I'm eager to advance this proposal.

In recent years e-NABLE mainstays Bob Rieger  and Rick Williams have retired.   I've been increasingly engaged in the work of the EcoRestoration Alliance.  As a result Jeremy Simon has valiantly taken on a lot of the slack, and it's just not sustainable.  

While new leaders like Adam Jennings have emerged, we have not..despite repeated appeals...been able to find volunteers to address the now-well-established tasks that keep our platform going.

Over the years, we've looked to the EnableFund for solutions to problems that volunteers can't, won't or shouldn't address. In recent Town Hall meetings, we've encouraged Adam's consulting company to propose a bundle of services that would help both fill the gap and help us develop new funding and outreach opportunities.   He has obliged.

Jeremy and I are  convinced that funding this proposal will be a good use of our under-utilized EnableFund. I hope the community will discuss, and agree.  

I see this as a positive tool to enhance our reach around the world. I'm all for it🤗🙏🤗

This sounds like an excellent way to utilize our funds, I am very excited to see what could come of this!

👍

Tossing out my thoughts for conversation. I am concerned about the scale of work proposed and its synchronization with the proposed time (10 hours per week). There seems to be a disconnect as I don't think that the goals can reasonably be accomplished given the requested funds. Fast, low-cost and Comprehensive - choose two...so given the low price (which I agree is a signficant discount - thanks Adam!) I think this is a case of the work being low-cost and comprehensive...but not fast. I would maybe like to see a logic model of goals, approaches and short/long term anticipated outcomes from the work to be undertaken? Though I could be convinced that maybe the first 6 months of funding would largely be spent in developing the information necessaary to develop this more in-depth logic model. Coming from the academic side, I can see some benefit to approving this quickly so some work can be done over the summer when perhaps some of the university and k-12 chapters might have more time in their schedules to engage in this more administrative type of work.

I appreciate your concerns and I'm here to address them from the perspective of a potential partner and representative of Wildemont, LLC. I want to clarify that I won't vote on this proposal or any subsequent related proposals due to my dual roles, and my responses here are from the perspective as Wildemont’s co-founder.

Your point about the speed of progress is absolutely valid. While we could increase Wildemont's monthly allotted hours, e-NABLE's current funds limit a higher commitment. However, I'm optimistic that this partnership will increase e-NABLE's resources, potentially supporting a half-time equivalent position.

Two factors may alleviate your concerns:

1. As Outreach Coordinator, I'll continue dedicating 5-10 hours weekly to initiatives supporting Wildemont's efforts. We'll document project hours and share them with e-NABLE's leadership team for community visibility.

2. Wildemont's approach always begins with defining short and long-term project objectives. We'll identify the full scope of projects and approach, likely starting with reviving e-NABLE's stalled Trello boards to support future work.

However we approach this partnership, our primary objective is to boost community support for e-NABLE. We welcome more people taking charge of project execution elements. Whether at arises through a rotating system of students, the establishment of administrative/logistics chapters, or other means, we believe Wildemont can help make this happen efficiently and sustainably. Let me know if you have any other questions!

I think a little more planning in the proposal would allow for an easier decision after the first six month trial period. There should be some target measurables for the items described under "Expected results/impact:

• Improved member engagement

• Improved project/task management capabilities for our volunteers and chapters

• Improved community outreach through digital marketing and partnerships

• Improved connections with medical community with supporting best-practices for e-NABLE volunteers

• Improved fundraising and grant acquisition capabilities

For example: Improved member engagement: number of views increased by 5k in first 3 months and 10k views by end of 6 months. Increased new members by 1000 in first 3 months and 2000 at end of six months. Improved fundraising and grant acquisition capabilities: Applied for funding at 4 organizations in first 3 months, increased funding by $10k in first 3 months.

Established baselines for each measurable target should be published and agreed to so the starting point is understood before the agreement takes place. Then every month or 2 months a status update should be provided to monitor progress until the end of the 6 months. In this manner there will be no questions as to whether the work with Wildemont was successful and money well spent.

Also, are each of the Results/Impact areas or Recommendation areas equally weighted? Is member engagement more important than funding? If there is a priority it will likely help Wildemont focus and help drive success.

Just some thoughts so that at the end of the 6 months it will be clear as to whether to continue or end the collaboration with Wildemont.

@Bob Sommerich Howdy, Bob- Thank you for taking the time to provide such thorough feedback on our proposal! I absolutely agree with you that setting specific, measurable targets is critical to assessing the success of any project (it’s how I manage each of my personal and professional initiatives). Our approach to this partnership, given its broad scope and potential for adaptation, is to take an iterative approach. The first step will be to better define e-NABLE’s missions and purpose. Our metrics in support of these overarching goals will then be much easier to outline in a meaningful way.

Regarding our approach, Jason and I want to ensure that we've first taken the time to hear from the community, ensure we understand global needs, and finally define priorities that support e-NABLE’s higher-level objectives. In this way, we can ensure that our success metrics align with what the community most values and needs.

The weighting of different impact areas is very pertinent. Prioritization of objectives will help us focus our efforts more effectively. However, these priorities might evolve as we progress with our work. We believe the weighting should reflect the evolving needs and context of the e-NABLE community. This would be a great use of the community’s time during renewal discussion phases for our ongoing partnership.

I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any other questions

Best,

Dr. Adam Jennings