Grants:APG/Questions for FDC staff/2012-2013 round2


WM Norway eligible to apply in Round 2Edit

Dear colleagues,

Wikimedia Norway (WMNO) has strived to learn about the Grants and funding schemes, in order to move up the ladder towards the level of professionalism demonstrated by our Swedish friends. Currently, we are entering Year 2 of the Arts Council Norway collaboration (GLAM), we are planning our fourth Wikipedia Academy, and we have recently agreed in principlke to collaborate on 2 more wikipedians-in-residence with the National Antequarian (Riksantikvaren). We already have 2 wikipedians-in-residence installed in museums, and we entering initial discussions on a fifth wikipedian-in-residence at the National Archives (Riksarkivet). All of this is motivated by a desire to mature as a WM chapter. However, this winter we totally missed out on the requirement to file a Letter of Intent within November 15, in order to apply for Round 2 of the Funds scheme. This is a mistake fully on our shoulders, and stems from the fact that the two board members who are most active on reporting and applications, haven't been on the Wikimedia Mailing List, thereby not becoming aware of that requirement. Before placing any effort in applications, I plea that WMNO be granted allowance to apply for funds in Round 2, i.e. by March 1. Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello from the FDC staff. Thanks for sharing all of this news about the development and ongoings of your chapter. They sound interesting! As for your question, it is important to note that Letters of Intent were not required for either round of the FDC process in its inaugural year, that is, 2012-2013. This decision is highlighted in the details of the proposal process, which reads: For the first and second rounds (funds to be disbursed January 2013 and June 2013), WMF staff are reviewing the eligibility of all potentially eligible entities: interested entities will not need to complete a letter of intent.
Therefore, per the round 2 eligibility status, WMNO is eligible to apply for funds from the FDC. Please note all proposals must be submitted by 1 March end of day UTC. Please let me know if you have any further questions! KLove (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks alot, we will study rules and regulations in detil and certainly apply for Round 2. And I am quite certain we will have questions, aswell. The previous board meetings have expressed a clear intent to apply, and the last meeting mandated me and treasurer Kjetil Ree to finish the application by March 1. Looking forward to enter this process! BR, Bjoertvedt (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to have provided some answers. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with any questions. I'm here to help you. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
One more thing to note is that the FDC makes grants to entities for annual plans, whereas the Wikimedia Grants program funds mission-aligned projects. KLove (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Time periods of financial informationEdit

Hi! I am working on the norwegian Round 2 application, and I miss information about which time period you are expecting us to report and forcast. There is noewhere any indication as to which time period to choose. The program period seems to be June-June, whereas our fiscal year is january-January while others apply March-March. When you ask for year-to-date numbers (table 3), that would in our case be actuals for january and February - a very meager period of reporting. It gets more difficult when we are asked to indicate funding requests. For instance, to WMNO that means that we would indicate what we would like to have funded January-January, with funds deriving in June. That makes for 7 (6?) months of budgeting of the funds, but how do we indicate and budget the remaining 5 (6) months of funds? In our case, should we indicate one budget January-January 2013, one for June-June, and one other for January-June 2014? We don't even have an approved 2013 budget, because that is approved by the Annual Assembly in April. We only have an approved 2012 budget, on which to legitimize calls for funding into 2014. So, we are really confused. We have set up a very preliminary (non-approved) 2013 budget, but we are only applying for 6 (7) months of funds on that. So, for the tables following table 4 and forward, what are we expected to budget. Into 2014?, or only 2013? Kind and confused regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC) (WMNO)

To confuse a bit more - in Table 2 you ask us how much we request from the WMF for "the coming year's annual pnan". However, the "coming" year is, actually, 2014. We are now in the present year of 2013, while 2014 is the coming year. This might seem a minor error, but when several errors occur throughout, and partly contradict each other, it becomes hard to fill in things in the right way. Remember, in the United States a fiscal year is often March-March, while in Scandinavia (at least) it is almost always January-January. BR, Bjoertvedt (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bjoertvedt, thank you for asking these clarification questions. It is important to note that FDC makes grants for annual plans for both programmatic and operational costs, so the proposal and the annual plan would need to reflect a full 12-month period. There are two options as I see it. The first, if WMNO does not require fulltime staff is that you apply for mission-aligned project funding through the WMF grants program, and then apply for FDC funds in round 1 in October (2013). The second option would be to apply for a period of funding that does not match your fiscal year, that is, July 2013-June 2014. Note that your annual plan and budgetwould have to reflect that period. In my opinion, the first option is the best, as the second creates a lot of extra work for WMNO in terms of reporting and planning during two of your fiscal years.
Is there a strong reason for WMNO to apply for FDC funding this round, considering the above? Are there some anticipated urgent expenses that would not be covered by the WMF grants program? I think once I understand the concerns and considerations of WMNO, I may be able to offer a more nuanced response.
Finally, you are right in your interpretation that the year-to-date financial reports would be, in your case, just January and February. However, we will also require the reports from the last completed fiscal year as this would provide the community and the FDC with a more holistic picture of the chapter, as well as the expenditure for the current fiscal year. In other words, WMNO should provide last year's actuals to planned revenues and expenditures, as well as for Jan-Feb.
Please let me know if you have any other questions, I hope this provides some clarity for you and WMNO. KLove (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thorough answer, Kate. As regards the reporting for year-to-date, including 2012, that is well taken care of in the budget document linked in the proposal. The budget document also gives both budgets and actuals for 2010, 2011 and 2012, so there is overwhelming documentation of actuals to budgets. WMNO currently has no staff or offices, but a considerable volume of programs and developments to pursue with good partners, and the volunteer community. We desperately need a small secretariat to release board members of the most pressing burdens in these programs. We follow, co-operate and communicate quite a lot with WMSE, and the way they have taken their chapter further is a strong model to us,aswell. We even start communicate on half-year basis to co-ordinate with WMSE to make sure we don't do exactly the same developments independent of each other. So we regard the path they have taken with a stronger professionalization of the chapter programs, as a model to learn from. We have 2 WIR's, but clear leads on another 2, and we have got donations of 350.000 photos over the last year but can't manage it all without employees. I am quite convinced that the best way of doing this, is to draft a budget that runs until June 30, 2014, and present it to the Annual Assembly in April. You would have to take that as a preliminary (non-approved) budget, but we would be bound by it through the funding proposal. So reporting on funds would strictly follow budgeted funds spending even if the Annual assembly chooses to make minor changes. Norwegian (and many European) goverments demand reporting following the calendar, so we will have to do rotation every half year. That is much less job, than applying for X numbers of Grants. The FDC process is more manageable than a dispersed grants portfolio, it appears. So, we will simply draft a 1,5 year budget, i.e one for 2013 and one for July-June 2013-2014, and apply for one year of funds now. I guess there would be mid-way reporting after round 2 (December) but that is preferable. Thanks again. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Submit button"?Edit

Hello on behalf of WMHK. We're hoping to submit our first ever FDC proposal. The deadline is today and we have a page on Meta already: FDC portal/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimedia Hong Kong/Proposal form. Do we need to put a link on a particular page for it to become "official"? Deryck C. 09:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello colleagues at WMHK, thank you for asking this question. As I responded in my email (and in case anyone else is looking for the same answer), there is no "submit" button on the proposal form. The reason for that is to allow applicants to continue to edit and refine their proposal until the deadline, which in this case, is March 1 end of day UTC. As the proposal form says, "the completed document must be published in English on Meta by the deadline for each round (23:59 UTC 1 October for Round 1, and 23:59 UTC 1 March for Round 2)." After that time, any proposal that is posted on Meta will be considered submitted to the FDC. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


(questions moved from FDC portal/Questions for FDC staff)

{{{title}}}Edit

You have some error on FDC portal/2. (This comment page is outdated too, by the way.) --Nemo 10:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! (And let me know if it hasn't.) heather walls (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Proposals to the FDC by roundEdit

This category has two subcategories with identical name except for two spaces, please check. --Nemo 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nemo: I just saw this, and I'll look into this week. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with FDC bannersEdit

Please see [1]. --Nemo 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have replied at the link and emailed FDC staff, they are looking at the question now. Thanks! heather walls (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge comment pagesEdit

Is this a complaint, an appeal, a comment, or a question? No idea, but someone please answer. --Nemo 11:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have answered that question where you asked it. Adding four places to ask four different types of questions was intended to make it easier to get at answer (not more difficult), but we are looking at the whole portal design after the beginning of 2012-2013 round 2 settles down a bit and we will take this into account. Thanks again! And apologies for not answering some of these questions more quickly. heather walls (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

WMHK's official statement regarding the recent decision of FDCEdit

Wikimedia Hong Kong (WMHK) opposes the recent decision of the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) of Wikimedia Foundation. The FDC has rejected the proposal submitted by WMHK.


Wikimedia Hong Kong, the Hong Kong local chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, has the mission to promote Wikimedia projects and free cultures among local community in Hong Kong. WMHK achieves the mission through several outreach projects, which are funded by the grants from Wikimedia Foundation. The rejection of funding from the FDC makes WMHK having difficulties to continue achieving its mission.


We note that the FDC is concerned about WMHK’s internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage future projects. The FDC also mentioned that past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a record of high impact. The problem is that WMHK is run by volunteers who have limited time. WMHK itself also has limited resources. To increase such capacities and impact mentioned by the FDC, WMHK has the necessity to recruit full-time staff in order to handle daily operation of WMHK as well as manage the projects. However, the recruitment cannot be done as WMHK lacks funding.


Another reason why FDC rejected WMHK’s proposal is that WMHK is out of compliance with its previous WMF grants. It is incorrect to say that as all the previous WMF grant projects were already submitted before the submission of the proposal to FDC. It is also incorrect to mention that WMHK mismanaging the previous funds, as there is no clear guideline on what to do if there is money left.


We believe the decision of the FDC is inappropriate. The decision is totally harmful for the development of WMHK, as well as the development of free culture in Hong Kong. The Wikimedia Foundation has the obligation to promote Wikimedia projects and free culture around the world. The rejection of funding makes the promotion of those projects in Hong Kong more difficult. The rejection of funding also makes the volunteers in WMHK think that their work is totally denied by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Rover Wong@WMHK (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)