a reduction or changes in the budget would be good. The participants or team have the relevant skills set for the project.
  • This project can be completed within 12 months, looking at the activities involved. I think $35/hr ok ok unless the proposer is clear on the project timeline.
  • The proposer has the necessary skills/experience to carry out this project and may bring fresh skills to improve the extension further.
  • The has been visible community engagement.
  • Largely supported by community
  • The project seeks to target the wikimedia movement globally. It has community support. It supports diversity.
  • The target community for this project is the developer community and the media wiki volunteers. The discussion on the extension page on meta suggests that the project already has community support.
  • The project deserves the continued support as its first phase funded under the previous grant has been largely successful.
  • Perfect project!
  • This is an incremental addition to previous grant. There is community engagement on Phabricator. Hopefully, the WMF tech team may connect with proponent, so another round of funding is not necessary.
  • Yes I choose to support the project fully but if there is a change in the budget, it would be very good.
  • I am recommending this project because it is an extension of a previous project. I also think the solution it provides fits well and should be considered. Also, this project involves bugs fixing, implementing and investigating the GlobalWatchlist extension.
 

This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.


Next steps:

  1. Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
  2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on Thursday, May 27, 2021.
Questions? Contact us at projectgrants   wikimedia  · org.

DannyS712, can you reach out to us at projectgrants   wikimedia  · org and provide us with a new email address? The one we have on file is bouncing back. I tried to send you a message today about scheduling an interview for next week. I've leaving for the weekend (going camping, so won't have internet access) but I will check email when I get back on Monday and we can work on scheduling. Have a good weekend yourself! Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done DannyS712 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Round 2 2021 decisionEdit

 

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $8,000

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support an experienced Wikimedia community developer to continue the development of the GlobalWatchlist, a tool that improves cross-wiki workflows for highly active contributors.

Funding is contingent on completing a consultation with the Program Officer before starting project in order to review recommendations from Wikimedia Foundation technical staff. Grantee will have final say about whether and how to incorporate recommendations.

NOTE: Funding of any offline activities (e.g. travel and in-person events) is contingent upon compliance with the Wikimedia Foundation's COVID-19 guidelines. We require that you complete the Risk Assessment Tool:

  • 14 days before any travel and/or gathering event
  • 24 hours before any travel and/or gathering event

Offline events may only proceed if the tool results continue to be green or yellow.

Next steps:

  1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
  2. Review the information for grantees.
  3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
  4. Start work on your project!

Upcoming changes to Wikimedia Foundation Grants

Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.
Marti (WMF) (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Project/DannyS712/Continued work on GlobalWatchlist extension" page.