-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
grants policy #7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ | ||
Policy: | ||
|
||
All applications for funding of the CWL project (grant applications, and | ||
similar) must be submitted by Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) unless | ||
an agreement otherwise has been approved by both the CWL Project | ||
Leadership Team and SFC itself. | ||
|
||
Submitting grants and/or getting funding to do the work of the CWL | ||
project without approval from SFC and the CWL Leadership Team can result | ||
in cancellation of sustaining/support member status (without refund), | ||
censure, and/or other consequences as deemed appropriate by SFC and the | ||
CWL Leadership Team. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is language is punitive and unhelpful, it discourages organizations from becoming members. I recommend dropping this paragraph from the policy. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I disagree. If there are no consequences for non-compliance, then there is no reason for anyone to follow this policy. This policy is not a "nice to have"; it is mandatory. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Agree that it is both likely to discourage membership and also that it's necessary to have teeth if one wants compliance. To me this implies a need to decide if the group wants to optimize for membership volume or compliance volume. The answer will never be "both", and solutions for each aren't 100% the same. |
||
|
||
Motivation: | ||
|
||
CWL is a member project of Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. As per the | ||
[membership agreement signed by all members of the initial CWL project | ||
leadership | ||
team](https://github.com/common-workflow-language/governance/blob/ddb07b99ae62006f70cd43987843626ffe08c2f0/CWL-sponsorship-agreement--signed-by-all.pdf), | ||
CWL is a [direct | ||
project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_sponsorship#Table_comparing_the_models) | ||
of SFC: CWL is owned by SFC, and the project's work is implemented by | ||
SFC employees and volunteers. | ||
mr-c marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
Implementation: | ||
|
||
This section documents how an entity (the Properser) submitting grants | ||
mr-c marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
that involve Common Workflow Language standards (CWL) and the CWL | ||
Project (which for now on will be referred to as the Project) should | ||
seek approval for their Proposal from the CWL Leadership team and SFC. | ||
|
||
There are four options for getting Project approval: | ||
mr-c marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
1. If a proposal indicates the use of CWL but will *not* be contributing substantially to the Project (e.g. code, | ||
documentation, tutorials), then *no Proposal approval is needed*. | ||
* If the proposed grant is funded, please consider adding (if allowed) your proposal [to the list of | ||
projects](https://github.com/common-workflow-language/cwl-website/blob/main/content/_data/user-gallery.yml) | ||
using CWL and publicly [announce the funded grant on the CWL forum](https://cwl.discourse.group/c/announcements/6). | ||
2. For a Proposal that indicates substantial contributions to the Project, there are two paths | ||
* The default path is to submit a Proposal via the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) itself. Please contact SFC & the CWL | ||
leadership as soon as possible by emailing [commonworkflowlanguage\@sfconservancy.org](mailto:[email protected]) | ||
with an initial description of the grant proposal. | ||
mr-c marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
* If the SFC is ineligible to apply for this opportunity, or there is another good reason why an external entity should submit | ||
instead of SFC, then approval by the Project *is* needed **and** justification for not submitting via Software Freedom | ||
Conservancy is required. | ||
mr-c marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
* The Proposer will document and explain why the Proposal can not be sent by SFC; for example due to geographic or | ||
entity type restrictions. | ||
* The Proposer will supply the aims of the grants, total grant budget and duration. | ||
* The Proposer will supply a form (modeled after [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/GLAM_partnership_evaluation_handout.pdf) | ||
form by the Wikimedia Foundation) to explain the benefits and risks of the proposed contributions to the Project. | ||
* 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 | ||
<[email protected]>. | ||
A default LOS will be used unless otherwise requested by the Propser. | ||
mr-c marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
* If no members of the Project leadership team nor the SFC object to the grant proposal, the proposal will be | ||
approved and the LOS will automatically be provided. | ||
* The members of the CWL Leadership team will keep information about grants that are not funded under a reasonable expectation of privacy | ||
* Note that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (e.g. | ||
<https://nonprofitdocuments.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Collaboration-MOU-checklist-SLS-sample-07-05-17.pdf>) | ||
between SFC and the Proposers will need to be developed and signed; plan accordingly. | ||
* If the Proposal is funded, it is required to publicly announce the funded grant on the CWL forum and link to the | ||
proposal (if it is possible to make publicly available) | ||
|
||
For all these proposal options, Common Workflow Language should be cited | ||
using the [proper up-to-date citations](https://www.commonwl.org/specification/#references). | ||
|
||
\-- | ||
|
||
Expectations for CWL Project Lead or delegate | ||
|
||
1. Maintain private log of notifications | ||
|
||
2. Check with the Mission & Vision for the CWL project | ||
|
||
3. Check for alignment with the community roadmap | ||
|
||
4. Confirm a proper statement of how the applicants and the project are or are-not related | ||
|
||
5. If the details can't be shared with the entire team, then extract relevant details and report to PLT | ||
|
||
6. Provide quarterly summary to the CWL PLT | ||
|
||
7. Follow-up to publicize when appropriate | ||
|
||
Recording: | ||
|
||
1. Code name to cross-reference with private notes (if needed) | ||
|
||
2. Day of submission | ||
|
||
3. Expected start & end date | ||
|
||
4. Work to be done; aspects of the CWL Community Roadmap that overlap/alignment | ||
|
||
5. Expected date of application funding decision |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.