Grants talk:PEG/WM CL/Annual Program Plan 2013-2014

Active discussions

GAC members who have read this request but had no commentsEdit

  1. . Seems to me well written application. All costs look reasonable. Polimerek (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support, but please correct the decimals (or use the anglosaxon method or the European one, at the start I supposed that you were asking for millions of dollars). --Ilario (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Ilario, we chose the "anglosaxon" method ("," instead of ".") for every number expressed in the request, being CLP or USD.--3BRBS (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. Support. --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

GAC members who have read the request and are currently studying the proposalEdit

  1. --Packa (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

GAC members who have read, studied and concluded their assessment (of) the proposalEdit

  1. Oppose Tony (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. I believe with the new leadership at the helm of WMCL there is genuine interest in fulfilling their goals and objectives, and they should be provided this opportunity to prove that. With the way they answered there questions, I can sense there was been a lot of thought that has been put into this proposal and I am very satisfied. -- Roel (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

GAC members who abstain from comment/voteEdit

  1. As president of Wikimedia Chile I am in a COI, so I recuse.--3BRBS (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by TonyEdit

  1. Timing. This is very retrospective. There is at least some support on the GAC for applications to be launched six weeks ahead of their proposed beginning (preferably longer, in my view), so that the GAC doesn't feel under undue pressure to approve, and/or to process the application in a hurry. If there was an irregular hold-up, I'm surprised it has taken so many months to sort out: couldn't the applicants have communicated promptly with WMF staff about it?

    It's all expressed in the future tense: does that mean the activity has been postponed pending WMF approval of funding, or have the funds already been spent? An old version of the application form has been used (minor point). Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

    As stated in the grant request, our planned intention is to create an annual plan adjusted to a typical fiscal year. First discussions held inside the chapter proposed to present a plan to cover the term between June 1st, 2013 and May 31, 2014, and request a small grant for the term between January 1st to May 31, 2013. As is well known by the WMF staff and publicly reported in that grant request and report pages, concrete procedures and paperwork took more time than expected. This delay was beyond our control, and WMF Grant program extended the execution of that grant to February 15, 2013.

    After receiving the second round of that grant, which was conditioned to the approval of the bank account, we had to: execute the last items very fast to be in line with the execution date; do the accounting, with was a complex procedure and used a high time consumption, even for a little budget (you can see the comments from Winifred in the talk report page); and document all the expenses. In the meantime we also organized the General Meeting of the Chapter (to be held in April as required by our Bylaws) and coordinated the attendance of our representatives to GLAM-Wiki in England and Wikimedia Conference in Italy. After all this, and working about all May on Meta, report was finally approved on June, 18.

    Our aim was to have the Start-up grant report approved before we presented this one. Also, as those “problems” arose, we were inclined to not present a small grant for the term before May 31, as we were right on that date. These delays also made clearer that a “Jan 1st - Dec 31” model was not working and we had to change it for a “Jun 1st - May 31”, including for this one and only time, retroactive items since March 1st. Note that we even have a gap (Feb 16 - Feb 28) covered by WM-CL own resources.

    All the projects presented are pending on approval of funding, and for a better explanation on items already disbursed, you can check the chart below.--3BRBS (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

    So just to clarify, the chapter hasn't gone out and spent money on the hunch that it will be approved, has it? This grant would be all prospective, yes? Tony (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    We think we have been sufficiently clear about this point with our prior answer.--3BRBS (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Project goals. it would have been good to link to the "start-up grant", with the approval date and the time-range for it—so that the GAC and WMF staff can get a feeling for the timing. Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    The link has been added as an inline within the text.--3BRBS (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    (a) "bring us consolidation as an Organization"—not a thematic organisation, I'm presuming. A chapter? WM Chile's page opens by announcing that it's a proposal of a local chapter". It's not a well-developed page ... no mission statement, even briefly. Yet the world map says it's an existing chapter. Just a few basic details would be good, in the application; like when the chapter was affiliated, etc. Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    The concept of “Organization” was used under the principle of "organizational matters" within the frame of us as a Chapter, we believed that some basic facts were not necessary, since as an established chapter, those details are known to the Wikimedia community and to the WMF, and also since we -as a chapter- already asked (and got approved) two grants before this one.--3BRBS (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    I agree, the state of the chapter's own page on Meta, and the presence or absence of expository material in the grant proposal, should not be factors in evaluating the merit of this grant proposal. That said, Tony's point is valid too: it would behoove an organization asking for a significant amount of money to make sure its online profile is a little more up to date. However, I agree it's not the top priority for an all-volunteer organization such as WMCL, at this point. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    We will update the WM-CL meta page within 24 hrs.--3BRBS (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    WM-CL page in meta is now updated. --Zuirdj (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    (b) I'm surprised you can get a chapter affiliated without a stable "internal structure and functioning"; and indeed without already having "a strategic plan", and "defining our mission, vision and values, as a local chapter". Yet the former appears to be goal of this proposal, and the latter wouldn't come until after the activities proposed here for funding. Under the "consolidation" the WMF is being asked to fund, a key goal is "to promote our activities and projects, in relation with Wikimedia Foundation projects themselves". OK, promotion ... Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    The new board was elected on November of 2012, from that date we struggled mostly to execute the ongoing projects with the tight budget we had already had approved. In the middle of this, many tasks, protocols and functioning procedures were not clear, determined or addressed, and we have been working hard on this issue, and we still have many more to address. Focusing on money distracted the attention over this tasks, procedures and protocols, making the functioning "unstable" (from this point of view), so within the context of this grant submission, our goal is to struggle less with the money, to be able to focus more on the functioning of the organization, to also be able to accomplish the projects we already had in our plans in a better way, or to endeavour ourselves in new projects within the mission of the WMF. That’s what we refer as “becoming stable”, despite it might be a better word to describe this state or situation in English.--3BRBS (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    It may be surprising, but yes, you can indeed be recognized as a Wikimedia chapter without a stable board (just any board is enough...), and certainly without a strategic plan. Some of our veteran Wikimedia chapters (including WMAU) have not had strategic plans until quite recently. Whether we ought to recognize chapters without strategies is a general point, best discussed with AffCom. It bears on this proposal only insofar as the absence of a strategic plan may make one less confident about WMCL's potential for impact, and that's fair. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    We believe that the only way, at the present time, to strengthen the confidence in our impact -or potential for impact- as a Chapter is showing the approved reports of the grants given to the Chilean Chapter, and the result of the activities and projects that were executed with those grants.--3BRBS (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    I just don't understand why packets of money are required to establish a strategic plan and a stable "internal structure and functioning". I don't think the GAC should be approving the funding of organisations that are unstable and have no strategic plan. You are all hooked up with email, even Skype, yes? Tony (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's not easy to start a chapter, more so to get it moving especially when you have to balance your real life work and volunteer work, which may actually see your editing activity significantly decline. A lot of things are easier said than done. We could demand for a lot of things we think are essential requirements before approving an annual plan like this which I believe WMCL has put a lot of thought, work and man hours too, but if there's no actual commitment from the officers/board then all the "essential requirements" will just remain on paper. Seeing that WMCL has listed projects and cost estimate indicate that they are committed and sincere in working on these projects, not for their own caprice, but simply to further the strategies of WMF in Chile. Calling them unstable might be too much.-- Roel (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Measures of success. This is partly our fault for not providing clear examples and instructions of what is useful to staff and GAC members. "Executing the activities and projects planned" is not useful. "Finishing some tasks determined by our bylaws." is impossibly vague. "Acquiring fixed assets" seems a little easy, but might be OK if we had something to grip onto in the other points. At least some of these stated benchmarks need to answer questions such as "how well?", "to what extent?", "how many?". I note that promotion is a key goal, and so is local participation (and "decentralised participation", whatever that means)—but the the measures of success are silent about these points. Think about what outcomes you'd be happy with and are realistic, and at least you and the WMF have a starting point, even if you don't satisfy your predictions. And maybe if the goals are ennumerated in numbered or bulleted form, it would help you and us. Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    The grant is presented in a way that "Goals and measures of success", "Project Scopes and Activities" and "Budget Breakdown" are linked together to make sense with each other. It should not make much sense if you just analyze them separately, so the subsequent points should be considered as well. I'll give an example: “Executing the activities and projects planned” is absolutely linked to the things that “will happen if this project is funded”, it seemed redundant to repeat the things in two different sections of the request when one explains the other. All the questions you ask, for projects and activities ("how well?", "to what extent?", "how many?"), are being considered in “Project Scope and Activities”, for example: “Wiki Loves Monuments 2013: Point 3: Increasing the number of pictures uploaded in the first edition.” It’s definitely a concrete way to measure the success, or in your own Q’s: "how well?", "to what extent?", "how many?". For projects that are going to be done for the first time, this comparison point is not yet established, as is for any new activity developed in any field, therefore, executing it, an examining the results, would be considered successful as well.--3BRBS (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with Tony here. It would help to know some measurable aspects of the work (and it is understood some of it is not measurable, and some is simply yes/no, e.g. attaining certain legal/official statuses) WMCL is planning. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    We might have missed the aim here. We included an explanation of each of the projects in the grant page, adding measurable aspects that link to next section. Please check the grant page.--3BRBS (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    "Increasing the number of pictures uploaded in the first edition"—increasing by how many, do you think? A thought-through hunch is what we want, and what you need as well. Numbers. Tony (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    More information has been added to the grant request page explaining the projects and their measures. We believe the information presented answers this question.--3BRBS (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Activities. I find this most unsatisfactory.
    (a) Just noting: you're going to promote only the first two projects within the community. Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    All the projects are going to be promoted within the community, as we presently do. It is not stated in any point of the request that only the first two projects will be promoted within the community. As a chapter, in line with the mission and principles of the WMF, all our activities are based on the volunteer work, so the community is the base of our projects.--3BRBS (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    "It is not stated in any point of the request that only the first two projects will be promoted within the community."—I beg to differ: the first two activities explicitly say this; the rest don't. Why? Tony (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    Even though we think we have been sufficiently clear about this point with our prior answer, we modified the grant page to reflect this in a better way.--3BRBS (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    (b) These activities look really good at first view. But built into the structure of all eight projects is a chain effect: subsequent stages are dropped if an initial stage turns out to be problematic or impossible. These circumstances call for more information so that we can get a feeling for how likely success will be. Knowing who and how, just a little bit more, for the crucial initial stages, would help; and knowing a projected timeline for platform stages would be good too (how long to stabilise "a new way of promoting Wikimedia Chile activities", before you set out to do 2 and 3?) Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    This might seem worse to you than it actually is. This chain effect is present in every activity everyone does. The fact that is typed down in a logical way might seem scary, but is not. Many of these projects have been executed before in other stages or terms, as you can see in our Start-up grant report. So, we have no doubt that these first points are going to be accomplished, and going through every point of the list, is a measure of the success of the activity, so far we understand it.--3BRBS (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    "This might seem worse to you than it actually is."—It seems no less bad after your response. What I want is more information so that we can judge the viability, the likelihood of success, of the first one or two stages—since the outcomes could dissolve without them. Generally there's quite insufficient detail about the projects, and who, what, where.
    More information has been added to this talk page (read below) and the grant request page explaining the projects. We believe the information presented answers this question.--3BRBS (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    (c) Similarly, these projects are very ambitious. Not all that many participants have signed up on your chapter page. Who's got what skills, or at least how many members, of what skill-base, can you count on (if you don't want to name them)? Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    We understand that you don’t have to know every detail of the chapters, so we presume our fault on not updating all this details in the Chapter’s page in Meta, which is “very” outdated by the way :-) We are going to update that page as soon as possible.
    Our start-up grant and the Iberoconf 2012 grant reports show that we executed mostly all of these projects before, and we have no good reasons to think is going to be different this time :)--3BRBS (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    And yet, Tony's question is a good one: how many active volunteers (as distinct from members!) does WMCL have at the moment? How many public speakers? How many techies? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    At the present time we have 26 members and 1 honorary member, making us 27; we have 4 members request pending; as of the second to last General Meeting, fundamental for keeping our legal personality under authorities, 20 members attended; as of our last General Meeting, 16 members attended. In our activities, for WLM 2012, we had at least 14 volunteers participating actively of the organization and development of the contest; for the activity for Wikipedia in University, we had 5 volunteers actively involved. As part of our organizational structural development we have named 5 committees: Institutional Memory Committee: composed of 4 volunteers; GLAM Committee: composed of 3 volunteers; Education Committee: composed of 3 volunteers; IT Committee: composed of 2 volunteers (one is a developer) and Community and Communications Committee: composed of 4 volunteers. Even though we have no “official” public speaker; members of the board and volunteers act indistinctly as public speakers in colleges, and public presentations depending on the context, and the experience of each in the field. Also, all the official communications of the Chapter are generated collectively by the board.--3BRBS (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Budget breakdown. Some of the items I'd be inclined to shift into a secondary category, in re-examining the priorities. Diplomas for founder and hon. members ($370)? Business cards ($650)? Lots of stationary and printing costs (but it's essentially an online organisation). GLAM-wiki conference $111 bank fees? Is a hackathon sufficiently relevant to your immediate goals? What does m. mean? Scanner $301 ... I just bought a basic scanner/copier/printer in expensive Australia for $49. Bank maintenance fee of $695 a month sounds like a mortgage repayment. Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Diplomas costs were quoted by myself in a stationary printing shop, and the printed cardboard itself is not that expensive, but the writing on them -which is handwritten- rises the price up a bit, I believe that the price given is accurate since it has been asked on the store. This is a requirement set by the Bylaws and unavoidable;
    These "diplomas" are required by law? Could you explain? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    To obtain the legal personality, the Ministry of Justice make available model bylaws, which -followed- accelerate the process for obtaining the legal personality. WM-CL followed this model which were also approved by WMF. The bylaws establish in article 8 point 4: “El primer Directorio deberá confeccionar un diploma individual donde conste esta circunstancia [ser socio fundador].-” [1]; “The first Board will make an individual diploma to document this circumstance.” [be a founder member].[2] This task is required to fulfill what is established in the bylaws. The only “not” compulsory diploma that is proposed to be granted is for the (one and only) honorary member we do have. The condition of honorary member was requested in a General Meeting (the only time it can be done), for the user that first asked the creation of the Wikipedia in Spanish and edited on it (the edits were lost due to the server change), that user happens to be Chilean. The Assembly supported this idea unanimously, because it thought important to recognize this merit naming him honorary member. The board thought important to recognize this with a diploma. If the latter seems an excess, we are willing to remove that diploma from the grant request :)--3BRBS (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    I think I've finally understood: "certificates" would have been a better word. A diploma is typically issued by an educational authority. But it's all too weird: a legal document for every member of the chapter has to be hand-written? At the cost of US$23? What a waste of money. Tony (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Business cards we printed last year are gone (you can check at the start-up grant), we are going to print cards for the 2013-2014 period (two years), and the costs are intended to accomplish so;
    business cards are indeed expensive. I have no issue with this item. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • GLAM-wiki bank conference fee and WMCONF bank fee were generated as we have to pay the flight tickets of our two representatives in the conference, prior to the reimbursement by Wikimedia Italy. This fee includes the bank charge for buying the tickets with a credit card, and the fee charged by the bank for the wire transfer of money from Italy. We couldn’t skip those costs;
    • About the Hackathon, one of our members is an active MediaWiki developer, and we believe it’s important to establish relations that contribute to the sharing of knowledge and help the Chilean Wikimedia community;
    One developer is not enough reason to hold a hackathon. Is there reason to believe a significant audience of interested techies would show up? Does WMCL have some working relationships with FOSS groups, hacker groups, etc.? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    We are sorry if a misunderstood was created about this point. We are “not” organizing a Hackaton, we want to ensure the participation of our developer, in a Hackaton to be organized in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and in a Hackaton to be organized in Europe (as show in the grant table). I repeat, to make it very clear, we are not intending to organize a Hackaton, and its out of our plans in the mean time to do so.--3BRBS (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • m. stands for month;
    • Bank maintenance fee of $695 dollars is an amount for 15 months, almost $50 a month, the actual cost of having the bank account open. To have this bank account is a requirement of the WMF;
    We do require WMCL to have a bank account. Is that the best deal available for WMCL, in terms of management fees? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    We truly believe so. Banks in Chile, in general terms, are not opening accounts for non-profit organizations in Chile (believe this or not). We asked to open an account in 6 different banks: Banco de Chile, Banco Estado, Banco Security, Corpbanca, Banco BCI and Banco Santander. Most of the banks requested the last year invoices, and the last year tax return at least (I believe to check how much the company “produces”), since, by default, all organizations (being non-profit, or for-profit) are treated the same by the banks, as productive companies. The only bank that allowed us to open the account was Banco Santander. Despite all the prior facts, the fee that Banco Santander charges doesn’t seem outrageous within the market. A natural person pays an average of 14~20 dollars a month to have a regular bank account open. Since the account has “company features” as double signature for wire transferring money, charging double for the account than for a natural person doesn’t seem crazy, I repeat, under Chilean present market conditions, which is out of our hands to control. The Ministry of Justice doesn’t allow us to have two bank accounts, in the case we would like or need to change the account, we would need to close the present one, putting at risk what we already accomplished. Since the fee is within the market price and the account fulfills its purpose, we think is the best deal we can possible have at this time.--3BRBS (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    The banking costs are hard to swallow. Chile apparently boasts one of the most efficient economies in the Americas, and does not have a monopoly banking system. There seem to be exorbitant banking charges at every turn. Tony (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    Economic efficiency does not equate with banking costs, unless there is another reliable source with local experience in Chile who can contest the necessity of these expenses, it shouldn't be questioned too much, the expense is purely administrative and part of regular standard operations of the chapter.-- Roel (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • About the scanner, is intended to be used in the project. We are not aiming for a professional scanner, but a useful one for that project, which requests more assets than a basic model due to: use, resolution, transportation and scanning speed, furthermore, electronic supplies and products tend to cost more in Chile than in developed countries (usually double at least).--3BRBS (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    How many websites or suppliers have you checked with? What, briefly, are the specs, or the model? Even with the 19% VAT and 6% import duty, it seems very expensive. Tony (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    Originally we were thinking on something like this: EPSON V600P (2nd quote)--3BRBS (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. International collab. Incidentally, the world map shows Chile, Argentina, and Venezuala as having chapters (plus the Dutch-speaking Suriname, is it, which doesn't seem to appear on the adjacent list). Are there plans to create close relations with the four other Spanish-speaking chapters? Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    We are part of Iberocoop. Many of our international relations are channeled through there.--3BRBS (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    I know that from the application page. I was interested in process and participants. A few details. But this is low priority compared with responding to the other issues, which are more directly related to your request for donors' funds. Tony (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony, we kindly appreciate your comments, but you corrected our grant submission in the Meta page. Even though I assume you might consider these editions as minor corrections and totally done under good faith, we believe that the submission of the grant request is ours to explain and to correct. We apologize for the mistakes we make as non native English speakers, but we need to ask you to not modify the page without consultation. For now, I would revert the changes to its original state, and we will consider them as suggestions. Let us choose if we make the changes. Thanks! :)--3BRBS (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
No, you clearly don't appreciate my bothering to help your written submission. This kind of arrogant belligerence indicates an attitude inconsistent with what is required to satisfy the WMF goals. I'm strongly opposing just on that basis. And don't waste my time. Tony (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony, I'm afraid it is you who seem arrogant and belligerent in this instance, and I must ask you to calm down and restrain yourself. Grant applicants are offering us (WMF and the movement) an opportunity to achieve impact for our mission through their activities; they are to be treated with dignity and respect.
You have in the past boldly -- in true Wikipedian fashion -- copy-edited applicants' proposals, almost invariably for the better, and previously people were grateful, or at least did not mind, and that's great. But the norm of boldness is counterbalanced in our movement by norms of civility. 3BRBS politely asked that you refrain from editing their grant proposal from now on, and that should be respected. Let's count to ten, please, and remember you are both volunteers with shared goals, and also colleagues on this very committee. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Get your facts right, Asaf, instead of accusing me of arrogance and belligerence: "3BRBS politely asked that you refrain from editing their grant proposal from now on"—that is so partial a version of the truth that it's entirely misleading. No, he purposely reverted the improvements I made to the text, after I had put my professional time into improving it, ensuring that there was no change in substantive meaning. Apparently this was to prove a point, and I can't image his "we kindly appreciate your comments" was anything but disingenuous. This kind of destructive and wasteful behaviour suggests that within the entity that is applying for donors' funds there are attitudes that contradict the very goals for which the WMF stands. The correct course of action, had there been any doubt about the edit, was to raise here any change that appeared problematic. (I'm still waiting for that courtesy.)

This application is unsatisfactory in many ways. I'll be returning regularly to point out in great detail why it does not deserve approval. Tony (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from KirilEdit

Thanks for the submission. To follow Tony's fashion I'll separate my comment into several points as well.

  1. Retroactivity. Since you mention that this is a retroactive plan that should cover the expenses done after March, can you provide some kind of a report or the activities that were done in this period and how many of the expenses included in the budget of this request have already been paid out? Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, below we provide a separate table including the expenses already paid out. We think important to note that these disbursements have been only the minimum necessary for the ordinary operation of the chapter. On administrative expenses, we already executed 5.1% (ink for the printer, bank cost for these months, and mailing for the General Meeting, as required by our Bylaws); on General Meetings, 19,4%; on conferences and travels, 7.2% (GLAM-WIKI conference in London; additional cost on participation in WMCONF in Milan; participation of one of our directors in a Board meeting); on projects and activities, only the 0.4% (renewal of webhosting for WLM 2012 website). So, reinforcing the argument in our prior answers, the expenses have been minimal and those strictly required. In numbers, 3,9% of our total grant request.--3BRBS (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Retroactive expenses (up-to June 30, 2013)
Item Description Unit Cost per Unit (CLP) Total Cost (CLP) Total Cost (USD)
1 Administrative $306
1.4 Ink/Tonner 1 $34,690 $34,690 $70
1.6 Bank monthly maintenance fee 4 m. $22,853 $91,412 $185
1.9 Shipping cost (National certified mail) 24 $920 $22,080 $45
1.10 Shipping cost (International certified mail) 2 $1,430 $2,860 $6
3 WM-CL General Meetings $554
3.1 Transportation 3 p. $75,414(avg) $225,414 $457
3.2 Allocation 1 p. $22,853 $22,853 $46
3.3 Gathering 1 $25,000 $25,000 $51
4 Conference and Travels $1,508
4.1 GLAM-Wiki Conference
4.1.1 GLAM-Wiki Conference 2013 - Accomodation 1 p. $255,950 $255,950 $519
4.1.2 GLAM-Wiki Conference 2013 - Travel allowance 1 p. $182,821 $182,821 $371
4.1.3 GLAM-Wiki Conference 2013 - Bank fees 2 $27,423 $54,846 $111
4.2 Wikimedia Conferences
4.2.1 WM-CONF 2013 - Local transportation 2 p. $34,279 $68,558 $139
4.2.2 WM-CONF 2013 - Travel allowance 1 p. $91,411 $91,411 $185
4.2.3 WM-CONF 2013 - Bank fees 1 $27,423 $27,423 $56
4.5 Nationals
4.5.1 North 1 p. $62,845 $62,845 $127
5 Projects and activities $116
5.8 Wiki Loves Monuments
5.8.4 Webhosting renewal for WLM 2012 1 $57,132 $57,132 $116
Total $1,225,295 $2,484
  1. Shipping costs. There are three items named with this title totaling to a sum of about $600. The explanations given in the parentheses are fine but not clear enough about the necessity of these costs. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    National certified mail is mainly for the certified letters we have to send to our members as required by our Bylaws, as this is the only form to legally prove that the letters were sent. We use the national mailing company, slower but cheaper, at a cost of USD 2 per letter, for national mailing; and USD 4 for international mailing. This cost is unavoidable. As an example to clarify, for the General Meeting held in April (required by our Bylaws) we had to send 26 certified letters, two of them to Argentina (we have members there). The prior, despiste any other formal communication or notification for the members that we need to have over the year. If we consider an increase in the members base, which we expect to happen, in a rough count, multiplying 35 members (we are 26~27 members now) times 2 formal communications a year, results in 70 letters/per year (or 140 for the period).

    The rest of national mailing is for ordinary paperwork that has to be sent to authorities and other partners, international mailing to WMF and other international partners, and a provision for packages, fragile or special mailing, as the annual report to be sent to the local authorities to ensure the legal compliance of our organization in Chile. We expect this to be about 45 letters/per year (or 90 for the period). The total amount roughly adds up to 230 letters.--3BRBS (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  2. General Meetings. You seem to have attributed a very large part to the transportation costs. Can you tell us more about the geographical diversity of your members? What are the cities that host the General Meetings and where do the people come from? Can you also tell us what is included in the costs of allocation and gathering? Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    The General Meetings are planned to be held only in Santiago, as most of the members live here. Participation of members in the General Meetings is important for the functioning of the Chapter. To give an idea of the lenght of Chile, the distance between Arica and Punta Arenas (northern and southern cities) [3] is almost equivalent to the distance between Lisbon (Portugal) to Moscow (Russia) [4].

    As an example, we have one member in Concepción (441 kms. in straight line/512 kms. on route [5]), two members in Coquimbo (394 kms. in straight line/471 kms. on route [6]), one member in Coyhaique (1,359 kms. in straight line/2,200 kms. on route [7]), etc. Allocation is one night in a basic but decent hostel in case the associate has nowhere to stay. The gathering is composed mostly of instant coffee, cookies, sodas, mineral water, and things to munch during the General Meeting.--3BRBS (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  3. Nationals. This part of the budget is not comprehensive to me. I suppose that the directions indicate to the parts of Chile located there, but I'd still prefer further explanation about these costs. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    As Chile is long, we divided the country in those segments to better describe the medium cost of the flight or bus tickets, related to the activity or participants on those areas. As example, ‘’north’’ includes the participation of one of our board members in the general Board meetings, a requirement of our Bylaws to reach quorum. Other members or volunteers are willing to participate in the proposed projects, but need transportation where the project is being developed and in other cases, the attendance of a board member or member is needed for an activity not organized in Santiago.--3BRBS (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Wikivoyage Photo Contest. This project might be of wider interest for the other Wikimedia chapters and communities. Can you tell us more about it? Why do you think that it's necessary to carry on these activities apart from Wiki Loves Monuments? Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    We indeed know that this activity might be of wider interest for other Wikimedia chapters and/or communities. The idea emerged looking the low activity that we have as a chapter (and as a country in general) in January and February, holiday season in Chile, and the little knowledge of the community and the general public of this new project of the Foundation. So, organizing a contest based on the success of WML, with almost all the activities online (less human and economic resources), only one prize and a wider thematic (travel destination images), could be a good idea. As we don’t know if the project would be successful (it is a new idea!), we want to develop it as a pilot project, being very cautious and severe in the conclusions. If the project looks promising, we will share our experience with the community.--3BRBS (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by WMFEdit

Thank you for this clear and detailed grant proposal.

Please help us better understand the context to evaluate it in, by answering the following questions and requests. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

ReportingEdit

Has WMCL been inactive since October 2012? The Reports page does not contain activity reports since then. I know writing reports isn't fun, but before we make a significant investment in WMCL, we need to see it is accountable and can find the volunteer energy to deliver reports in a more or less timely manner. A single catch-up report from Oct till now would be quite acceptable! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, one of our board members will update the reports by July 15th.--3BRBS (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, this is much better! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

GLAM impact?Edit

What GLAM activities, specifically, have been taking place in Chile so far? WMCL hosted a GLAM event, its delegates have attended GLAM-Wiki 2013, and funding is asked to also attend GLAM-Wiki 2014 and host another local GLAM-Wiki. Is there some impact to show for all the funds spent so far? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We think that at a first level there was a large impact. We had 57 attendants from 23 institutions, but on a second level, the impact was harder to measure (as stated in the Start-Up Grant report) since relations have not yet flourished, and in part because a follow-up procedure was not in place. Despite the prior we were able to connect and make activities with five different GLAM institutions:  Museo de la Memoria, GAM, Fundación Salvador Allende, DUOC-UC (who hosted the Iberoconf Summit at no cost), and Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional. We think it would be useful to repeat this summit (only event funded through WM-CL so far) because we have seen there is still potential to grow. But the next time we hold this event, we will be able to do it from another perspective using the experience gained. Among other things, we can pick the attendees in a more strategic and wisely manner, to nurture better relations, and follow them up in a better way. This is the reason why we also took advantage of the scholarship granted by Wikimedia Italy for WM-Conf to send a delegate to the GLAM Wiki Conference in London on the same trip. This was necessary because a major GLAM-connected member left for Argentina, reducing our effectiveness in this area. We recently created a GLAM committee and we want to empower our delegate in their role as president of the committee and let him attend to the GLAM Wiki Conference in 2014 for this purpose. If you think we are spending too much money on the GLAM Wiki conference we could compromise on a low budget event, but we still think it’s very important that the event go on.--3BRBS (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, this was valuable context! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WikimaniaEdit

It is too late to add funding for Wikimania 2013 at this point (and has been too late for quite a few weeks now). Since at least three community members from Chile have received scholarships for this year's Wikimania, and since that is a reasonable proportion out of the total number of scholarships available, I would like to see this struck off the grant proposal. By all means, let's build Wikimania scholarships into WMCL's budget in a future grant (or FDC allocation) for 2014 and onwards. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We understand the situation and we already changed the request to be for Wikimania 2014.--3BRBS (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

WLMEdit

Spending ~35% of your annual budget on WLM (~$9.6k) alone sounds quite expensive. Are all three ceremonies absolutely essential? I know other groups have managed to have the jury work online, for example. In general, I find this too large an expense compared to the return it would be reasonable to expect (I recognize this is my subjective judgment). Please consider trimming this down if possible, or else increasing the impact of these events by pairing them with other activities. External sponsors to defray some of the costs would also help make this a more palatable investment. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Asaf, to be precise, WLM represents the 15% of our annual budget, but it represents the 35% of our projects and activities items. I know the total might sound expensive, but has been thoroughly estimated. Yes you are probably right about making the jury work online, and we can withdraw this part of the grant request (item 5.8.8), even though we added this since the jury met in person last year, even though I’m not 100% sure of the outcome, I guess we can withdrew the opening ceremony (item 5.8.1.), also we can withdraw the organizers t-shirts (5.8.15, nice detail, but not essential to the functioning of the contest). We consider the prize ceremony essential for the contest, I believe we cannot remove this one. Probably what raises the expense are the prizes (29% of the cost of WLM), almost all the prizes from last year’s contest were donated by one sponsor, but that sponsor took a long time to confirm that was giving us the prizes, and then another while to confirm which prizes they were. We believe that this fact, partially harmed the success of the contest, since many contestants left negative feedback in our website because the prizes were not published on time. We want to be independent from this situation, even though a sponsor can help us later on about this. All the changes proposed would leave the budget around USD $7,990.--3BRBS (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
That's acceptable. Please update the budget and total on the grant page. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This is updated now. I removed opening ceremony (5.8.1), sound amplification for opening ceremony (5.8.5), jury ceremony (5.8.8), WLM T-shirts for organizers (5.8.15), WLM T-shirts for participants (5.8.16), and a reduction in diplomas (5.8.14). These changes totalize a reduction in this item of USD $2.509, leaving the budget of WLM Chile in USD $7,138.--Zuirdj (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

MiscEdit

what are "institutional booklets"? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A printed version of our Memory and Balance, I gave you one at Wikimedia Conference this year :)--3BRBS (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I see. But why print 600 copies of that? That's hugely expensive and of very little impact on our mission. I'd encourage cutting this down to the bare minimum number of copies to satisfy legal demands. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest checking though for the price difference when deciding on the quantity, as well as the amount you realistically need and the time you can use the document before it becomes stale (unit prices go up a lot as you lower quantity in my experience). –Bence (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Asaf and Bdamokos, yes this is indeed strange so we'll try to explain this point with more detail. In the beginning we originally asked for an estimate for 50 copies (which we considered a reasonable amount) of 9 "cuartillas" (36 pages) which was CLP $666,400 (about USD 1,332), but the company also sent an estimate for 300 copies of 9 "cuartillas" (36 pages) at CLP $928,200 (about USD 1,856), this was USD $524 more for 250 extra copies (about two dollars each). We moved from making each booklet costing USD $26 to each booklet costing USD $6, the latter seemed more efficient in terms of cost/benefit. We have had plenty use for them, giving a copy to every one of our members, and copies when we participate in conferences such as Wikimedia Conference and -now- Wikimania, to show what we are doing, including copies we gave to both of you guys, and also copies to every person from external institutions when we have held a meeting. This situation is typical with printing companies, since for them, the price for initiating the printing process is fixed, and the materials cost is minor compared to that. Since we want (and need) to print the Institutional Booklet each year, the number would be an estimate for two years (300 units for 2012 period Sep-Dec to be published this year, and 300 units for 2013 period Jan-Dec to be published in April 2014).--3BRBS (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand, thanks. This price difference does indeed make it worthwhile to get more copies, but it's my impression that these documents are read by very few people. Perhaps, as Tony suggests below, this report can be posted on the association's site, e-mailed to members as a link to the PDF on Commons, and just 50 copies printed to give out to e.g. GLAM director-level personnel, and for formal needs, and take the 300 price for more meaningful printing, such as the Evaluating Quality on Wikipedia booklet, that is useful for educators, or some other programmatic publication? Anyhow, I'll defer to your judgment on this; this comment is just a suggestion. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, we indeed send an e-mail with a link to this Institutional Booklet (uploaded in pdf to Commons 1 2) to members and other "stakeholders". We have re-analyzed this line item, and we think that we can reduce the number of booklets to be printed in 2013 and reallocate the surplus to print materials in line with the rest of the programs projected for us in this term. But, as this would require a re-quote and a decision on what material to print, delaying the final decision on this request, we will keep this line item as it is now, and contact the Grant Program later to ask a reallocation with the exact value of the change. --Zuirdj (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(I do recognize Chile is a relatively expensive country.) talk 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am quite intrigued by the Wikivoyage project idea. Great to see innovation in this proposal! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by just what the institutional booklet will contain, and why paper and ink and binding is involved when we have 900 websites, at least one of which could cope with the presentation of material related to a chapter's acitivities. Who are the target recipients? Tony (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy noteEdit

Dear WMCL applicants, staff, and GAC members,

May I say at this stage, let's move on from last week's squabble about editing and try to work out a way in which this application can be reshaped as a good fit to what the WMF Board expects from this procedure.

First, on Asaf's mild suggestion above, I've raised with AffCom what it requires in thematic and organisational terms of entities that are applying for affiliation, before handing out affiliation. While this application might have prompted the post, as I say there, this is by no means a criticism of WMCL, its members, or its application—rather, it's a broader, systemic issue.

Second, I've been forming the opinion that funding for paper, petrol and pensiones need to be very carefully justified. This is a smart-ass way of saying that WMF affiliates should be seeking to conduct as much of their free-culture activity online—that funding for conferences and meet-ups that involve transport, meals, and accommodation, and for physical items such as T-shirts, business cards, brochures, and booklets, should be thought of as ephemeral in the essentially online world in which the WMF has become a key player. Advances in connectivity and electronic-device technology are bringing the ability to conduct at affiliate level live voice conferencing (and increasingly video conferencing), and to collaborate live on document preparation. Online interaction is cheap and time-efficient for chapters; therefore I'd like to see money preferentially allocated to areas that will more directly (and verifiably) further the WMF's strategies—that is, to enrich our online websites.

I particularly refer to key parts of the Foundation's 2013–14 annual plan, just released: the grantmaking targets on pp. 7 and 8; and "Grantmaking may not prove to be an effective way of achieving programmatic impact" on pp. 24 and 25. Tony (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by ProtoplasmaKidEdit

Hi Testart, all the budget seems to me reasonable. I have three questions:

  • There's a link who we can read about the bank fees? I see some quite expensive the cost of Bank monthly maintenance fee.
ProtoplasmaKid, there is no public link that can be accessed. I already sent you a copy of one of our movement detail receipt. I hope this answers your question.--3BRBS (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Answered, thank you. --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Some topics of Wiki Loves Monuments seems to be dispensable like the social events, particularly the Jury event. I know the importance of the social events, but can be more reasonable having only opening and closing ceremonies. Maybe you can search some sponsors. My concrete issues are from the sound amplification of both events of Opening and Prizing. Can you get a venue who can offer a free service of sound?
As we replied to Asaf above (if you wish to read a more complete answer), we are willing to remove the Jury Ceremony, the Opening Ceremony and the organizers t-shirts. About the sound, we haven't been able to get a venue with a sound service included or at no cost. Last year we organized the prize ceremony in a Library, and we had to cover the costs for the sound, also December is a complicated date, since the colleges and institutes end their year, and many ceremonies are organized, we don't think this year’s prize ceremony is going to be different.--3BRBS (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your argument. --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What kind of scanner you will be use on Salvador Allende's project? Maybe you can get advice from Wikimedia Argentina DIY scanner and kill two birds with one stone.
As we replied before, something like this: EPSON V600P (2nd quote). I believe the price of this scanner is almost a third than the WM-AR DIY Scanner (which costs about USD 840 each)--3BRBS (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Fine for me. --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Saludos, --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

AllendeEdit

Any contact with Isabelle Allende (his daughter), a notable novelist? I wonder whether she has any leads on the "lost" material? Tony (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry I asked. Tony (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony, this passive-aggressive tone is not conducive to grant discussions. I ask you yet again to confine yourself to (your good) substantial comments. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
WMCL, while not important for the evaluation of the grant, it would be nice to dignify Tony's question with a response. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Isabel Allende Llona -the writer-is not the daughter of Salvador Allende, actually he his her first cousin once removed. Also, she has lived in United States for many years. On the other hand, Isabel Allende Bussi -the senator-, his daughter, is founder and board member of the Salvador Allende Foundation (FSA).--3BRBS (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
As an additional comment, all close Allende family (this obviously include his daughter) and key directors of Fundación Salvador Allende know the project because they were interested to publish Allende speeches using a free license, in WMF websites. This project will be promoted by FSA as this year is the 40th anniversary of 1973 Chilean coup d'état. --Zuirdj (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Asaf, my contributions to this page generally—although not my question about Allende—are not "passive-aggressive" ("passive-aggressive behavior is characterised by a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements")—I've been expressing active resistance to what should be expected of a proper plan and budget in terms of the Board's stated strategies. Tony (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PrizesEdit

Do we have to spend nearly $200 on every one of the ten(!) prizes? That seems expensive. I suggest some of the prizes be significantly downgraded. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Asaf we really think we have to spend this money. Last year we had to publish the list of prizes very late, almost at the end of the contest, because we were dependant on our sponsor: we only bought the first prize and our sponsor the rest of them. This situation prevented us of advertizing the contest with the list of prizes available. Regarding the cost of each prize, we simplified the expression of the costs in the grant request to have a unit to be itemized, but we originally thought of a downgrading scale of prizes, as follows:
2nd 400
3rd 325
4th 250
5th 125
6th 100
7th 100
8th 100
9th 100
10th 100
SP1 300
SP2 200
SP3 100
Total 2200
On the other hand, we thought about it , and we can lower the project a little bit (focusing on prize matters): withdrawing the t-shirts for the participants (item 5.8.16), and lowering the contest diplomas/certificates (item 5.8.14) —we don't need any special quality on this ones—, and I believe they could be made for less money, we could be trimming around USD 449. With this reduction and withdrawal we would reach almost 20% of the prizes cost.--3BRBS (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, this sounds acceptable. Please update the grant budget and total on the grant page. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
These items were withdrawn/reduced as explained above. --Zuirdj (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for a new budget, significantly reduced and tailored more closely to the WMF's strategic prioritiesEdit

  • In relation to the table of retrospective expenses for which funding is sought (above): I want to express my strong disapproval of the generic notion of spend-first-ask-later; I'm willing to pass over it this time, but I ask WMF staff and the GAC to consider building into the instructions to applicants a firm guideline – something like "only in extenuating circumstances".
  • I disapprove of a lot of the requests for physical costs, because their relationship to improving the WMF's websites is very fuzzy at best. These costs include those for booklets, brochures, promotional material, printed material, diplomas, T-shirts, stickers, pins, buttons, pencils, gift images, business cards (???), material design. There are considerable expenses for packaging and shipping.
  • I'm aware of the argument on this page that the expensive diploma pages are a legal requirement, and my view is that it should be approved only under sufferance, on the understanding that a more modern way be seriously explored, soon.
  • I see that the recouping of considerable expenses is sought for registered mail and letters verifying ordinary membership of the chapter—and I'm wondering why, if they're a legal requirement in Chile, this cumbersome, wasteful, bureaucratic clutter can't be got around in some way. It seems extraordinary that the by-laws require expensive registered postal confirmation rather than what everyone else in the world does—email. We are quintessentially an online organisation in aim and process. This is not what WMF donors' money should be spent on, in my view. I believe these items should be significantly reduced or eliminated in the budget and in the activities. Why is the material planned for paper-and-ink publication not simply put on the chapter site or elsewhere online? The previous state of the chapter's site suggested that the chapter's mindset is pre-internet. Who wants to attract people who don't have an internet connection into a WMF affiliate?
  • Inordinately expensive banking costs: if this is granted, I believe it should be on the explicit understanding that better alternatives be explored in the coming year.
  • Why can't skype be used instead of $890 in institution phone plans. SkypeOut is 3c a minute for Chile, with no overhead costs. Skype is free computer-to-computer.
  • Physical meet-up costs: I grumble at these because I wonder about value for money, and the details of who, how, how long, and theme, are not provided. Why is sound amplification costing donors $487???
  • The prize money: good—I've never been averse to motivational rewards like this, especially their competitive aspect. It's socially beneficial, and is likely to benefit the WMF's websites. Just a personal observation, though: the glimmer of gold in the first prize in each category is a powerful draw, so my general advice is to ramp up the monetary reward for the first prize at the expense of the others.
  • Fit to strategy: "Expand public awareness and support for the Wikimedia movement.
 ... Spread information about Wikimedia’s mission, vision, values and practices. Help people better understand our work, and motivate them to help us do it." I don't see much evidence that the funding will bring more editors, uploaders, or readers to Spanish-language WMF sites. Just weak, localised efforts with small numbers of participants. "Give global visibility to these efforts through our communication channels." How?
  • Summary: I ask the applicants to produce a new budget that is considerably reduced, eliminating the paper and associated costs (except for these current "legal" bottom lines of diplomas and <sigh> registered mail, etc.), and reducing or eliminating any other costs that appear to be not directly justifiable in relation to the WMF Board's basic strategic goals. Tony (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Tony1 for your comments. In our opinion, most of your questions and concernings are explained in detail in this talk page and in the grant request page. We already have explained our reasons to keep some line items and our acceptance to reduce or even withdraw others, so we think that your request to produce a new budget is not in line with comments of other GAC members or the Grants Program. I will only comment on some kind of nineteenth-century feeling implied in one of your points above, with one example: Institutional Phone Plan 2013 (item 1.15) is for a mobile plan for 3BRBS as president. He has already paid an excess in minutes on his personal mobile plan for almost USD $700 since September (from his own pocket, that will not be refundable with this grant so it's his donation), to coordinate volunteer's work, meetings and reports with partners institutions, coordination with other board members, etc. So, for some people this one and other costs could be considered as not modern but for us is a key expense in the context of our actual needs to grow up as a chapter that will finally result in new contributors, more free licensed materials and the development of educational programs. --Zuirdj (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't have set them out here if I'd thought they'd been (adequately) dealt with on this page. Most of my points are expressing disapproval and/or suggesting caveats or removal from the budget. I do not think the current budget should be approved. Tony (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please update the grant proposalEdit

Dear WMCL colleagues,

please update this grant proposal (I realize User:3BRBS is traveling just now) per the discussions above, so that we may deliver a decision on it. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Asaf, we are working in the update of the budget breakdown. I think that numbers should be correct now (removing the items commented by 3BRBS and adjusting the cost of WLM diplomas), but I need to redo the graphics and check if there is something to change in the description of the proposal and check again the costs. It will be ready at the end of the day. Regards --Zuirdj (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Interim reporting dateEdit

Please note that WMF has agreed to an interim reporting deadline of 21 January 2014 at WMCL's request (extended from the original deadline of 31 December 2013), so that WMCL will be able to prepare financial statements on their schedule for inclusion in this report. (At least one interim report is required for this grant because the duration of this grant is longer than 12 months.) Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for a change to the completion dateEdit

Dear Grants Administrator, we are requesting an extension of the project completion date for Wikimedia Chile Annual Program Plan 2013-2014.

  1. The new proposed completion date will be August 31, 2014.
  2. As explained personally by the Chair of our chapter to the Grants Program staff in the Wikimedia Conference held in Berlin on last April and in past emails with the Program members, and also following the mention that we did about this delay in the Interim Report to December 31, 2013, the reception of the first installment of this grant four months after the date of request seriously impacted the timeline and development of most of the programs included in our annual plan. Some of the programs planned to be executed on 2013 had to be postponed to 2014 Q2, Q3 and Q4, as Q1 is of very low activity in Chile, specially those programs related to academic field and those related to interaction with other institutions.
  3. We will also make some changes to the project budget to reflect the modifications on dates that we had to do in some programs and activities. As this is very related to the acceptance of the new proposed completion date, if this request is accepted we will ask for a change near June 15.

Best regards, --Zuirdj (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zuirdj. This extension request is approved. The new completion date is August 31, 2014 and the grant report is due October 30, 2014. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for a new change to the completion dateEdit

Dear Grants Administrator, we are requesting an extension of the project completion date for Wikimedia Chile Annual Program Plan 2013-2014.

  1. The new proposed completion date will be September 30, 2014.
  2. Although the previous extension in the completion date is already over, some expenditures were pending as we didn't have enough time in August to carry them out, as we already explained to the Grants Program staff in the past days. This will also let us have enough time to timely report the execution of the grant and fulfill of goals, measure of success and impact.
  3. Modification of the budget will not be asked, as previously thought and mentioned in the past request for extension. This is mainly because we are very near of the end of the completion date, and that some line items not executed could be very well explained in the final report and/or in a new grant request for the next term.

Best regards. --Zuirdj (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zuirdj, this extension request is approved. Your new grant completion date is September 30, 2014 and the report is now due November 29, 2014. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for an change to the report dateEdit

Dear Grants Administrator, we are requesting an extension of the project report date.

  1. The new proposed completion date will be December 31, 2014.
  2. As explained in the past week to the Grant Administrator staff, some personal issues of the team working in the activities and financial report was critical to fulfill the term of 60 days asked by the programm, causing a delay that we determinated in near 30 days.

Thank you and best regards. --Zuirdj (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zuirdj. Your request is approved. Your final report is now due December 31, 2014. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Alex. As a quick request and to not open a new formal one, although the extension that you granted us has been very helpful and has let us to complete in a better way the requirements of the Grant program, holidays and other open items of the last days of the year have overloaded the work of our team. We will finalize the most important (and biggest) part this weekend and want to do a final check on next week, so to have a more relaxed due date, this report will be sent within January 10th, Thank you. --Zuirdj (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Zuirdj. No problem. Thanks for the note. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Return to "PEG/WM CL/Annual Program Plan 2013-2014" page.