Next steps here I think was @MRitch-WMF & @RLewis to confirm the spec above

Hi Eileen,

Thanks for the ping on this, Megan and I are meeting today to go over some
of this and will update the task.

@Eileenmcnaughton @MDemosWMF @MRitch-WMF @JMando - hi all I think just to confirm for any gifts that come in that DO NOT have an appeal related activity or DO NOT have the major gifts related activity and its coded as white mail, the revenue should still flow to Major Gifts as it makes up our Alternative and Other Category.

@Eileenmcnaughton - for this point below, I'm going work on the fields we'll need, sometimes we don't know the anticipated expected date, should we just estimate for this?

Major Gifts Engagement is a proposed new activity type. It would be created by a major gifts officer to indicate any expected gifts - I think we could create it with a 'scheduled' status & update to 'completed' when the money is matched - allowing them to search on it. In addition it *may* make sense to have a field on the activity showing when the gift is expected to be received by for follow up - probably something for @RLewis to advise on

@MSuijkerbuijk_WMF @RLewis @MRitch-WMF - we're adding this to our queue to work on; please let us know if there have been any further iterations/developments that should guide the work.

@AKanji-WMF - I need to think of the fields we need for the Major Gifts Engagement activity type.. I'll hopefully get to this, this week.

@RLewis OK - just looking at your comment

"hi all I think just to confirm for any gifts that come in that DO NOT have an appeal related activity or DO NOT have the major gifts related activity and its coded as white mail, the revenue should still flow to Major Gifts as it makes up our Alternative and Other Category."

I'm having trouble translating that into what the code should do - how would the code identify these & code them?

Change #1128592 had a related patch set uploaded (by Eileen; author: Eileen):

[wikimedia/fundraising/crm@master] Add a Major Gifts Engagement activity type

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1128592

@MRitch-WMF Tagging you here as we discussed yesterday. We should find the way to identify the White Mail coming from Online audiences. FYI @Eileenmcnaughton

@Eileenmcnaughton - would it help if I shared some CIDs with contributions that should flow into the Major Gifts Alternative and Other Category so you can see what I mean?

Change #1128592 merged by jenkins-bot:

[wikimedia/fundraising/crm@master] Add a Major Gifts Engagement activity type

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1128592

Targeting to review Sprint H

@MDemosWMF, @MRitch-WMF and @RLewis: This is my understanding of the request here, can you check this over and answer the questions in here and check if there is anything missing?

1. IF the channel is 'Direct Mail' AND the appeal is 'whitemail' THEN look for an activity on the contact record WHERE activity_type_id:name = 'Direct Mail' OR WHERE activity_type_id:name = 'Major Gifts Engagement'* within the last x days AND use the package and appeal from that activity. Set new Is Major Gift field if warranted.

How many days is x, i.e. how long would we want to look back?
Major Gifts Engagement activities do not currently allow for Direct Mail package or campaign. Should they?
Would we need to cover the case where a spouse donates but the activity is recorded against the other spouse (noting that we have very little spouse relationship data)?

2. IF the channel is 'Other offline' THEN do the same but only look at 'Major Gifts Engagement' activities. Set new Is Major Gift field. If such an activity exists and is scheduled, it should be marked as complete.

Would we mark these as activities as complete depending on some logic about the amount or just whenever we have a donation from the relevant contact within the time period above?

3. Any donations imported with appeal = "whitemail" for which we don't find an activity as above, should get the new Is Major Gift field.

Is there any amount filter on this or is this all donations that come in that we can't match to an activity? I imagine that might include some false positives.

Just noting @ERoden-WMF flagged there may be an easier way to implement this using Metabase. I think @RLewis and @AFowler-WMF were going to submit the request for @IAckerman-WMF 's team to explore this in asana. Not sure where that stands currently though.

Hi everyone,

Just checking on this, Rosie was this something you were going to submit?
Thanks!

Amy

Amy Fowler (she/her)

Senior Manager, Major Gifts Stewardship

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

@RLewis and @AFowler-WMF I think if we are going to be designating certain donations as major gifts, we want that to happen in CiviCRM so that it flows through to accounting in the work Eileen is doing currently. The appeal data is less critical, but it would also be good to get it right in CiviCRM rather than manipulating it after the fact in Metabase.

@MDemosWMF at a high level it's usually easier and more transparent to record the data correctly in CiviCRM than to transform in Metabase.

A way of thinking about it is

1. My partner is using the 'kitchen app' without metabase. He is looking for spoons. He looks in the spoon draw and there are none there
2. I am metabase. I 'transform' the data - by pointing out to him that our son usually puts the spoons in the fork draw

• there are 2 ways to help my partner either
• get the son to put the spoons in the spoon draw
• help him to find them in the fork draw.

In most cases the more times you compensate for bad data the more unweildly it gets and eventually metabase is looking in the 8 possible places and it becomes increasingly worth the effort of getting our son to put them in the right place in the first place....

@RLewis, @AFowler-WMF and @MDemosWMF: Eileen, Joseph and I discussed this today and we agreed this would be better to do in CiviCRM rather than Metabase. We also can't change the status of the Major Gifts Engagement activity from Metabase, so that would have to be in CiviCRM unless MGFE wants to update all of these manually.

Could we revisit my questions above and see if we can work through the details?

@Lars - see my answers below:

How many days is x, i.e. how long would we want to look back?
I think - we would need to look back at least 30 days as some offline payment methods can have a delay of around 30 days ie international efts.

**Major Gifts Engagement activities do not currently allow for Direct Mail package or campaign. Should they?
I dont think the Activity has been created in Civi yet, if it hasn't can we add any custom fields that will help with this.

Would we need to cover the case where a spouse donates but the activity is recorded against the other spouse (noting that we have very little spouse relationship data)?

Yes we would definitely need to factor in relationship giving for cases like that and for DAF giving as well, we often see the individual lets us know they will make a gift and then they donate via a DAF which is linked to the individual contact.

Would we mark these as activities as complete depending on some logic about the amount or just whenever we have a donation from the relevant contact within the time period above?

Yes I think the latter makes sense, we would mark complete when the donation has been received and entered on the contact.

**Is there any amount filter on this or is this all donations that come in that we can't match to an activity? I imagine that might include some false positives.

• I'm not sure I understand this, I think we would want all donations that have this engagement activity included in this process regardless of amount

Hi Lars,

Sorry for my late reply on this, I added my comments in the task. I
wondered if it makes sense to just meet about this quickly next week or
whenever works so we can run through some of the questions/issues etc. I'm
happy to find time. I think Desiree might also be a good person to loop in
on this as well.

@DBautista-WMF - looping you in on this task as I know we've discussed it previously and its related to our $10k gift tracker process.

For soft credit -> relationships we look back 3 months - would it make sense to use 3 months just for consistency / to help us remember less & keep that space in our brain free for memes & cat photos?