Thanks you so much, Florence. This is really interesting and definitely valuable food for thought - a very good starting point for the conversation about funds dissemination.
Arne On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Florence Devouard <anthe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ah yeah. From what I understood, what I outline as a process is very similar > to any type of academic call of projects/funding in the USA, such as NSF, > NASA, NIH, DOE etc. > > Most basic principle: peer review evaluation. > > Florence > > > > On 2/9/12 11:52 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: >> >> I wanted to share an experience with regards to a future FDC. >> >> During two years, I was a member of the "comité de pilotage" (which I >> will here translate in "steering committee") of the ANR (National >> Research Agency in France). >> >> The ANR distributes every year about 1000 M€ to support research in >> France. >> >> The ANR programmatic activity is divided in 6 clearly defined themes + 1 >> unspecific area. Some themes are further divided for more granularity. >> For example, I was in the steering committee of CONTINT, which is one of >> the four programs of the main theme "information and communication >> technologies". My program was about "production and sharing of content >> and knowledge (creation, edition, search, interface, use, trust, >> reality, social network, futur of the internet), associated services and >> robotics" >> >> Every year, the steering committee of each group define the strategic >> goals of the year and list keywords to better refine the description of >> what could be covered or not covered. >> >> Then a public call for projects is made. People have 2 months to present >> their project. From memory, the projects received by CONTINT were >> possibly 200. >> >> The projects are peer-reviewed by community members (just as research >> articles are reviewed by peers) and annotation/recommandation for >> support or not are provided by the peers. There is no administrative >> filter at this point. >> >> Then a committee constituted of peers review all the projects and their >> annotation/comments and rank them in three groups. C rejected. B why >> not. A proposed. Still not administrative filtering at this point. >> >> The steering committee, about 20 people made of community members >> (volunteers) and ANR staff review the A and B. Steering committee is >> kindly ask to try to keep A projects in A list and B projects in B list. >> However, various considerations will make it so that some projects are >> pushed up and others pushed down. It may range from "this lab is great, >> they need funding to continue a long-going research" to "damned, we did >> not fund any robotic project this year even though it is within our >> priorities; what would be the best one to push up ?" or "if we push down >> this rather costly project, we could fund these three smaller ones". We >> may also make recommandation to a project team to rework its budget if >> we think it was a little bit too costly compared to the impact expected. >> >> At the end of the session, we have a brand new list of A followed by B. >> All projects are ranked. At this point, the budget is only an >> approximation, so we usually know that all A will be covered but 0 to a >> few Bs may be. >> >> The budget is known slightly later and the exact list of projects funded >> published. >> >> How do we make sure what we fund is the best choice ? >> Not by administrative decision. >> But by two rounds of independent peer-review who can estimate the >> quality of the project proposed and the chance for the organisations to >> do it well. >> And by a further round through which we know that all projects are >> interesting and feasible, but will be selected according to strategic >> goals defined a year earlier. >> >> There are also "special calls" if there is a budget to support a highly >> specific issue. Projects leaders have to decide if their project is >> related to a "regular theme", or a "white" or a "special call". >> >> The idea behind this is also that they have to make the effort to >> articulate their needs clearly and show what would be the outcome. >> >> The staff do not really make decisions. The staff is here to make sure >> all the process work smoothly, to receive the propositions and make sure >> they fit the basic requirements, to recruit peer for the reviews (upon >> suggestion made... by steering committee or other peers), to organise >> the meetings, to publish the results, and so on. Of course, some of them >> do impact the process because of their strong inner knowledge of all the >> actors involved. The staff is overall 30 people. >> >> How do we evaluate afterwards that we made the good choice and funded >> the right ones ? >> First because as in any funding research, there are some deliverables; >> Second because once a year, there is a sort of conference where all >> funded organizations participate and show their results. If an >> organization does not respect the game or repeatedly fail to produce >> results, they inevitably fall in the C range at some point in the >> peer-review process. >> >> I present a simplify process, but that generally is it. I am not saying >> either that it is a perfect system, it is not. But according to what I >> hear, the system is working fairly well and is not manipulated as much >> as other funding system may be ;) >> >> Last, members of the steering committee may only do a 2 years mandate. >> No more. There is a due COI agreement to sign and respect as well. >> Thanks to the various steps in the process and thanks to the good >> (heavy) work provided by the staff, the workload of volunteers is >> totally acceptable. >> >> Note that this is governement money but the government does not review >> each proposition. The governement set up a process in which there is >> enough trust (through the peer-review system and through the themes and >> keyword methodology) to delegate the decision-making. The program is a 3 >> years-program defined by the board of the organization. The majority of >> the board are high level members of the governement (Education, Budget, >> Research, Industry etc.). This board does define the program and the >> dispatching of the budget between the various themes. But the board does >> not make the decision-making with regards to which programs are accepted >> or not. >> >> Florence >> >> >> On 2/9/12 9:11 AM, Ting Chen wrote: >>> >>> The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community: >>> >>> Dear members of the Wikimedia Movement, >>> >>> As you are probably aware we have been discussing the the future of >>> fundraising and fund dissemination for the Wikimedia Movement for almost >>> 6 months now. After discussing fundraising and funds dissemination at >>> this past meeting, the board has drafted the following statement. It our >>> intention to discuss these matters in the coming weeks to come to a >>> final decision mid March. >>> >>> But first we would like to thank everyone who took part in the >>> discussion so far and spent their valuable time providing us with their >>> viewpoints which we have of course taken into account in our decision >>> making process. We hope that you will continue to participate by giving >>> feedback on this letter. >>> >>> ==Funds dissemination== >>> The board wants to create a volunteer-driven body to make >>> recommendations for funding for movement-wide initiatives (Working >>> title: Funds Dissemination Committee, FDC). The Wikimedia Foundation has >>> decision-making authority, because it has fiduciary responsibilities to >>> donors which it legally cannot delegate. The new body will make >>> recommendations for funds dissemination to the Wikimedia Foundation. We >>> anticipate a process in which the Wikimedia Foundation will review and >>> approve all but a small minority of recommendations from the FDC. In the >>> event that the Wikimedia Foundation does not approve a recommendation >>> from the FDC, and the FDC and the Wikimedia Foundation aren't >>> subsequently able to reach agreement, then the FDC can ask the Wikimedia >>> Foundation Board of Trustees to request the recommendation be >>> reconsidered. >>> >>> #the FDC will be a diverse body of people from across our movement >>> (which may include paid staff) with appropriate expertise for this >>> purpose, whose primary purpose is to disseminate funds to advance the >>> Wikimedia mission; >>> #the WMF staff will support and facilitate the work of the FDC >>> #Proposals can range from one time smaller contributions for small >>> projects from individuals to larger financing for operational costs of >>> chapters or associations >>> >>> The board intends to evaluate this process together with the FDC and see >>> if it is working. >>> >>> ==Fundraising== >>> Our thoughts on fundraising are less specific. We have come to the >>> following two statements which are important >>> >>> * If and when payment processing is done by chapters, it should be done >>> primarily for reasons of tax, operational efficiency (including >>> incentivizing donor cultivation and relations), should not be in >>> conflict with funds dissemination principles and goals, and should avoid >>> a perception of entitlement. >>> >>> * The board is sharpening the criteria for payment processing. Payment >>> processing is not a natural path to growth for a chapter; and payment >>> processing will likely be an exception -- most chapters will not do so. >>> >>> >>> The Wikimedia Board of Trustees >>> >>> NB: Please note that rather than spend a LOT of time on wording at this >>> time, the board preferred to amend the above text if necessary when >>> moving towards a resolution. This letter indicates our intent, and we >>> may "wordsmith as needed" in our final resolutions. >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l