AwesomeWiki - User contributions [en]

Slow funding politics

2012-07-23T21:03:52Z

Stoneape: Created page with " Marathons and other events generally 'vanilla' charities - Sam. Where is there opportunity for similar vis a vis advocacy? Is this type of model even appropriate in this situat..."

Marathons and other events generally 'vanilla' charities - Sam. Where is there opportunity for similar vis a vis advocacy?

Is this type of model even appropriate in this situation?

Differences RE: international politics. Ie big $$$ US, publicly funded elections in Oz. What does this mean for any model?

Also differences between types of support, such as

Is it more like a time bank than Awesome Foundation?
Decision point: Awesome Fundation not appropriate to use branding, but maybe a similar model

Different demographics:
Younger people, online connected vs older groups

Need to be non partisan

Political organizations are unsustainable

Submission quality

2012-07-22T19:44:39Z

Stoneape: /* asdfasdf */

{{TOC right}}

We've all hit that slump before. How do you break it?

====How do you get more gems?====

People have an easier time coming up with ideas if they see something else.

Stickers are great. Give them to everyone.
Reach out to the groups you want to apply, or people already doing the type of projects you want to fund.
Doing PR to get in all the local weekly news and mainstream press. NPR story helped.
The projects you fund get the word out, so you get more of those.
Actively soliciting grants from people in the past who seem creative.
Business cards to give out to people who seem special.
If you've talked to people ahead of time, a trustee knows someone, they can champion the idea. Making friends and actively pushing people to apply.
Telling your friends.
Going back to people who were on the short list.
Some chapters allow trustees to re-nominate an app from a couple months.
How can we leverage our trustees existing relationships better?
Adding "how do you find out about us?" to the application in the optional questions.

In direct ways of sharing "What Awesome Is" - Awesome Camp (inspire/give examples/other people to interact with), individual blog posts from different trustees.
Toronto wanted to have a weekend long camp to bring together all the people and short list, and then it got to processy so they stopped.

Awesome Hours.

Our form doesn't help people express their ideas clearly. We could ask different questions to get different results - "who are you trying to impact?" Might also be able to add copy explaining what types of things would be helpful to include in the project text box.
Sample application of someone who is wrong.

====How do you leverage past winners to spread the word?====
Is it okay to ask grantees for this? Where is the line?
What's the line for inserting yourself? Don't guide the applications.

====How does press impact your apps?====
Affects quantity, not quality (but more apps means more better apps).
Do we have analytics on the website?

====asdfasdf====
Do we have a list of all applicants?
Telling the alumni about the grant deadline.
Collaborating and cross promoting with other groups.
If you have to repeatedly push someone to submit, will they really follow through on doing it once they have the funding?
We could make a list of all the awesome projects we like (giant hammock) so people can replicate them in other places.
Natural ebb and flow of applications.
Do people pitch to universities?
Another possible org to partner with: Dorkbot
Another possible org to talk at: TEDX
Idea: If each trustee had a page of my favorite kinds of projects.
Continually reach out to different audiences and different partners.
Keeping projects diverse.
"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've already got."
Different types of press reaches different people.
Neighborhood organizations.
General discussion around "coaching."
Awesome Food does constant rolling of applications.

What could we do that would be weird?
How could we work with media to do a regular column about Awesome? We'll supply you about one item of Awesome per week.
We have tumblr "found awesome."
How do we segment our media? Media is important to get people we wouldn't talk to.

Awesome is inspiring.

iftt.com (if this than that, blog readership improvement tips) as a tool.

Giving people an Awesome badge to put on their page.

Creating aggregation of what trustees are already doing.

Sharing "wrap up" email.

Newsletter committee

====Chapters having issues====
How do you break out work to keep sustained interest?
Reverse grant - "we'll give $1000 to do THIS" (i.e. copying balloonacy from SF). Debate around if this is "strings attached."

[[category:Sunday]]
[[category:Operations]]

Summit 2013

2012-07-22T19:01:08Z

Stoneape: /* Pitches */

{{TOC right}}

It's going to be so fun that we'll definitely want to do it again!

== Precedent (2012 Summit) ==

=== Attendee motivations ===
Why did people decide to attend Awesome Summit in the first place?
* cross-pollination/learning from others
* getting inspired
* curiosity

=== Purpose ===
Meta-Question: What's the purpose of the Awesome Summit? In fact, are we actually even an organisation or just an emergent entity based on some shared interests?

* do we need to have an annual one that incorporates as many people from all chapters as possible vs. regional events, some other models etc.
* based on a completely non-scientific and sub-optimal participatory process, seems like the general consensus of the discussion group feels that there should be another summit next year (roughly around this time of year)

=== Boston's process for 2012 ===
* started in Jan, but bulk of work to organize has been in the last 2 months leading up
** necessity of establishing venues and contracts at least half a year ahead of time however (MIT Media Lab booked in Dec)
* $25,000 in donations which certainly helped but should not expect to exist for all future summits
** also ticket sales for the public component of the summit
** 124 tickets sold for the public event this time round
* need to be aware that fewer people will generally be able to attend than desired or planned for
** $10,000 was used to subsidize travel for this summit
* the MIT Media lab was made available gratis, which was very helpful, otherwise would cost ~$1000/hour
* agenda was decided by fiat more or less by small group of people, major driving reason was just to get everyone together
* '''Need to establish a feedback mechanism for this summit to determine what people liked, disliked, would recommend'''

== Future planning ==

=== Goals of 2013 Awesome Summit ===
* get everyone together
* learning from each other
* making sure we're on the same page (or at least knowing such a page exists)
* celebrate getting to $1,000,000 total grants, as forecast by the data mining team
* recurring themes:
** helping with trustee turnover or expanding pool
** soliciting good applications/getting through application slumps)

=== Where's the AWESOME in these summits? ===
* leaving increased capacity behind in the city i.e. stronger proposals
* Awesome Connect--bringing together network or resources + applicants + award mega-grant
* invite former grantees
* storytelling
* disruptive philanthropy

=== Looking forward ===
Towards the future:
* IHAS can play a continuing role to seek sponsorship/funding for future summits
* point of connection for entrepreneurs that want to give back'''

=== Location ===
Deciding on a process for determining location (brainstorming)
* letter of intent?
** Boston's process

=== Decision-making process ===
* a lot of existing models have competing pitches presenting at the end of the current summit and then a decision is made there
* is it at the level of a vote per(active) chapters, per trustee, what?
* having a committee struck to help lead to a decision on venue
** would they decide by fiat, would they make a decision after a collaboratively decided short-list, vice versa?
** have the committee include a rep (or multiple reps) from each short-listed location
*** potential conflicts of interest that result from this
*** potential of the summit planning cannibalizing the vitality of the host chapter's standard activities

=== Summit Commitee ===
Creating a Summit Committee?
* <strike>separate from a committee to help decide the summit location</strike>
* help to ensure that the summit happens each year
* '''BUT''' do we want to duplicate the effort and resources required to have two separate committees?
** perhaps having a sub-committee that works to decide a location
* '''NEEDS:''' a group to determine location, a group to work on logistics, a group to work on programming/content; whether these be separate groups or sub-groups

=== Selection Process ===
1. Pitches made by interested chapters/locations

2. Mandatory submission of info to committee (opens by Aug 18, closes Sept 29)

3. Committee vets submissions and creates short-list of viable possibilities (takes four weeks, requesting page content by Oct 27)

4. Pages posted two weeks later on November 10

5. Vote by active chapters based on the short-list (2 weeks, closing Nov 24)
* One vote per chapter for preferred location. PREFERENCE
* Individuals indicate ''where'' they '''could''' attend, were it to be at any of those locations. ABILITY

6. Committee takes the vote into consideration and then decides (one week)

7. Announcement of next year's location at the summit (December 1)

[http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8025/7623606110_d208bba858_z.jpg timeline image]

=== Tentative Selection Timeline ===
* Application process opens
* Close of application process
* Vetting of applications by committee
* Deliberation by committee on short-list (Vetting)
* Submitting groups publish their "pitch page"/Voting begins
* Voting closes
* Announcement of location of summit

=== Pitches ===
The pitch should:
* demonstrate solidarity and commitment of chapter (or hosting group if it's a different body)
* demonstrate strength of chapter and ability to execute
* mandatory submission component to committee to demonstrate that the capacity to implement exists
** form/questions to be designed by committee
* video or other excitement building pitch would be optional

=== Potential Criteria ===
* (or at least considerations)
* urban vs rural areas? environment that leads to retreat style or otherwise

=== Value of hosting a summit ===
* potential capacity building for the hosting group
* branding/marketing
* improve number/quality of submissions
* exposure
* potential collaborations and expanded network due to all of the above

=== ISSUES ===
* up till now Awesome XX:YY's have all been pretty ad-hoc groups; summits require much greater level of organization and dare-we-say, structure
* no particular failsafe on this right now, but that's okay--worst thing that happens is there's no summit that year
** is that actually okay? potential damage to brand/chapters/etc.
* this tentative process is, of course, a work in progress and subject to change due to good arguments (that could also be part of pitches, especially with regards to dates, etc.)
* an actual pre-defined agenda, or a structure by which participants can create large chunks of the agenda?
* looking towards the future, if IHAS wants to expand Awesomeness internationally in a major way, imperative to involve reps from international chapters as part of future Summit Commitees

== Resources ==
To be uploaded

[[category:Saturday]]
[[category:Summit 2013]]
[[category:Meta]

Grantee support

2012-07-22T18:55:29Z

Stoneape: /* Ideas */

{{TOC right}}

== Should we help? ==
* Every chapter makes their own choices
* Balance between no strings and helping people out
** Don't want to build expectations
* It builds more structures, how does it look and how do you execute on that is a concern
* In the long view you can create a portal where people (media, for example) will know to go look to for information
* Sometimes the bar for choosing an application is set very high
** The $1000 can act as a catalyst, take care of phase 1, but project might require more after that
** Grantees often seem to need access to more people, more resources, people turn to Kickstarter and Indiegogo
** Keep in mind that $1000 is a catalyst
* It goes on a chapter by chapter basis
* Erhardt: I keep thinking of this as a data problem, if we could expose the data about the projects other people could go through and look at the ideas, create a resource of awesome ideas
* We already blog and talk about them, publish information on them - maybe we could set up aggregation of that to spread the good projects

* If we signal that we are becoming an incubator, is that going to crowd out things that are one-time events
** Keep it optional
** Yes, but we have to walk that line gently
* Keep it simple, "we're not the f*cking Ford Foundation"
** If people don't want or need to be incubated, don't do that

== Things we do already ==
* Using trustees and past winners as a resource for grantees
** Grantee-alumni relationships and mentoring
** People are always super excited to do that, past grantees have always opted-in
* AF NY has had people opt-in to stay connected, but other people just disappear

* A lot of grantees aren't as tech-savvy as trustees, just telling them about Kickstarter and such is useful

* Is it a good idea to say up front what resources are available? Could it become an obligation?
** Not in SF, "they drive the show", "we're here to help" but they are under no obligation

* Difference between local support and global support
** Adopting ideas from other chapters, if it's easy to re-create or share (so re-creating the results of a past project from another chapter)

* Toronto does a lot of networking and peer-to-peer connections

* Managing our involvement
** Toronto, for example, doesn't want to overburden themselves
** Seattle does it on an opt-in, one trustee does it for each grant, basis to provide support that is tailored to the project while keeping the burden on trustees low

=== Alternative practices ===
* Does anyone do a thing where they select a runner-up and work with them in some way?
** In Boston, there is a shortlist every month and often times there is a person who just needs a connection or a Kickstarter or something
** SF does the same
* Give them feedback, advice, connections

* Spreading ideas from other places, looking at other chapters
** SF finds inspiring projects from the general world and passes them around the list

* Does anyone give advice or guidance/feedback to ideas?
** Is it right to tell them how to change their ideas?
** Difference between manipulating projects and trying to give useful feedback
** Does that make people feel obligated to do things?
* Difference between doing this with grantees vs. people who don't get funded
* The feedback can be really helpful to people
* There is a big difference between sharing the opinions of an individual vs. sharing opinions as a chapter

== Things grantees might need ==
* Timing is an issue too - support/engagement during project vs. help afterwards
* Coaching on ideas/communication
* Connecting people to a network
* Global network of recipients, could make it an even bigger opportunity than $1000
* Initially in NY, just helped by throwing a big party and trying to get press for people with good ideas
** $1000 is great, but trustees' connections can be a much bigger contribution
* Pittsburgh added a question asking if it would be ok to promote a project, even if not funded, or refer to other organizations
** So far everyone says yes

== Ideas ==
* An aggregation of "projects we love" a la Kickstarter
** Boston has a tumblr of awesome projects, could become a collaborative project between chapters
** People like this
** Erhardt will own looking into this
* What if trustees could "like" projects on the AF site and go through periodically and highlight the top choices?

* Sending out a template to winner and runners up with information and resources and connections to network
** If we take it upon ourselves, we may lapse

* International awesome hours
* Facebook group for grantees

* Awesome event calendar

=== Awesome Hours ===
* Not everyone is tech-savvy, we should think more about how to support people especially with more chapters starting in developing areas
* Awesome Hours might be a really good solution to this
** Boston has these, just gets together and helps people workshop ideas
** Past winners have come as well, which is nice
** Seattle wants to start doing these
** Important to keep a friendly, open environment
* Overall people think Awesome Hours has the potential to grow into something really big
* This is ''community'' and helps ideas grow and spread, then we just have to be catalysts

[[category:Sunday]]
[[category:Operations]]

Grantee support

2012-07-22T18:54:54Z

Stoneape: /* Awesome Hours */

{{TOC right}}

== Should we help? ==
* Every chapter makes their own choices
* Balance between no strings and helping people out
** Don't want to build expectations
* It builds more structures, how does it look and how do you execute on that is a concern
* In the long view you can create a portal where people (media, for example) will know to go look to for information
* Sometimes the bar for choosing an application is set very high
** The $1000 can act as a catalyst, take care of phase 1, but project might require more after that
** Grantees often seem to need access to more people, more resources, people turn to Kickstarter and Indiegogo
** Keep in mind that $1000 is a catalyst
* It goes on a chapter by chapter basis
* Erhardt: I keep thinking of this as a data problem, if we could expose the data about the projects other people could go through and look at the ideas, create a resource of awesome ideas
* We already blog and talk about them, publish information on them - maybe we could set up aggregation of that to spread the good projects

* If we signal that we are becoming an incubator, is that going to crowd out things that are one-time events
** Keep it optional
** Yes, but we have to walk that line gently
* Keep it simple, "we're not the f*cking Ford Foundation"
** If people don't want or need to be incubated, don't do that

== Things we do already ==
* Using trustees and past winners as a resource for grantees
** Grantee-alumni relationships and mentoring
** People are always super excited to do that, past grantees have always opted-in
* AF NY has had people opt-in to stay connected, but other people just disappear

* A lot of grantees aren't as tech-savvy as trustees, just telling them about Kickstarter and such is useful

* Is it a good idea to say up front what resources are available? Could it become an obligation?
** Not in SF, "they drive the show", "we're here to help" but they are under no obligation

* Difference between local support and global support
** Adopting ideas from other chapters, if it's easy to re-create or share (so re-creating the results of a past project from another chapter)

* Toronto does a lot of networking and peer-to-peer connections

* Managing our involvement
** Toronto, for example, doesn't want to overburden themselves
** Seattle does it on an opt-in, one trustee does it for each grant, basis to provide support that is tailored to the project while keeping the burden on trustees low

=== Alternative practices ===
* Does anyone do a thing where they select a runner-up and work with them in some way?
** In Boston, there is a shortlist every month and often times there is a person who just needs a connection or a Kickstarter or something
** SF does the same
* Give them feedback, advice, connections

* Spreading ideas from other places, looking at other chapters
** SF finds inspiring projects from the general world and passes them around the list

* Does anyone give advice or guidance/feedback to ideas?
** Is it right to tell them how to change their ideas?
** Difference between manipulating projects and trying to give useful feedback
** Does that make people feel obligated to do things?
* Difference between doing this with grantees vs. people who don't get funded
* The feedback can be really helpful to people
* There is a big difference between sharing the opinions of an individual vs. sharing opinions as a chapter

== Things grantees might need ==
* Timing is an issue too - support/engagement during project vs. help afterwards
* Coaching on ideas/communication
* Connecting people to a network
* Global network of recipients, could make it an even bigger opportunity than $1000
* Initially in NY, just helped by throwing a big party and trying to get press for people with good ideas
** $1000 is great, but trustees' connections can be a much bigger contribution
* Pittsburgh added a question asking if it would be ok to promote a project, even if not funded, or refer to other organizations
** So far everyone says yes

== Ideas ==
* An aggregation of "projects we love" a la Kickstarter
** Boston has a tumblr of awesome projects, could become a collaborative project between chapters
** People like this
** Erhardt will own looking into this
* What if trustees could "like" projects on the AF site and go through periodically and highlight the top choices?

* Sending out a template to winner and runners up with information and resources and connections to network
** If we take it upon ourselves, we may lapse

* International office hours
* Facebook group for grantees

* Awesome event calendar

=== Awesome Hours ===
* Not everyone is tech-savvy, we should think more about how to support people especially with more chapters starting in developing areas
* Awesome Hours might be a really good solution to this
** Boston has these, just gets together and helps people workshop ideas
** Past winners have come as well, which is nice
** Seattle wants to start doing these
** Important to keep a friendly, open environment
* Overall people think Awesome Hours has the potential to grow into something really big
* This is ''community'' and helps ideas grow and spread, then we just have to be catalysts

[[category:Sunday]]
[[category:Operations]]