@@ -31,70 +31,37 @@ seek approval for their Proposal from the CWL Leadership team and SFC.
31
31
32
32
There are four options for getting Project approval:
33
33
34
- 1 . If a proposal indicates the use of CWL but will * not* be
35
- > contributing substantially to the Project (e.g. code,
36
- > documentation, tutorials), then * no Proposal approval is needed* .
37
-
38
- a. If the proposed grant is funded, please consider adding (if
39
- > allowed) your proposal [ to the list of
40
- > projects] ( https://github.com/common-workflow-language/cwl-website/blob/main/content/_data/user-gallery.yml )
41
- > using CWL and publicly [ announce the funded grant on the CWL
42
- > forum] ( https://cwl.discourse.group/c/announcements/6 ) .
43
-
44
- 2 . For a Proposal that indicates substantial contributions to the
45
- > Project, there are two paths
46
-
47
- a. The default path is to submit a Proposal via the Software
48
- > Freedom Conservancy (SFC) itself. Please contact SFC & the CWL
49
- > leadership as soon as possible by emailing
50
- >
[ commonworkflowlanguage
\@ sfconservancy.org
] ( mailto:[email protected] )
51
- > with an initial description of the grant proposal.
52
-
53
- b. If the SFC is ineligible to apply for this opportunity, or there
54
- > is another good reason why an external entity should submit
55
- > instead of SFC, then approval by the Project * is* needed
56
- > ** and** justification for not submitting via Software Freedom
57
- > Conservancy is required.
58
-
59
- i. The Proposer will document and explain why the Proposal can
60
- > not be sent by SFC; for example due to geographic or
61
- > entity type restrictions.
62
-
63
- ii. The Proposer will supply the aims of the grants, total grant
64
- > budget and duration.
65
-
66
- iii. The Proposer will supply a form (modeled after
67
- > [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/GLAM_partnership_evaluation_handout.pdf)
68
- > form by the Wikimedia Foundation) to explain the benefits
69
- > and risks of the proposed contributions to the Project.
70
-
71
- iv. The aims and form will be due 2 weeks before any Letter of
72
- > Support (LOS) is needed and should be sent to the
73
- > leadership team
74
- > ([commonworkflowlanguage\@sfconservancy.org](mailto:[email protected] )).
75
- > A default LOS will be used unless otherwise requested by
76
- > the grant submitters.
77
-
78
- 1. If no members of the Project leadership team nor the SFC
79
- > object to the grant proposal, the proposal will be
80
- > approved and the LOS will automatically be provided.
81
-
82
- 2. The members of the CWL Leadership team will keep
83
- > information about grants that are not funded under a
84
- > reasonable expectation of privacy
85
-
86
- v. Note that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (e.g.
87
- > [https://nonprofitdocuments.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Collaboration-MOU-checklist-SLS-sample-07-05-17.pdf](https://nonprofitdocuments.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Collaboration-MOU-checklist-SLS-sample-07-05-17.pdf))
88
- > between SFC and the Proposers will need to be developed
89
- > and signed; plan accordingly.
90
-
91
- vi. If the Proposal is funded, it is required to publicly
92
- > announce the funded grant on the CWL forum and link to the
93
- > proposal (if it is possible to make publicly available)
34
+ 1 . If a proposal indicates the use of CWL but will * not* be contributing substantially to the Project (e.g. code,
35
+ documentation, tutorials), then * no Proposal approval is needed* .
36
+ * If the proposed grant is funded, please consider adding (if allowed) your proposal [ to the list of
37
+ projects] ( https://github.com/common-workflow-language/cwl-website/blob/main/content/_data/user-gallery.yml )
38
+ using CWL and publicly [ announce the funded grant on the CWL forum] ( https://cwl.discourse.group/c/announcements/6 ) .
39
+ 2 . For a Proposal that indicates substantial contributions to the Project, there are two paths
40
+ * The default path is to submit a Proposal via the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) itself. Please contact SFC & the CWL
41
+ leadership as soon as possible by emailing
[ commonworkflowlanguage
\@ sfconservancy.org
] ( mailto:[email protected] )
42
+ with an initial description of the grant proposal.
43
+ * If the SFC is ineligible to apply for this opportunity, or there is another good reason why an external entity should submit
44
+ instead of SFC, then approval by the Project * is* needed ** and** justification for not submitting via Software Freedom
45
+ Conservancy is required.
46
+ * The Proposer will document and explain why the Proposal can not be sent by SFC; for example due to geographic or
47
+ entity type restrictions.
48
+ * The Proposer will supply the aims of the grants, total grant budget and duration.
49
+ * The Proposer will supply a form (modeled after [ this] ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/GLAM_partnership_evaluation_handout.pdf )
50
+ form by the Wikimedia Foundation) to explain the benefits and risks of the proposed contributions to the Project.
51
+ * The aims and form will be due 2 weeks before any Letter of Support (LOS) is needed and should be sent to the leadership team
52
+ (
[ commonworkflowlanguage
\@ sfconservancy.org
] ( mailto:[email protected] ) ).
53
+ A default LOS will be used unless otherwise requested by the Propser.
54
+ * If no members of the Project leadership team nor the SFC object to the grant proposal, the proposal will be
55
+ approved and the LOS will automatically be provided.
56
+ * The members of the CWL Leadership team will keep information about grants that are not funded under a reasonable expectation of privacy
57
+ * Note that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (e.g.
58
+ < https://nonprofitdocuments.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Collaboration-MOU-checklist-SLS-sample-07-05-17.pdf >
59
+ between SFC and the Proposers will need to be developed and signed; plan accordingly.
60
+ * If the Proposal is funded, it is required to publicly announce the funded grant on the CWL forum and link to the
61
+ proposal (if it is possible to make publicly available)
94
62
95
63
For all these proposal options, Common Workflow Language should be cited
96
- using the [ proper up-to-date
97
- citations] ( https://www.commonwl.org/specification/#references ) .
64
+ using the [ proper up-to-date citations] ( https://www.commonwl.org/specification/#references ) .
98
65
99
66
\- -
100
67
@@ -106,11 +73,9 @@ Expectations for CWL Project Lead or delegate
106
73
107
74
3 . Check for alignment with the community roadmap
108
75
109
- 4 . Confirm a proper statement of how the applicants and the project are
110
- > or are-not related
76
+ 4 . Confirm a proper statement of how the applicants and the project are or are-not related
111
77
112
- 5 . If the details can't be shared with the entire team, then extract
113
- > relevant details and report to PLT
78
+ 5 . If the details can't be shared with the entire team, then extract relevant details and report to PLT
114
79
115
80
6 . Provide quarterly summary to the CWL PLT
116
81
@@ -124,7 +89,6 @@ Recording:
124
89
125
90
3 . Expected start & end date
126
91
127
- 4 . Work to be done; aspects of the CWL Community Roadmap that
128
- > overlap/alignment
92
+ 4 . Work to be done; aspects of the CWL Community Roadmap that overlap/alignment
129
93
130
94
5 . Expected date of application funding decision
0 commit comments