Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round 2/The Centre for Internet and Society/Proposal form

Table 5

There are two tables labelled "Table 5" in this form. Both are labelled "Anticipated revenues for the upcoming funding period" but have different contents. The former appears in a section that seems not associated to the contents, and the Total revenues in US dollars aren't the sum of the earlier amounts. --Yair rand (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: this has been changed. - Laurentius (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Some corrections

Dear FDC team,

There are few corrections related to operational costs and operating reserves. While it has been mentioned that operating reserves will be taken from WMF's APG fund, it is not true. The 10% would only go into institutional development. S, I would like to change the corresponding entries in the form. Please approve the same. --Rahmanuddin (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to this. Please make the changes using strikethrough, Rahmanuddin. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 10:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Rahmanuddin. I notice this amount still looks incorrect in Table 7. Can you please update it using strikethrough now? Thanks! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 22:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@రహ్మానుద్దీన్: Please update Table 7 now using strikethrough to reflect that you are not requesting funds for your operating reserves. Thank you! 50.0.205.10 15:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Woliff:, Done! Thank you for all the support. --Rahmanuddin (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

More links would help assess the scale directly

It would be nice if CIS's proposal form included direct links to the Wikipedia Education Program course lists of the "Ongoing/Content generation" courses, from where it would be easy to assess the activity, therefore the impact. Like this: Special:Courses. As it is, it's hard to locate these pages for those of us who don't speak the relevant languages, because the "Special" namespace and the equivalent of "Courses" are all in a foreign script, and, after a basic attempt at locating this page on the Kannada Wikipedia, it's clear that there must be some subtleties in translation, which makes this task too hard for a typical member of the community.

Given that the impact being talked about is on Wikipedia, it would have been good to see more links in general. --Evgeni Sergeev (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Evgeni Sergeev, many thanks for engaging with our proposal. I would like to mention that we have not been running 'special courses' as part of our WEPas followed by other community members. A2K has customised the WEP design to sync the academic schedule and requirement of the faculty members of our partner institutions. We do however have details of the activities conducted and details of documentation that can be accessed here. We have been tracking the progress of these WEP initiatives with co-hort analysis and will be publishing an impact report very soon.

Regards,

Lahariyaniyathi (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Are we supposed to vote?

If-so, where? Without looking-at the numbers, personally, I favor more broad-based proposals, like this one, as compared-to restricting to geographical areas that serve a more limited audience.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Voting...?

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one confused about the democratic process of proposal markup/comment/discussion. Are we supposed to voice or vote our opinion by suggesting edits to the proposal or just make suggestions via the talk page? Are our edits our votes in other words..? Or is there a more formal mechanism? Please link :) What are people's thoughts on the best format for online, distributed decision-making? Should we make tools like liquid democracy or democracy OS w/in mediawiki to help facilitate? Or are there existing tools already? I now that's subject matter for a lifetime's worth of discussion and a series of proposals in there own right, but could a more senior, experienced wikipedian vet point me in the right direction? Vibrantmatter (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there TeeVeeed & Vibrantmatter. Thank you for your interest in the APG process, I agree with you that it can get a bit confusing at times, but with time it is improving. Well this is step 2 of the process. Thelogical steps are as follows:

Step 1: Organizations submit a proposal and are checked for eligibility.

Step 2: Community members are requested to Review proposals and ask questions for clarity. This is important since community members are being supported by the applicants, they would give insight on relevance, effectiveness and other local context of the application. This is where we are at the moment.

Step 3: Then the WMF staff supporting the FDC volunteers, will give their initial assessment having worked with the applicants previously and having read through previous reports.

Step 4: Then finally the FDC delibrates and issues a recommendation having taken into account all the feed back received on the steps above.

Step 5: Then the WMF Board takes a decision based on the recommendations above. If the Applicant is unhappy then they can Appeal the decision.

You can watch this page to track the process as it goes. We greatly value your feedback.--Thuvack (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments and Questions from FDC member Risker

• I note that in the section "Staff and contractors: upcoming year's annual plan", Question #4 is answered by the insertion of a Table 5, which is out of place. That Table 5 is different from the Table 5 that appears in the section "Financials: upcoming year's annual plan". Please respond to Question #4 and advise which of the two Table 5s is the one that we should be considering.
• I am finding the information about operating reserves to be very confusing. It appears that you plan to increase the reserves, but not with FDC funding. Where will the additional funds for reserves come from?
• I note that according to Table 7, you are planning to spend very little money on staffing ($5250 sounds more like one month's staffing cost, not a year's worth). This unexpectedly low number is compounded in the proposed total expenses in the same table. Now, I can see that there is some confusing information in the instructions (it points to Table 4 for staffing costs, but Table 4 doesn't actually include staffing costs, only FTE information). Can you please clarify how much you intend to spend on staffing?

I may have some further questions along the way, but these issues should be clarified as soon as possible. I apologize that I have only noted this now. Thank you for your submission. Risker (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Risker, We have raised our confusion regarding the table 4 and table 5 with Grants Officer, WMF and are looking forward to their response before we clarify on these numbers. Please allow us a little more time towards explaining the figures in our budget.

Regards,

Lahariyaniyathi (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Risker: In regards to your first and last question, I was able to speak with Rahmanuddin clarified that Question #4 in the Staff and Contractors section should be the total staff costs for the upcoming funding cycle. Looking at the proposal, it seems that this has been updated, replacing the duplicate Table 5, and is reflected in the updated Table 7 (I believe there was some confusion about "Upcoming staff costs". I clarified that these are their total staff costs for the upcoming year, not the incremental costs for new staff). -- Shouston (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for costs and global metrics by program

Hello, CIS-A2K team!

We notice that your Table 6 does not include a breakdown of expenses by program as requested. Can you please let us know your (non-staff, non-operational) costs for each program?

Similarly, we notice that your global metrics table includes a breakdown by language area. Do you also have a breakdown by program (e.g. GLAM, education, skillbuilding, edit-a-thons) you can provide?

Both pieces of information are needed to understand what you are investing and what you are targeting through each program area. This information will help staff and the committee in our analysis.

Thank you! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 23:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Wolliff (WMF), thanks for asking for this clarification. We have updated the Table 6 indicating program-wise breakdown of expenses based on your inputs. The in-kind support that is outside the FDC grant constitutes the non-staff, non-operational cost. Hope we have clarified this now. Thanks much and do let us know if any other component in the proposal is not clear. --Subhashish Panigrahi (CIS Programme Officer) (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Subha! This was very helpful to understanding your program costs. We are grateful for you working to get this to us with such short notice. Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Subha, I have one more question. Can you provide a brief list here of what your operational expenses of $105,701.63 consist of? I want to be sure we have the same understanding of the term before I explain these numbers to the FDC. Many thanks! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 16:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Winifred, ,
We have budgeted $105,701.63 as operational expenses and this amount is intended to be used for
a) Office Rent b) Office supplies and maintenance c) Skill building and training for A2K staff d) Consultants regarding accounts/legal advice if necessary.

In addition to my reply above, please find below the budget table that was sent earlier to the WMF team regarding our operational expenses:

	REVISED ANNUL BUDGE	TOTAL BUDGET - Y2
Sl	Particulars	Budget 2016-17
I	OFFICE ADMINISTRATION
1	General Office Maintenance	2,61,360
2	Staff Welfare - Medical Reimbursement ( not included in staff costs for 20 persons)	4,35,600
3	Staff Welfare - Medical Insurance ( not included in staff costs for 20 persons)	5,74,200
4	House Keeping - Security, Gardening	5,44,500
5	New papers & Magazines	43,560
6	Board /General Body Meeting Exp.	87,120
7	Postage & Courier	5,22,720
8	Electricity Water Generator	1,21,968
9	Printing & Stationery	3,13,632
10	Computer Consumables	2,61,360
11	Telephone/Broadband/FAX	10,89,000
12	Travel and Conveyance - Local	4,35,600
13	Office Rent (Bangalore)	13,06,800
14	Webhosting	7,98,600
15	Server maintenance / mail servers / domains	3,30,000
16	Fixtures and Furniture's (whole year amounts)	1,21,000
	Sub-total	72,47,020

Regards, Lahariyaniyathi (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Operating reserves

To "Does your organization plan to draw on its operating reserves?" you answer "Yes. For the core staff salaries and administration costs, the operating reserves might be used.". Later you write that at the end of the current funding period you plan for 425,470.41 in reserves (in which currency, by the way? USD?), and 456,602.40 at the end of the upcoming one - leading to an increase in the operating reserves. You also write that you will not use FDC funding to increase operating reserves.

Does this mean that you plan to increase your operating reserves (but not using FDC funding), but if needed (i.e., if problems arise) you might draw on them to pay for core expenses? (which is what operating reserves are for) - Laurentius (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laurentius, thanks for pointing this out. CIS-A2K is not asking for any operating reserve during 2016-17. We misunderstood that before. We have updated the table (please see the Table 7). About your question if the currency is in USD or not, it is in Indian Rupees. About increasing the operating reserve, we might increase it (target: three months of core budget) for the core CIS expenses but from other donors and not from WMF. Hope we have clarified the questions you have asked. Please do let us know if you have more questions. --Subhashish Panigrahi (CIS Programme Officer) (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

2014-2015 Annual report + More info

Going through the proposal and the organization's website, I understand that this is a grant request to support CIS-A2K and not thew whole of CIS, right? Please then can you clarify or provide the following:

1. What percentage does CIS-A2K represent of the whole budget of CIS? Compared to your other programmes such as "Accessibility"; "Access to Knowledge"; "Openness"; "Internet Governance"; "Telecom" & "RAW". It would be good for us to put this program into perspective in your organization.
2. When will you be releasing your Annual Report 2014-15?, The one available is for Annual Report 2013-14.

Thanks for these in advance,--Thuvack (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thuvack, you are right about A2K program’s budget being a part of CIS’s various programs. For the current financial year, CIS-A2K’s budget represents 24.42% of the whole of CIS’s budget (49,126,559 INR). The annual report for 2014-2015 are going to be public soon in two weeks time as the statutory audit has been delayed. Please do let us know if we need to clarify anything more. ---Subhashish Panigrahi (CIS Programme Officer) (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Global metrics - according to programs

Given below is the recompiled metrics for the proposal submitted by CIS-A2K. This table is provided with an objective to help wikimedians better understand the impact and goals of our proposal. Table 3 of the proposal page has metrics lined out as per our Focus Language Areas and the table given below has metrics according to the programs proposed on our proposal page (WEP, Edit-a-thon, Skill building initiatives and GLAM activities).

Table 3

Program	(1) # of newly registered users	(2) # of active editors involved	(3) # of individuals involved	(4a) # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages	(4b) # of new images/media uploaded (optional)	(5) # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects	(6) Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects
Overall	1525	349	2643	9720	7515	6370+200,000 folios	9,534,000 + 15 MB
Wikipedia Educational Program	800	47	1350	6800	3400	2000	6,300,000
Edit-a-thons	650	100	1035	495	350	3850	2,974,000
Skill Building	50	132	73	75	65	200	460,000
GLAM activities	25	70	185	2450	3700	320+200,000 folios	800,000 + 15 MB

Apologies for adding this late, but the overall metrics remain the same. This is a different view of the same numbers. --Rahmanuddin (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)