Difference between revisions of "Microgrant Process Review"
m |
|||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''Microgrant Process Review''' is a short project started by Shalf in his role as Board Member to propose and implement improvements to this important internal tool we have as an association to support and nurture great stuff. | '''Microgrant Process Review''' is a short project started by Shalf in his role as Board Member to propose and implement improvements to this important internal tool we have as an association to support and nurture great stuff. | ||
| − | 20170308 Creating page, starting collecting past conversations about it | + | 20170308 Creating page, starting collecting past conversations about it<br> |
| − | 20170309 | + | 20170309 Board Meeting was dense; we didn't had time to properly discuss it (was last point). Will be first point next. Input from Rachel: Wikimedia CH's process seems too complicated. Shalf will present how it works to make sure we have a simple yet evrgreen, trnasparent & properly documented, process. |
| + | <br> | ||
| + | '''''PLEASE DO NOT EDIT BEFORE TALKING WITH SHALF ;)''''' | ||
| + | <br> | ||
=Proposal= | =Proposal= | ||
==State of the Microgrant Process== | ==State of the Microgrant Process== | ||
===Why?=== | ===Why?=== | ||
| − | |||
===How to apply=== | ===How to apply=== | ||
| − | + | The process we used so far was as follow:<br> | |
| + | 1 microgrants contact point for the community (@ana at the moment).<br> | ||
| + | 2. Upon receiving a request, this person immediately asks the whole board by email (using the board@hackuarium.com email address) and waits for 3 positive replies.<br> | ||
| + | 3. If 3 members of the board support the request, it is a green light.<br> | ||
| + | 4. If there are concerns within 48 hours, negative opinions, it gets discussed at the next board meeting (within a month). | ||
===How to review an application and vote=== | ===How to review an application and vote=== | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===How to announce results and follow-up with members applying=== | ===How to announce results and follow-up with members applying=== | ||
| − | |||
==Recommendations== | ==Recommendations== | ||
| − | + | Shalf's recommendation is to follow the best example he knows about such process: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH/Micro-Grant | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Why?=== | ===Why?=== | ||
===How to apply=== | ===How to apply=== | ||
| + | |||
===How to review an application and vote=== | ===How to review an application and vote=== | ||
| + | |||
===How to announce results and follow-up with members applying=== | ===How to announce results and follow-up with members applying=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Notes= | ||
| + | * Better communication on Slack | ||
| + | * List of granted projects (not people) with a link to the project description on the wiki | ||
| + | * Projects that will benefit the community, supported by the community (partly) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:25, 10 March 2017
(Work in Progress)
Microgrant Process Review is a short project started by Shalf in his role as Board Member to propose and implement improvements to this important internal tool we have as an association to support and nurture great stuff.
20170308 Creating page, starting collecting past conversations about it
20170309 Board Meeting was dense; we didn't had time to properly discuss it (was last point). Will be first point next. Input from Rachel: Wikimedia CH's process seems too complicated. Shalf will present how it works to make sure we have a simple yet evrgreen, trnasparent & properly documented, process.
PLEASE DO NOT EDIT BEFORE TALKING WITH SHALF ;)
Proposal
State of the Microgrant Process
Why?
How to apply
The process we used so far was as follow:
1 microgrants contact point for the community (@ana at the moment).
2. Upon receiving a request, this person immediately asks the whole board by email (using the board@hackuarium.com email address) and waits for 3 positive replies.
3. If 3 members of the board support the request, it is a green light.
4. If there are concerns within 48 hours, negative opinions, it gets discussed at the next board meeting (within a month).
How to review an application and vote
How to announce results and follow-up with members applying
Recommendations
Shalf's recommendation is to follow the best example he knows about such process: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH/Micro-Grant
Why?
How to apply
How to review an application and vote
How to announce results and follow-up with members applying
Notes
- Better communication on Slack
- List of granted projects (not people) with a link to the project description on the wiki
- Projects that will benefit the community, supported by the community (partly)