On 15/08/2011 12:22, Michael Peel wrote: > Macrogrants (defining that as any grant over £250) are another kettle > of fish that we need to figure out a more transparent process for, but > in the interim, proposals sent to the board would be very welcome.
I would definitely like to see a path within the grant process that is more wiki-like than filling in a regular application form. To explain what I mean by this: reputation on a wiki is or at least should be determined by what an editor does with the chance to edit (and nothing more nor less). My standing idea for the grant process, given that microgrants are supposed to be process-lite, is that for a given person qualification for a larger grant should be judged more by what was done with the microgrant, than by making a laborious "business case". Ideally a grant has an effect that shows up in diffs, on one of the projects, and getting to a higher standing ought to be on the basis "look at my diffs" rather than anything else. So I'm envisaging individual editors being encouraged to show what they can do with small grants and coming back for more when the results are visible. I think this kind of emphasis should be built into the system. In the bigger picture, WMF projects are somewhat short of such ways to recognise good work. Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
