On 17/08/2011 12:56, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 17 August 2011 12:52, Charles Matthews > <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> 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. > While some ideas for macrogrants could lend themselves to a microgrant > trial-run, not all will. I don't think there should be an expectation > that you apply for a microgrant before you apply for a macrogrant. > That is not what I meant,; and indeed the other thread on digitisation suggests that some macrogrants could be (a) initiating, not following on from microgrants, and perhaps (b) not to individual Wikimedians, nor directly concerned with WMF projects, but in effect to companies doing work to professional standards that is considered worthwhile in its own right. But on the other hand I think there is great merit in the concept of having grants that are awarded only on track record. It's egalitarian, cuts out bureaucracy, and encourages the development of knowhow and constructive relationships (of members with the chapter, the chapter with specific things going on in the projects, board members with people who are involved with assessment).
Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
