Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:FAQ: Difference between revisions

(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

{{KidsIntro|Before joining a game, you want to know the rules: who can play, who decides who wins, and how prizes are given. This page collects all those questions about WikiDeal open calls. Proposed answers are now published for each question; they are waiting for review and comments before becoming official.}}

{{ExpertIntro|This FAQ gathers the detailed rules and procedures of the WikiDeal open calls, as a complement to the summary published on the Open ~~Call~~ page. It follows the Open Call Model 1, intended for Prototype 1. The questions cover participation, submission, evaluation, decisions, payments, rights and licensing, and governance. Each question now has a proposed answer, written in careful language; the answers are pending review and comments and are not yet official.}}

{{ExpertIntro|This FAQ gathers the detailed rules and procedures of the WikiDeal open calls, as a complement to the summary published on the Open Calls page. It follows the Open Call Model 1, intended for Prototype 1. The questions cover participation, submission, evaluation, decisions, payments, rights and licensing, and governance. Each question now has a proposed answer, written in careful language; the answers are pending review and comments and are not yet official.}}

__TOC__

Line 8:

''Status: '''proposed answers, pending review, not yet official.''' Every answer below is a proposal, written in careful language, and awaits validation by the project team. Nothing on this page creates any right, promise or guarantee.''

These questions and answers aim at being '''generic''': they would apply to open calls on any topic (see the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-~~Call~~:Main|list of open calls]]). They complement the summary published on the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-~~Call~~:Main|Open Call page]] and follow the Open Call Model 1, intended for Prototype 1.

These questions and answers aim at being '''generic''': they would apply to open calls on any topic (see the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|list of open calls]]). They complement the summary published on the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call page]] and follow the Open Call Model 1, intended for Prototype 1.

Line 35:

'''Can I participate without receiving any money?'''

Proposed answer: yes. Three options are proposed: full participation with cash and ~~Rewards~~ (no guarantee), participation with Karma tokens only and no cash, and participation without any remuneration at all. Contributors would state their preference; many people contribute to free knowledge projects without payment, and that choice would be fully respected here.

Proposed answer: yes. Three options are proposed: full participation with cash and Subscription Tokens (no guarantee), participation with Karma tokens only and no cash, and participation without any remuneration at all. Contributors would state their preference; many people contribute to free knowledge projects without payment, and that choice would be fully respected here.

'''Can I both submit my own ideas and give my opinion on the contributions of others?'''

Proposed answer: yes, and it is encouraged. The construction is intended to be participatory and open: everyone sees the ideas of everyone else, and commenting on, improving or supporting the proposals of others is itself considered a valuable contribution that the committee could take into account when attributing ~~rewards~~.

Proposed answer: yes, and it is encouraged. The construction is intended to be participatory and open: everyone sees the ideas of everyone else, and commenting on, improving or supporting the proposals of others is itself considered a valuable contribution that the committee could take into account when attributing subscription tokens.

'''Can the same person hold several roles, for example contributor and evaluator?'''

Line 54:

'''How exactly do I submit a proposal? Where do I post it, and in what format?'''

Proposed answer: you would go to the Discussion tab of the call page and post your proposal there, as text with any useful links. You can then raise a Request for ~~Feedback~~ (~~RFF~~) to draw attention to your proposal and gather community reactions. No file upload, form or email is required for the first wave.

Proposed answer: you would go to the Discussion tab of the call page and post your proposal there, as text with any useful links. You can then raise a Request for Comments (RFC) to draw attention to your proposal and gather community reactions. No file upload, form or email is required for the first wave.

'''Can I also propose to implement the idea myself? What are the "implementation conditions"?'''

Proposed answer: yes. A contributor can submit an idea ("here is what should be done") and also offer to implement it ("I am ready to do it, and here are my conditions"). An implementation proposal must clearly specify the expected financial amount, the deadline, the exact deliverables, and the ratio of cash versus Subscription Tokens.

The core principle of the ecosystem, especially in its early phases, is to pay very little or zero in direct cash, and all or almost all in [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription Tokens|Subscription Tokens]] (no guarantee). To compensate for the risk, the value in Subscription Tokens is typically much higher than the cash equivalent (e.g., an average multiplier of 30x). A contributor might state: "I request CHF 20/hour in cash, OR CHF 600/hour in Subscription Tokens."

'''Is there a template or a required structure for proposals?'''

Line 62:

Line 67:

'''Do I have to say where my idea comes from? Are references mandatory?'''

Proposed answer: yes, this is one of the most important rules. Every contributor is asked to state whether an idea is their own or comes from elsewhere, and to document their sources: links, authors, prior projects, publications. Honest referencing protects everyone, allows fair attribution, and is part of the culture of free knowledge. Undocumented borrowing presented as original work could lead to the loss of any ~~reward~~.

Proposed answer: yes, this is one of the most important rules. Every contributor is asked to state whether an idea is their own or comes from elsewhere, and to document their sources: links, authors, prior projects, publications. Honest referencing protects everyone, allows fair attribution, and is part of the culture of free knowledge. Undocumented borrowing presented as original work could lead to the loss of any subscription token.

'''Can I submit several proposals, to the same call or to several calls at once?'''

Line 68:

Line 73:

Proposed answer: yes. Several proposals to the same call, and participation in several calls in parallel, would both be allowed. Quality matters more than quantity: a flood of thin proposals would not help, and the evaluation would look at usefulness, not volume.

'''Can I edit my proposal after posting it? Can I build on someone else's proposal, and how would the ~~reward~~ be shared?'''

'''Can I edit my proposal after posting it? Can I build on someone else's proposal, and how would the subscription token be shared?'''

Proposed answer: yes to both. Proposals live on a wiki, so they can be improved until the evaluation of the relevant cycle; the page history keeps track of who added what and when. Building on the proposals of others is explicitly welcome, since the construction is open by design. When several people shape one result, the committee would weigh each direct input. The first contributor of a key idea could sometimes receive more, in recognition of the direct initial input, while those who refined, tested or completed it would share the rest. There is no fixed formula: attribution would be explained case by case.

Line 78:

Line 83:

== Evaluation and decisions ==

'''Who exactly evaluates the proposals and how is the team composed?'''

Proposed answer: Each call is managed by a dedicated Open Call Commission. The commission is composed of a Chair (who leads the evaluation and seeks consensus), a Facilitator (who handles administrative tasks and formal replies), and a group of Evaluators (experts in the field, usually an odd number like 3 or 5). The commission evaluates the proposals, justifies its decisions, and remains active for a post-funding follow-up one year later to assess the implementation of the ideas. For full details, see the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Commissions|Open Call Commissions]] page.

'''Who decides which proposals are selected?'''

Line 97:

Line 106:

3. '''Feasibility and maturity''': can it realistically be implemented, and does it last over time? (Comparable to "quality and efficiency of the implementation" in Horizon Europe, detailed in the [https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2023-2024/wp-13-general-annexes_horizon-2023-2024_en.pdf Horizon Europe general annexes].)

WikiDeal draws inspiration from these frameworks without copying their rules: no consortium, no formal scoring grid for the micro calls of the first wave, but the same underlying logic of relevance, impact and feasibility, applied with common sense by the committee and the community.

When applying these criteria, the evaluation team is required to use the '''Open Call CDIEM Framework''' as much as possible. For full details on the evaluation process and the rules governing the team, see the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Commissions|Open Call Commissions]] page.

'''Is there always a single winner? Can several people be rewarded, or nobody at all?'''

Line 105:

Line 116:

'''Can a very small idea be rewarded? What are a "coup de coeur" and a "micro boost"?'''

Proposed answer: yes. Two light mechanisms are proposed alongside the regular evaluation. A '''coup de coeur''' (a heartfelt favourite) would let the committee ~~reward~~ a contribution that touched or convinced it, even outside the strict frame of the call. A '''micro boost''' would ~~reward~~ a small idea that stimulated a lot: a remark of two lines that unlocks a debate or reorients a design can be worth more than pages of text. Both would involve modest amounts and a short public explanation.

Proposed answer: yes. Two light mechanisms are proposed alongside the regular evaluation. A '''coup de coeur''' (a heartfelt favourite) would let the committee subscription token a contribution that touched or convinced it, even outside the strict frame of the call. A '''micro boost''' would subscription token a small idea that stimulated a lot: a remark of two lines that unlocks a debate or reorients a design can be worth more than pages of text. Both would involve modest amounts and a short public explanation.

'''How will I know if I am selected? Can I get ~~feedback~~, or contest a decision?'''

'''How will I know if I am selected? Can I get comments, or contest a decision?'''

Proposed answer: when money is attributed and paid, the WikiDeal team informs the contributors concerned directly. Each attribution is intended to come with a public explanation, so non selected contributors can understand the reasoning. Questions can be asked on the discussion page of the call. A formal appeal procedure does not exist yet for these micro calls; whether one is needed is under discussion, and would be examined as the amounts grow.

== ~~Rewards~~ and payments ==

== Subscription Tokens and payments ==

'''How and when do I receive my money? What about fees and taxes?'''

Line 124:

Line 135:

'''Where does the money come from?'''

Proposed answer: the announced sums come from an initial fund provided by the founder of the project (see the [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|credits page]]). This initial fund is intended to be progressively reimbursed by the first subscriptions, through the ~~Rewards~~ mechanism, and by donations made against ~~Rewards~~ (no guarantee). In other words: the founder advances the money so that the open calls can start before the platform has revenue, and the community model would gradually take over. None of this constitutes a financial promise.

Proposed answer: the announced sums come from an initial fund provided by the founder of the project (see the [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|credits page]]). This initial fund is intended to be progressively reimbursed by the first subscriptions, through the Subscription Tokens mechanism, and by donations made against Subscription Tokens (no guarantee). In other words: the founder advances the money so that the open calls can start before the platform has revenue, and the community model would gradually take over. None of this constitutes a financial promise.

'''What is the difference between direct cash and ~~Rewards~~ (no guarantee)?'''

'''What is the difference between direct cash and Subscription Tokens (no guarantee)?'''

Proposed answer: direct cash is money actually paid to your bank account once attributed. ~~Rewards~~ (no guarantee) are a conditional mechanism linked to future subscription revenue of the platform: they may translate into value later if the project develops, and they may not. The two are always kept distinct in the call tables, and no promise is attached to ~~Rewards~~. Karma tokens are a third form, usable for services within the ecosystem.

Proposed answer: direct cash is money actually paid to your bank account once attributed. Subscription Tokens (no guarantee) are a conditional mechanism linked to future subscription revenue of the platform: they may translate into value later if the project develops, and they may not. The two are always kept distinct in the call tables, and no promise is attached to Subscription Tokens. Karma tokens are a third form, usable for services within the ecosystem.

'''Why can part of the sum be withheld for up to one year? What is the maturity criterion?'''

Line 140:

Line 151:

'''What are Karma tokens and how can I use them?'''

Proposed answer: Karma tokens are the internal barter-style units of the WikiDeal ecosystem, usable for services within it. A contributor can choose to receive part or all of a ~~reward~~ in Karma tokens instead of cash. They are not money, they are not convertible on demand, and their scope of use would grow with the ecosystem itself.

Proposed answer: Karma tokens are the internal barter-style units of the WikiDeal ecosystem, usable for services within it. A contributor can choose to receive part or all of a subscription token in Karma tokens instead of cash. They are not money, they are not convertible on demand, and their scope of use would grow with the ecosystem itself.

Line 147:

Line 158:

'''Who owns my proposal once submitted? Under which licence is it published?'''

Proposed answer: contributions are published on the wiki under its free licence (CC BY-SA 4.0), following the Free Licensing principle of the project. By submitting, you confirm that your contribution is either your original work, or based on third party material that is itself under a free licence, in the public domain, or covered by usage rights you are authorised to grant. A contribution that does not meet these conditions implies the waiver of any ~~reward~~. You remain the author and are credited as such; the licence lets the community reuse and improve the work.

Proposed answer: contributions are published on the wiki under its free licence (CC BY-SA 4.0), following the Free Licensing principle of the project. By submitting, you confirm that your contribution is either your original work, or based on third party material that is itself under a free licence, in the public domain, or covered by usage rights you are authorised to grant. A contribution that does not meet these conditions implies the waiver of any subscription token. You remain the author and are credited as such; the licence lets the community reuse and improve the work.

'''Can WikiDeal use my proposal even if I do not win?'''

Line 155:

Line 166:

'''What if two people submit the same idea?'''

Proposed answer: the wiki history shows who posted what and when, and the mandatory referencing shows where each idea comes from. The first contributor of an idea could receive more, in recognition of the direct input, while later contributors who genuinely enriched it would also be considered. Identical ideas arising independently are common and would be handled case by case, with an explanation. Claiming someone else's idea as one's own, on the other hand, would lead to the loss of any ~~reward~~.

Proposed answer: the wiki history shows who posted what and when, and the mandatory referencing shows where each idea comes from. The first contributor of an idea could receive more, in recognition of the direct input, while later contributors who genuinely enriched it would also be considered. Identical ideas arising independently are common and would be handled case by case, with an explanation. Claiming someone else's idea as one's own, on the other hand, would lead to the loss of any subscription token.

'''Which behaviour rules apply during an open call? Whom can I contact?'''

Line 184:

Line 195:

----

'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-~~Call~~:Main|Open Call page]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/User-Group-Maturity|User Group Maturity Assessment]]

'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call page]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/User-Group-Maturity|User Group Maturity Assessment]]

[[Category:~~Migration June 2026~~]]

[[Category:Open Calls]]