Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Staff summary/Progress report form/Q1

Describing reported data

odder noted on wikimedia-l that this page used different language for different bits of data, which could be comparatively misinterpreted. ("WMF notes..." "WMFR claims... " "WMCH reports..." ). Most data were described as being "reported" so I changed the two outliers to "reports". –SJ talk  02:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to those who pointed this out, and thanks SJ for making this change. You are right that the words were used for variety, with no intended implications. Warm regards, KLove (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

…for this interesting report of reports :) and its concise and easy-to-read form. I translated for now half of this text into French and I want also to thank the writers for the easy-to-translate language. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 21:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yo Dawg, I heard you like reports, so I made a report of the reports so you can report while you report. Jean-Fred (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC) → []

Thanks Seb35 for this feedback, and I am very glad to hear you found it concise and easy-to-read. Thanks too for the translation. And thanks Jean-Fred for making me chuckle! A report of reports on reports would be impressive. :) KLove (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Typo

A financial typo for WMFR "total spending": « WMFR has spent about US$230,749 this quarter out of US$230,749 projected annual budget ». This is 100% :) ~ Seb35 [^_^] 21:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, Seb35. You are right; I made a mistake. I have corrected it to a total projected annual budget of US$504,608, so the percentage is 46% (at the halfway point of their 6 month grant). Many thanks! KLove (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Timing of data

It is quite clear that the FDC want the grantees to include numbers in the reports. What would be nice, is to make it possible to include official statistics. Today that is hard since the time to write the report is 30 days, and the statistics usually have not been published by then. Would it be possible to decrease the time? Also, for evaluation purposes it would be very nice to be able to view the same data on a daily basis (instead of only monthly), to track the effects of specific events easier. Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)