APC Chris Nicol FLOSS Prize 2014 - Scoring Guide for the Working Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VERY IMPORTANT NOTES
ABOUT THE PRIZE: The Basics
SELECTION CRITERIA AND SCORING: FLOSS Prize 2014
Prize Application Form: The Questions Asked
Planning
Working Group



Thank you for being part of the prize working group. Your task is to evaluate the applications of a number of prize applicants and help decide which should proceed to the short-list of finalists that will be judged by an international jury in May.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTES
  1. Please print this document and study the prize selection criteria before you begin scoring.

  2. Consult with your partner – For the final scoring (not the testing), we propose that you work in pairs (during or before you assign points – you decide) to share and discuss your scores. This discussion will allow you to share impressions which can be helpful and reassuring in an online appraisal. However the final decision can be in partnership (send in one score-sheet for the two) or as an individual (each person sends in their score-sheet).

  3. The “WOWs!” – We’ve found through experience of running prizes since 2000 that you read some applications and you find yourself exclaiming “Wow! This project is GREAT!” The “Wows” are projects that you think really MUST get onto the short list to go to the jury. Ideally each pair will recommend 1-2 "wows". You can also decide not to recommend any wows.

  4. WHAT SHOULD I DO? Score the projects as usual and in addition type ‘Wow’ in the ‘Short comments’ section at the bottom of the score sheet (row A77).

  5. A project that is still in its planning stages cannot be short-listed for the prize. We will not disqualify it because it could be a good project in the future, but it cannot be a finalist.

  6. WHAT SHOULD I DO? Don’t score this project and type ‘future’ in the ‘Short comments’ section.

  7. Not eligible – We must disqualify those projects that do not meet our criteria.

  8. WHAT SHOULD I DO? Don’t score and type ‘not eligible’ in the ‘Short comments’ section. Please contact Karel by email.

  9. How to fill in the score-sheet

  10. a. The score-sheet has pages for each applicant and a ‘total’ page at the end of the spreadsheet where all the score-totals are automatically calculated. Do not write in that ‘total’ page.
    b. In the first page (pr 1) write your name in the cell A10. Your name will appear in all following project pages automatically.
    c. Take a good look at the pr 1 page. The criteria that appear there also appear in full bellow on this page.
    d. Type the name of the project you will score as it appears on the applications page. You have to select the cell A9, press the F2 key and then the cursor will appear in the cell.
    e. Type an ‘x’ in each blue bar to indicate the points that you wish to assign to the project you are evaluating. The scores are generated automatically. There is an x in each bar now (marking zero points) that you should delete by selecting the cell and hitting your ‘delete’ key. There cannot be more than one ‘x’ in a blue bar.
    f. Comments: Use the cell A77 for short comments (just “Wow!/not eligible/future”) and the cell A80 for any general comments you want to make to your partner or to the coordinators.
    Questions? Doubts? Having problems using the scoresheet? Write to karel@apc.org .


ABOUT THE PRIZE: The Basics

Why APC has launched a FLOSS prize

Read the reasons why APC has launched APC Chris Nicol FLOSS prize at a dedicated page.

SELECTION CRITERIA AND SCORING: FLOSS Prize 2014

The criteria by which entries will be judged by our international jury. It will consider if the project:

1) Improves the accessibility to, knowledge of and/or usability of free and open source software

1a) Improves the accessibility/usability of free and open software
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 13) if:
1. There is no evidence
2. This is an objective of the project
3. This is the principal objective of the project


1b) Improves the awareness of the potential and usage possibilities of free and open software
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 18) if:
1. There is no evidence
2. This is an objective of the project
3. This is the principal objective of the project


2) Is user-oriented (development is driven by community needs rather than commercial potential)

2a) Is user-oriented (development is driven by community needs rather than commercial potential)
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 25) if:
1. Project is a commercial project
2. Project is beneficial for a limited group of people
3. Project is beneficial for the whole community
4. Project is beneficial for the whole community and is answering a need


2b) Has an existing community of users
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 30) if:
1. There is no evidence of such a community
2. There is some evidence of a community of users
3. There is evidence of extensive/growing community of users


2c) Has an existing community of developers likely to grow and sustain project development
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 35) if:
1. There is no evidence of such a community
2. There is some evidence of a community of developers
3. There is evidence of extensive/growing community of developers


3) Is documented so that others can learn from and replicate the model

3a) Is well documented so others can learn from it
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 42) if:
1. There is no evidence
2. There is no evidence but this is an objective of the project
3. There is evidence of documentation
4. There is evidence of extensive/useful documentation


3b) Is easilly replicable
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 47) if:
1. There is no evidence
2. There is no evidence but this is an objective of the project
3. There is evidence of replicability of the project
4. There is evidence of the project being easily replicated


4) Has demonstrable impact and has increased the number of people using FLOSS on a day-to-day basis

4a) Has a demonstrable positive impact on community benefiting from the project (impact such as empowerment of the community, demonstrated economic benefit, etc.)
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 54) if:
1. There is no evidence of impact
2. There is some evidence of impact
3. There is evidence of significant positive impact


4b) Has a long term vision for sustaining impact
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 59) if:
1. There is no evidence of long term impact
2. There is some evidence of long term impact
3. There is clear evidence of long term sustaining impact

5) Increase the range of users' freedom

5a) Increases users' control over their computing.
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 65) if:
1. There is no evidence
2. This is an objective of the project
3. This is the principal objective of the project

5b) Makes it possible to do things without proprietary software that were not previously possible.
Put an ‘x’ in the blue bar (in row 70) if:
1. There is no evidence
2. This is an objective of the project
3. This is the principal objective of the project



Prize Application Form: The Questions Asked

Here you can see the questions that appeared on the application form.

For the prize working group, appraising the projects online with nothing more than the application and supporting evidence provided by the applicant is not easy! It might be helpful for you to see clearly what questions were asked in the nomination form. We deliberatelly left a very flexible format for nominations.

Short narrative description (max 500 words)
Please include:
  1. Main objectives of the initiative
  2. Target groups
  3. How this initiative fulfills the evaluation criteria
  4. Media coverage or other testimonials that showcase impact (if available).
Upload supporting documentation
Please upload images, an additional narrative description, videos or other digital media that support your nomination. There is no required format for nominations. We encourage you to be as creative as you want in telling your story about the initiative you are nominating. As long as your submissions will give our jury a clear picture of the project we will take it! There is no limit to the length of your submission but keep in mind that the chance to win depends on the quality of your submission (don't make it too short) and that reviewers have a limited amount of capacity to review all submissions (don't make it too long).

Planning

Main milestones:
April 28: Nomination scoring starts
April 30: Nominations closed
May 15: Working Group evaluation results done
May 30: Jury final decision
June 5: Prize announcement


Working Group

Here is the list of people in the evaluation working group:

Bazlur Rahman, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC), Bangladesh
John Dada, Fantsuam Foundation, Nigeria
Dorothy Okello, WOUGNET, Uganda
Valentina Pellizzer, owpsee, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Frederick Noronha, Bytes for All, India
Ariel Barbosa, Colnodo, Colombia
Arnold Pietersen, Community Education Computer Society (CECS), South Africa
Farjana Akter, Voice, Bangladesh
Serge Ziehi, ETI, Guinea
Claudio Ruiz, Derechos Digitales, Chile
Theresa Tafida, Fantsuam Foundation, Nigeria
Gustaf Bjorksten, Access Now, Tunisia

Registrarse en APC.org