Grants talk:PEG/WM ID/Wikimedia Cipta/Report

Active discussions

Your financial reportEdit

Thank you for the detailed report. We unfortunately cannot accept this report as is.

We realize we have taken a long time to get back to you, but while attempting to review this report and compare it to the original proposal, we did notice that the proposal has been changed significantly between now and the time it was actually approved by WMF (March 2011). Since none of these changes (particularly those related to the budget) were approved by WMF, we are perplexed.

We need to compare your report to the approved budget listed here [1].

Therefore, we need the financial report to be presented in the same format as the approved budget request. The biggest issue is that the report and the current version of the proposal show expenses for each project, while your approved budget is divided into "phases" rather than “projects”. It appears that your projects are well-documented, so we hope this change will not be difficult to implement.

Wolliff (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about Beacon of TheologyEdit

On another point, we are also a bit confused: while Beacon of Theology was funded separately (see Grants:WM_ID/Beacon_of_Theology_2011), it is still included in this project's current / revised budget and the accompanying report. Would you please clarify why this is the case? Were any funds from Wikimedia Cipta used to support Beacon of Theology?

Wolliff (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Financial report & Beacon of TheologyEdit

Hi Winifred, Thank you for your message. I'm sorry I haven't responded, to be honest I actually stumbled across it by accident - nobody notify myself or Wikimedia Indonesia that a message exist. For future reference an email notification would be nice to have in order to alert request to respond. Answers below inline:

> We unfortunately cannot accept this report as is.

We notify WMF on January 2nd, 2011 about the report and no body responded to the email from WMF (refer to Mulwardi Tjitra's email January 2nd, 2011 - "Wikimedia Cipta early reporting" sent to: Barry, cc: Asaf, Winifred, and WMID board members.
To date it's been half a year since the report, we assume it's ok since we have no response, unfortunately this is the only report that we can provide since it is a team effort to do it, and the team member have moved on. I would like to confirm we can not provide any other report than this one, this report is factual. Any other solution would be welcome.
Also as a note, it is rather confusing to have half the initial request and approval via email including the explanation, and requesting the same exact closing via wiki, while most of the explanation stuck inside the email. Can I copy and paste in here? It is rather violates the purpose of email in the first place.

> We realize we have taken a long time to get back to you, but while attempting to review this report and compare it to the original proposal.

The original proposal is as simple as "Volunteer capacity building, networking, and recruitment" - and the money will go mostly

to training. The email subject is "Wikimedia Cipta" dated "10/30/10" sent to Barry and Mariyanah. There are eight really-really long conversations explaining about the projects. Based on that email conversation your statement of:

> "we did notice that the proposal has been changed significantly between now and the time it was actually approved by WMF (March 2011)."

Is incorrect in several places. It is approved in 2010 by email, there's no significant changes since then but a few additional project as part of volunteer capacity building.

> Since none of these changes (particularly those related to the budget) were approved by WMF, we are perplexed.

However I am not blaming you for being confuse since at the time of these conversation happening you are either a) haven't start working for WMF b) a new employee. Also in email dated March 10, 2011 to Jay Walsh and later on Cc to Moka, Barry and Asaf for press release regarding grant from WMF (meta), the press release said exactly what the project has been doing in the report (submitted) - so I don't understand the confusion. It is just one day apart than the recorded "wiki-edit", so there isn't any significant changes to budget but a much more detailed expenditure.

> We need to compare your report to the approved budget listed here [2].

During Wikimedia Chapter's Meeting in German, I explained verbally to Barry that the training project to make sure the volunteer could request funding directly to WMF will be very challenging considering "Beacon of Theology" experience. Also all five phase will complete in different times in different projects - one that can not be overseen before implementation. In short, it's not possible reporting in phases since the phases happening in different time, it will be very confusing.

> Therefore, we need the financial report to be presented in the same format as the approved budget request. The biggest issue is that the report and the current version of the proposal show expenses for each project, while your approved budget is divided into "phases" rather than “projects”. It appears that your projects are well-documented, so we hope this change will not be difficult to implement.

See above explanation. If I understand correctly it is just a matter of wording of phases vs projects report, the grant is not implemented differently than the goal and wording such as "report not accepted" is really confusing. It's the only report that we have. In my part, phases wise have time related constraint, while project wise report would be more honest and factual to what actually happened.

> On another point, we are also a bit confused: while Beacon of Theology was funded separately (see Grants:WM_ID/Beacon_of_Theology_2011), it is still included in this project's current / revised budget and the accompanying report.

There's another email explaining this between Hans (project director and Barry), I need to dig it up, am sure you receive it too and it would be helpful if you also dig up from your side.

> Would you please clarify why this is the case?

On top of my head (am sure there's also an email conversation about this) - Beacon of Theology is the first training project we do (using the complete phases cycle) where WP volunteer independently requested funding to WMF. The WMID grant initial "effort" is only to train (funding used for training only) the volunteer until s/he could independently asks for funding. However WMF funded less than half without further explanation why and what happened with the rest of the request, should we cancel the project or to go ahead (?), the respond at the time is very confusing, as the header said "maybe" it doesn't say when or how much and the project is time sensitive. WMID decided to go ahead and funded the rest of the funding needed using money for training the volunteers to fund a volunteer project instead. Our decision based on "the volunteer training is to run a project like a pro, if they can not run a project, there's no point in doing the training" - so Wikimedia Cipta fund them.

> Were any funds from Wikimedia Cipta used to support Beacon of Theology?

Yes, the rest of the amount needed to run a project. Siska.Doviana (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A way forwardEdit

Siska: Thank you for your response. Apologies for not notifying you by Email: we will send you a note next time to let you know that comments have been added to the talk page of your report.

We understand your concerns regarding reporting by projects vs. by phases, but we need a way to be able to compare what was listed in your budget at the time the report was approved (the request was approved onwiki in March 2011, but we can accept 17 December 2010 as the approved date if you prefer) to what you actually spent on the project in order to evaluate your financial report. We cannot do that when both budgets are in completely different formats. Suggestion: at least reconcile the total for each type of item in both report so that WMF can compare planned vs. actual spending.

Re-appropriating funds from one grant request to another without the permission of WMF is a serious concern. According to our records, this request for reuse of funds was never approved by WMF. Although the possibility of reappropriating funds was discussed as an alternative to not completing the project, WMID never did actually request that these funds be approved for reuse. As the report stands now, WMID is not in conmpliance with the requirements of the WMF grants program and will therefore not be eligible to receive funding from WMF until the issue is resolved.

We are unable to accept your report as is, so we hope that you are able to provide us with a readable and acceptable financial report. We are happy to provide you with any support you may need, including the expertise of our own accounting department. We would also consider retroactively approving the re-appropriation of funds from Wikimedia Cipta to the Beacon of Theology Project (as long as their legitimate use is well-documented) if WMID submits a formal request for reallocation onwiki. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Asaf,
Am just going to be brief here, quoting your sentence, "Re-appropriating funds from one grant request to another without the permission of WMF is a serious concern"
I am reading this "serious concern" since you felt we are misusing the fund without permission. As a real way forward (so we don't go around in circles) please be very specific on which aspect of the funding that you see problematic, so we can answer exactly on that item and we're not spending time answering the part of the funding that you are happy with. Siska.Doviana (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me make it quite clear that we do not suspect WMID of misuse of funds, i.e. using funds for non-mission purposes. The concern is about due process and proper custodianship of grant funds; wanting to re-purpose funds is legitimate, but needs to be cleared with the granting organization.
As suggested above, the way to resolve this non-compliance is for WMID to acknowledge it as a mistake, to retroactively request permission for this re-purposing, and for WMF to approve it.
Please note that this is not the only concern. We do need WMID to submit a report that's comparable to the grant proposal, in spending categories. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Asaf,

>> to retroactively request permission for this re-purposing, and for WMF to approve it.
We'll do as requested, give us the format, tell us where to put it (i.e if emailing let us know the email format, where to get it, send it to who, and when to email it. If you choose meta - please see below on point 4)
Do state on which particular re-purposing that you are referring to, otherwise we feel that whole grant request is re-purposed, if it is so - please state on the format that you are happy with.
Also state how, who, and when WMF will respond to the retroactive permission request for re purposing? In our experience, the grant is approved by Barry Newstead (title), the report of the grant is reviewed and not accepted by Winifred Olliff (title), the follow up communication is done by Asaf Bartov (title) - please be clear.
Should WMF decided not to approve our retroactive request for grant re-purposing, WMID will act based on the particulars stated for which re-purposing is not approved by WMF. Also stated what happened if WMF decide not to approve our "restroactive request for grant re-purposing? Should we need to return the grant money - if so do state how much we need to return, where to wire the return funding, and when to do it - and what happened if the above condition is not met. Example: WMF-WMID lawyered up?
To admit mistake from our part, as you refer it, let us know whether you need a document back up to support my side of argument, since all previous communication is recorded by emails.
Should you choose public page on meta as the communication channel, please give us the format in meta so we can fill out.
Should you opt that meta as communication channel is best - We asked that we can gain permission on the previous email sent in private to be open for public to following intended recipient: WMF - Barry Newstead, Asaf Bartov, Winifred Olliff - with them signing off approval that email conversation is okay to be open to public.
>> We do need WMID to submit a report that's comparable to the grant proposal, in spending categories
As mentioned before. I stated that our January 2012 financial report for grant is correct and all financial data needed is inside the January 2012 report. However since you prompt us on July 2012 to reformat this report to match spending by proposal, based on the email sent to Barry Newstead on November 4, 2010 this is the draft plan sent (on meta), based on that draft please find the table below as your perusal:

Budget details and expenditureEdit

Please note that the budget breakdown will be in Indonesian Rupiah (Rp) for exact calculation, U.S. Dollar value (USD) only serve as a comparison purpose.

  • Estimate for total budget Rp 367.603.329 equal to US$ 40.844,81 exchange rate 1 USD ~ Rp. 9,000,-

Budget allocation phase 1 - Preparation and volunteer recruitmentEdit

Phase 1: Preparation and volunteer recruitment (duration: December 2010 to March 2011)
1 No Preparation and volunteer recruitment Qty Unit x Qty Unit x Unit Price (Rp) Total amount (Rp) Total amount (USD) Total expenditure Balance
A Communication (cellular) 2 persons x 13 months x 300.000,- 7.800.000,- 866,67
B Administrative equipment (printing/paper/office supply) 4 months x 700.000,- 2.800.000,- 311,11
C Meeting room rental x 18 sessions x 720.000,- 12.960.000,- 1.440,00
D Logistic (food and beverages) x 18 sessions x 500.000,- 9.000.000,- 1.000,00
E Central coordination and administration (staff) 1 person x 13 months x 4.333.333,- 56.333.329,- 6.259,26
F Recruitment specialist/ Project consultant 1 person x 48 sessions x 900.000,- 43.200.000,- 4.800,00
G Local transportation x 18 sessions x 150.000,- 2.700.000,- 300,00
H Notebook x 15 units x 5.200.000,- 78.000.000,- 8.666,67
Subtotal 212.793.329 23.643,70

Budget allocation phase 2 - CoachingEdit

Coaching classes will start from January to June 2011 - see coaching schedule (meta) (changes periodically)
2 No Coaching Qty Unit x Qty Unit x Unit Price (Rp) Total amount (Rp) Total amount (USD) Total expenditure Balance
A Communication (cellular) 2 persons x - months x - - - - -
B Administrative equipment (printing/paper/office supply) 4 months x 700.000,- 2.800.000,- 311,11 - -
C Meeting room rental x 24 sessions x 720.000,- 17.280.000,- 1.920,00 - -
D Logistic (food and beverages) x 24 sessions x 500.000,- 12.000.000,- 1.333,33 - -
E Central coordination and administration (staff) 1 person x - months x - - - - -
F Recruitment specialist/ Project consultant 1 person x 24 sessions x 900.000,- 21.600.000,- 2.400,00 - -
G Local transportation x 24 sessions x 150.000,- 3.600.000,- 400,00 - -
Subtotal 57.280.000,- 6.364,44

Budget allocation phase 3 - ImplementationEdit

Implementation classes will start from March to November 2011 - see implementation schedule (meta) (changes periodically)
3 No Implementation Qty Unit x Qty Unit x Unit Price (Rp) Total amount (Rp) Total amount (USD) Total expenditure Balance
A Communication (cellular) 2 persons x - months x - - - - -
B Administrative equipment (printing/paper/office supply) 3 months x 700.000,- 2.100.000,- 233,33 - -
C Meeting room rental x 24 sessions x 720.000,- 17.280.000,- 1.920,00 - -
D Logistic (food and beverages) x 24 sessions x 500.000,- 12.000.000,- 1.333,33 - -
E Central coordination and administration (staff) 1 person x - months x - - - - -
F Recruitment specialist/ Project consultant 1 person x 24 sessions x 900.000,- 21.600.000,- 2.400,00 - -
G Local transportation x 24 sessions x 150.000,- 3.600.000,- 400,00 - -
Subtotal 56.580.000,- 6.286,67

Budget allocation phase 4 - MonitoringEdit

Monitoring classes will start from March to November 2011- see monitoring schedule (changes periodically)
4 No Monitoring Qty Unit x Qty Unit x Unit Price (Rp) Total amount (Rp) Total amount (USD) Total expenditure Balance
A Communication (cellular) 2 persons x - months x - - - - -
B Administrative equipment (printing/paper/office supply) 3 months x 700.000,- 2.100.000,- 233,33 - -
C Meeting room rental x 12 sessions x 720.000,- 8.640.000,- 960,00 - -
D Logistic (food and beverages) x 12 sessions x 500.000,- 6.000.000,- 666,67 - -
E Central coordination and administration (staff) 1 person x - months x - - - - -
F Recruitment specialist/ Project consultant 1 person x 12 sessions x 900.000,- 10.800.000,- 1.200,00 - -
G Local transportation x 12 sessions x 150.000,- 1.800.000,- 200,00 - -
Subtotal 29.340.000,- 3.260,00

Budget allocation phase 5 - Project evaluation & reportEdit

Evaluation phase starting from Mei 2011 to November 2011
Report will be done periodically once every three months in a year by consultant and final report will be done in December 2011.
5 No Project evaluation and report Qty Unit x Qty Unit x Unit Price (Rp) Total amount (Rp) Total amount (USD) Total expenditure Balance
A Communication (cellular) 2 persons x - months x - - - - -
B Administrative equipment (printing/paper/office supply) 3 months x 700.000,- 2.100.000,- 233,33 - -
C Meeting room rental x 3 sessions x 720.000,- 2.160.000,- 240,00 - -
D Logistic (food and beverages) x 3 sessions x 500.000,- 1.500.000,- 166,67 - -
E Central coordination and administration (staff) 1 person x - months x - - - - -
F Recruitment specialist/ Project consultant 1 person x 6 sessions x 900.000,- 5.400.000,- 600,00 - -
G Local transportation x 3 sessions x 150.000,- 450.000,- 50,00 - -
Subtotal 11.610.000,- 1.290,00

Total amountEdit

Rp. 367.603.329 - US$ 40.844,81 (requested)
Rp. 329.968.980,- - US$ [~36.663] (spent)
Rp 37.634.349,- [~ US$ 4,181] (balance)


Suggested format for your financial reportEdit

The table here is an acceptable format. Please complete it so we may continue with review and accept your report. Wolliff (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

But please complete it on the report page rather than here on the talk page. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How to request approval for repurposing funds from a WMF Grant to another project or activityEdit

In this case we are referring to,

If your request is not approved or if it is not submitted, you will be required to return unused funds or improperly used funds to the Wikimedia Foundation by wire transfer to the below account. The grantee will be responsible for paying any fees incurred by the grantee when sending this wire transfer.


Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
CITIBANK, N.A.
590 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94104
A/C # 202 979 753
ROUTING/ABA # 321 171 184
SWIFT CODE # CITIUS33


To request retroactive approval for the repurposing of these funds, you may add a note to the discussion page of your grant report on Meta (in this case, your grant report refers to the grant report submitted for the project from which you would like to repurpose funds or have already repurposed funds, or Wikimedia Cipta). In the note please include,

  • The amount(s) you have repurposed for past project(s) and / or the amount(s) you attend to repurpose for any current and future project(s).
  • A summary of how you exactly you have used the funds in question or intend to use the funds in question.
  • If applicable, a link to the project proposal(s) containing (a) description(s) of project(s) funded using any of these repurposed funds.

After the requested information is provided, Asaf Bartov, Head of Global South Relationships, Wikimedia Foundation will review the request and approve or deny the request publicly on Meta. We cannot give you permission to make private Email correspondence public, but we also do not require justification for why you chose to repurpose the funds: a factual response to the above queries is adequate.

Wolliff (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Financial Report & Repurposing FundEdit

Hi Winifred, My name is Ivonne Kristiani, Deputy Secretary General of Wikimedia Indonesia and I will be answering your inquiries from now on.

Siska is on leave for personal reasons and when she returned and resume her role she has other pressing Wikimedia Indonesia matter with The Ford Foundation. Organization-wise we put that matter as priority to deal with and as an exchange I will handle this matter since I will be the person responsible to handle the next grant for 2012 as well.

It's nice to meet you, Ivonne. I look forward to working with you. Wolliff (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I had filled up the financial report as required and has put them in the main page.

Thank you! We will review it and provide comments or a decision shortly. Wolliff (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

2. We will wire Wikimedia Foundation’s 2011 (received on 27th December 2010) balance next week as Indonesian banking just resume operations after Idul Fitri, and I need to work out the paper needed, convert currency, and calculate cost to wire transfer overseas. I'll inform you when we already do this.

OK. I would recommend that you send WMF the funds once your report is formally approved to be sure that all parties agree on the amount to be sent. Wolliff (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Winifred, we would like to send the money the soonest since it is illegal here to hold any longer the underspent fund. We hope to hear from you soon regarding the decision so there will be no further delay. 06Ivonne (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

3. Wikimedia Indonesia requests for Wikimedia Foundation's retroactive approval for repurposing the fund and revised their decision in granting partial funding for Beacon of Theology and grant a full amount instead.

On March 2011 after the partial grant has been decided for Beacon of Theology, Siska discussed this problem with Barry Newstead in Berlin. The discussions delivers no practical decision within time frame needed by the project. To assure this project get off the ground and run successfully, an executive decision by the chair of Wikimedia Indonesia is made to reallocated Wikimedia Cipta funding of IDR 21.028.950,-.

This decision is informed to Wikimedia Foundation via email on 10/30/11 and receives no reply. We confirm that the project expenditure is appropriate and we appreciate if this matter is not prolonged further.

Beacon of Theology was approved partially in the amount of USD 2400 on 2 March 2011. The Email Siska sent on 29 October 2011 did not receive an affirmative response from WMF, and so this reallocation of funds was never approved. Independently of this, we will now consider evaluating your request for reallocating funds from Wikimedia Cipta to Beacon of Theology; however, we have noticed that the financial report for this project is no longer available here: http://www.wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Beacon_of_Theology_2011/Expenses_report (on meta), and we will need it to be published in order to begin to evaluate your request.Wolliff (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

06Ivonne (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean its no longer available since the link looks okay to me. This (on meta) links to the report of detailed expenditure for Beacon of Theology 2011 Project.

Here is the links to the detailed expenditure in each phase for your perusal:
Stage I: Preparation and Fundraising
A: Communication (Cellular & Fax) (on meta)
B: Communication Material (on meta)
C: Banner (on meta)
D: Poster (on meta)
E: Compensation Fee (on meta)

Stage II: Training, project exposure toward participants and competition
F: Room Cost for Training (on meta)
G: Food and Beverage for Training (on meta)

Stage III: Evaluation from Jury
H: Compensation Fee for Jury (on meta)

Stage IV: Scholarship Support - Hardware and Books
I: Winner Announcement (on meta)
J: Hardware (on meta)
K: Scholarship and Books (on meta)
L: Project T-Shirts (on meta)
06Ivonne (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Financial report for Beacon of TheologyEdit

Thank you for clarifying the location of the financial report, Ivonne, and for your responses.

Just as we requested for Wikimedia Cipta, we will need a financial report for Beacon of Theology that reflects the format of the budget included in the grant request at the time of approval. (That version may be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:WM_ID/Beacon_of_Theology_2011&oldid=2442694.) Once we receive a financial report in this format we may proceed with evaluating this request for reallocation.

Sincerely, Wolliff (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Winifred, Beacon of Theology is a separate project from Wikimedia Cipta. Wikimedia Indonesia trained the project director (Hans) to be able to run the competition independently and all of its reporting is under the responsibility of its project director. You may contact Hans Abdiel on his talk page or sent an email to him regarding the financial report for Beacon of Theology. 06Ivonne (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ivonne:
  1. In fact, when Leo Cahyadi accepted the funds on behalf of Wikimedia Indonesia on 10 March 2011 he agreed on behalf of WMID to fulfill WMF's reporting requirements: WMF awarded the USD 2400 directly to Wikimedia Indonesia, and Wikimedia Indonesia is responsible for ensuring that the reporting requirements are fulfilled whether or not the responsibility has been delegated by WMID to Hans as Project Lead. I certainly don't mind writing a note on the talk page of that report to request the complete financial report, and I will do so. However, I do suggest that you follow up with Hans to ensure he provides the information in time for your request to be considered.
  2. We are not necessarily questioning the quality of the report for Beacon of Theology, but there is no way we can approve your request for reallocation of funds from Wikimedia Cipta to Beacon of Theology without reviewing a financial report for both projects.
Wolliff (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions about this reportEdit

Thank you for providing a budget in the requested format! We have a few comments and questions that we would like you to address before accepting this report. Feel free to let us know if you need clarity on any of the points below or if I am misunderstanding your report. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The focus of this reportEdit

This report is focused on the results of the microprojects, while the goals of the submission were focused on capacity building. More explanation regarding the actual effects of this project in terms of volunteer capacity-building is required before this report can be accepted. Wolliff (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Winifred, I was prompted by Ivonne to answer some of the questions below, since I wrote the report. The following are the answers:

Q: Goal of submissions on capacity building vs results perceived as microprojects.
A: Correct, the overall goal is capacity building of volunteers by training of trainers. That should explain the micro project part. I make it easier for you, Our micro projects are "an off line, hands on managing volunteers activity experience".
As the report stated: capacity building to volunteers has been accomplished.
More explanation: See each individual report (blue link in each 11 separate project)
A simple example: Ivonne in 2010 is not interested in wikipedia, in 2010 she's a participant in FYK writing competition, in 2011 she volunteer in Wikimedia Cipta capacity building training, she is involved in several activities and become a trainer in others. In 2012 she is now answering your questions and budgeted the next grant. That's capacity building for volunteer.
Ivonne just one example, since you wrote to her back and forth, I figure she serves best as an example. There are few others that actually being build throughout and continued: Javanese Language Wikipedia committee (2011) - trained six persons as trainer - continue in 2012 (not funded by WMF grant), (on hold) Sundanese language Wikipedia committee (2011) - trained one person as trainer, (on hold) Banjar Language Wikipedia committee - two persons, prepared for 2012 project and now on hold for 2013. Writing class produces other cooperation with volunteer (Lontar (2011-2012), Wikimedika (medical) 2012 initiative project (not funded by WMF), Jejak Petjinan with Chinese historical community (2012) [not funded by WMF]. Beacon of theology is another example of one persons training, and one person end up training the other four person who then team up with it's own project - a writing competition which doubles Indonesian language Wikipedia very active editors for three months. All of the above produce more volunteers with more capacity, the project produce an advance volunteers because it promised capacity building. They, the volunteer that has been trained, can move on to the world with more equipped organization skill than before. That's capacity building. Siska.Doviana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, SIska.
  1. Please let us know if this is an accurate summary of the impact of the funded activities in terms of capacity building, or feel free to offer corrections if you think it is not accurate: "As a result of the activities funded, 11 volunteers were trained: 6 volunteers from the Javanese Language Wikipedia Committee, 1 volunteer from the Sundanese Wikipedia community, 2 volunteers from the Banjar Wikipedia community, Ivonne, and Lontar."
  2. So that we might better understand the impact of the project, would you please specify in which areas these volunteers successfully built their capacities? For example, would you provide a list of skills strengthened in each group?
  3. We hope that you will continue to track the future accomplishments of the volunteers impacted by this project as that will help WMID and WMF to better assess the impact of these activities over time. We invite you to consider providing updates about their activities here on the talk page of this report, so that WMF and the rest of the community can follow the long term benefits of the project.
Regards, Wolliff (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

HI Winifred,
Basically, the summary of every projects can be found on individual projects report page. Here I provide you with a short summary of the impact of activities funded under Wikimedia Cipta:

  • Wikimedia Cipta's Main Infrastructure: Zero volunteers trained
  • Coordination Meeting: 125 meetings were held and attended by numerous volunteers. These meetings had resulted in cooperation with Lontar Library, cooperation with Jejak Petjinan community in conducting wiki trainings, Papat Limpad 2011 competition, and Sundapedia 2011 competition.
  • Writing Classes: at least 29 participants were trained on how to write on wikipedia and contributed at least 53 short articles.
  • Project Classes: 11 participants were trained on how to do projects planning and budgeting.
  • Papat Limpad: 70 participants followed the training and competition with 11 participants finished the 7 months competition. Very active contributors on Javanese Wikipedia went up from only 2 contributors in 2010 to around 13 contributors. Active contributors went up from 9 contributors to 44 contributors. The participants contributed 2,269 articles on Javanese wikipedia. Page view went up from 1,1 million readers to 2,2 million readers per month.
  • Beacon of Theology 2011: 59 participants followed the training and competition with 23 participants (38.98%) finished the competition. They contributed 750 articles within 72 days of the competition (on meta). During the competition, Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia very active contributors number increase 100%.
  • Sundapedia 2011: 48 participants followed the training and competition with 24 participants finished the competition. Very active contributors on Sundanese wikipedia went up from 2 contributors to 24 contributors. Active contributors went up from 6 contributor to 44 contributors. The participants contributed 1.521 articles during the 3 months competition. Page view went up from 800 thousands reader to 1,2 million readers per month.
  • Banjar Language Wikipedia Volunteer Identification Report: 2 volunteers were trained on how to do wiki competition in their local language wikipedia.
  • Wikimedia-Lontar for Indonesian Writer: 6 volunteers trained on writing wikipeda. They produced at least 58 articles on Indonesia Wikipedia and 16 articles on English wikipedia.

06Ivonne (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions about the content presented in this report Questions and comments about the content presented in this reportEdit

  1. The statement that FYK contests do not actually retain new editors and that therefore a 5-year implementation of the project is required is interesting. Would you please explain why you expect the project to be more successful if implemented over 5 years?
  2. Many project descriptions, including the description of the writing class, seem to lack concrete measures of success such as numbers of classes, participants, numbers of editors retained, or any sort of skill assessment. Did WMID or the project leads perform any assessment on the effectiveness of these events and would you be able to summarize the results or provide a link to those assessments here in this report?
Q: The statement that FYK contests do not actually retain new editors and that therefore a 5-year implementation <snip>
A: ?
There's no FYK contest in 2011 during this grant period. More over a promise from our part of five years implementation.
Apologies - that was my mistake! I had misunderstood this statement which I now see is referring only to Papat Limpad and referencing FYK just as a point of comparison:
Project Director and FYKs designer often receive questions of: "Are the participants returning after the competition?", unfortunately the answer is still "no". Some (very few, one or two) return, but a "no" answer would be sufficient considering how low the return rate is. However Papat Limpad proves that a seven months competition out of 12 months in a year is not a bad accomplishment considering the language is suffering lack of editors for years. It's just a realization that intervention program in order to make a sustainable impact need to be done repeatedly for five years until it finds it momentum to sustain itself in practice.


Now that I understand your statement, would you still be able to elaborate on your reasons for expecting that this competition (Papat Limpad) will be more successful when implemented over 5 years?
Thanks! Wolliff (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Q: ...project descriptions, including the description of the writing class, seem to lack concrete measures of success such as numbers of classes, participants, numbers of editors retained
A: Please see the individual report for writing class
Quote: "The total number of writing class held is 11 meetings (3 in May, 5 in June, and 3 in July 2011). There are 38 participant attended the training, numerous participants in level 1 but only some of them interested to attend the next level. The participants started with a specific given articles, then they were free to write any kinds of articles according their own interest. In every classes, the trainers/instructors not only roled as a teacher, but also supervised and monitored their participant's articles. " (see links in the report) Siska.Doviana (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that information - that is helpful! Would you please link to the individual report subpage directly from the main report so that it is easy for others to find (currently only a link to the individual project page is provided), and / or add this information directly to the section about writing classes in the main report? Wolliff (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

>> #You state, ‘’Suffering the same faith as Indonesian language Wikipedia birthday party, in February 2011 an executive decision to sub-funded (more than half) Beacon of Theology 2011 project was taken following WMF decision in funding it less than half. The decision was taken using the assumption that WMF staff wasn't able to evaluate how much a micro project cost in Jakarta.’’ In fact, Beacon of Theology and the Wikipedia Birthday Party in Jakarta were denied funding based on insufficient return on investment and mission alignment. The decision about Beacon of Theology had very little to do with project costs. While costs were a factor in the decision on the Wikipedia 10 party, we were considering costs in respect to the what we considered an appropriate scope for this type of project.

A: I didn't see a question. Siska.Doviana (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
You are correct: this is a response to the comment in your report and this response does not actually contain a question. This section would be more accurately titled "Questions and comments about the content presented in this report". I've implemented that correction above. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Total expenditures reportedEdit

The expenditures reported in your detailed budget do not appear to match the total expenditures reported. Adding up the total expenditures for each of the 5 phases seems to yield Rupiah 346,838,423, unless I am miscalculating or missing some aspect of your report, while you report a total expenditure of Rupiah 329.968.980. Would you please clarify which number is accurate? Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

HI Winifred. Thanks for prompting this. We admit that after recalculating the expenditure of all the projects, we found that there has been miscalculation from the previous detailed report. Now that the recalculation is done and we have reformatted it according to your request, please refer to the new format and ignore the format that was not appropriate according to WMF requirements.
The accurate number is Rp. 346,838,423 or US$ 38.537,60
However, we understand that on January, 2nd 2012 our treasurer had sent an early reporting to WMF and claimed that we underspent IDR 37.634.349,- [USD 4,181]. Therefore, we are willing to send back USD 4,181 to WMF as soon as possible as a completion of our grant reporting.

06Ivonne (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Ivonne: Despite the miscalculation in the early report, we can reconcile the amount owed based on WMID's correct actual expenses if this amount is supported by your documentation. The final amount due WMF is therefore pending the resolution of the reallocation request to Beacon of Theology and also pending WMID's response to the inquiries below regarding inconsistencies between the planned and actual budgets. Wolliff (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between the planned budget and the actual budgetEdit

While overall, your total spending matches your budgeting spending closely it was redistributed significantly within your budget without consultation from WMF. WMID overspent significantly in several budget areas and underspent significantly in others. Given the variance, we would appreciate an explanation for overspending in the following categories in which ‘’’significant’’’ overspending did occur:

  • Rupiah 32,612,452 spent on communications with only Rupiah 7,800,000 budgeted
  • Rupiah 29,324,465 spent on administrative equipment with only Rupiah 11,900,000 budgeted
  • Rupiah 37,333,550 spent on transportation with only Rupiah 12,150,000 budgeted

Also, WMID seems to have underspent in meeting room rental and consultancy fees: would you mind explaining how you supplemented those costs while still achieving your project’s objectives? Wolliff (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I will leave numeric details for Ivonne to answer, I will answer the non numeric detail one.
Q: ...within your budget without consultation from WMF
A: We stated clearly the timeline of the project. One year project. ONE YEAR. This report is submitted in January 2012, and is being answered in July 2012 by WMF. "Without consultation" as you happily stated - is taken as decision from our side, since answers and decision from your side takes too long. For example: this very report that has been on going for more than six month. Siska.Doviana (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
When I state that the funds were "redistributed significantly within your budget without consultation from WMF," I am referring to the fact that WMID did not consult WMF regarding significant changes to the planned budget within the time period during which your project was being executed, and the length of the review period for this report after the project was executed is not relevant to this concern. Despite delays in reviewing this report, we still require an answer to the question regarding the inconsistencies between the planned and actual budgets. While we understand that some memories of a project's details may fade over time, financial records and records of decisions about significant changes to the budget should still be available. Wolliff (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Winifred, Ivonne prompt me to answer this, and since I didn't not read it properly the first time and realize that I should be answering. I quote your question:

‘’’significant’’’ overspending did occur:
*Rupiah 32,612,452 spent on communications with only Rupiah 7,800,000 budgeted
*Rupiah 29,324,465 spent on administrative equipment with only Rupiah 11,900,000 budgeted
*Rupiah 37,333,550 spent on transportation with only Rupiah 12,150,000 budgeted

The answer to that is yes, the budget is wrong and the spending is right to ensure the project meet the objective. It's the first experiment and I would like to correct your wording, it is not overspend, the project overall is still underspend. We still have some money to send back to WMF, I think USD 3,700 or so, I don't remember the fine details. Also according to your total above, the funding that we did not budget total would be: Rp.67,420,467 or USD 6,700, if it is only for one project, I agree it is a lot. But Wikimedia Cipta consist of 9 different projects and you are talking budget miscalculation of USD 744 per project. It's ridiculous. It is normal for funding got adjusted around adapting to the need at that point, also worth noting that the spending did not create a new need, it's the same need, different numbers.Siska.Doviana (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Q: Despite delays in reviewing this report, we still require an answer to the question regarding the inconsistencies between the planned and actual budgets.
A: Thank you for admitting the delays of 8 months since submission. We would like to note this for our future reference.Siska.Doviana (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This was never denied or disguised. It is a matter of public record. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 22:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Q: While we understand that some memories of a project's details may fade over time, financial records and records of decisions about significant changes to the budget should still be available.
A: It's not a question it's a statement, so I will ask in return. I don't understand the statement: No details and financial record fade, WMID provide ALL FINANCIAL RECORDS up to the very last details ever since we submit this report on January 2011. This is one sample (on meta), we have eight more of that if you bother to look. You refuse to look at it and asks for a broader picture of funding according to your need, we concur - we gave you the broader picture of the funding, and you return to us asking for details. It's already there in the first place. Everyone can look on the nine project why they take that much, there are reports on individual project, asks on the report page, do not take eight months to asks, they are volunteer and they come and go. I appreciate your time but I would like to remind you that you are a paid staff and I am a volunteer, so if you're interested to drag this further while your time is billed, I am not interested. It is your job to be prompt, it is my courtesy on answering beyond the time scope. Some of your question is valid, I answered them, some are ridiculous and since it is public I can't answers ridicilous question without pointing why. Should you made time to engage to your partners by asking via a conference call - this 20 pages of response might be done in one hour. Why? Because even though this page is public I fee that we're only answering to one person, no one even bother to asks, and most of the answer here could be done by a call, and excerpt of the discussion written in here. It would save exponential time for Ivonne and I, and probably you, whether it is billed or not.

So my volunteer response for this: we will return the money on December 1, 2012 whether this grant report is accepted or not. It is already taking too long. Siska.Doviana (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You repeatedly employ an abusive tone that is unacceptable, and repeatedly make unilateral decisions and ultimatums. We object to this behavior. Your answering our questions is not "a courtesy", it is part of your obligation as a grantee, volunteer or not. We are posting these comments in public because our grant reporting and reviewing is done in public; a conference call is not easy to make public. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that http://wikimedia.org.id is, in our repeated experience, inconsistently available (at least from the US) -- it has been down and inaccessible on several separate occasions. I know WMID is serious about keeping materials available and public, but it is our responsibility is to keep public records about our grant-making available and accessible, and we cannot rely on the goodwill (again, not in doubt here!) of our grant partners to keep records available. Therefore, we would like not just the grant reports themselves, but their components (i.e. image files of tables or budgets, PDFs), to be hosted on Meta and Commons, so that the operational robustness of WMF-hosted wikis guarantees their survival in posterity. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 22:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"The fact is that http://wikimedia.org.id is, in our repeated experience, inconsistently available (at least from the US) -- it has been down and inaccessible on several separate occasions."
Asaf, the web http://wikimedia.org.id is probably inconsistently unavailable from any country around the world because nobody owns that domain name. Our website is wikimedia.or.id, and we have never let our web down more than days since it is where we do our work. All of the images and files are still intact in the web and we still have the hard copies. Everything is public and accessible, we have never attempted to conceal anything. Regards, 06Ivonne (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote this from memory and wasn't pasting, so I was mistaken, it's .or, not .org, of course. That .or site has been down, repeatedly, and for the reasons explained above, we require all components of the grant report to be hosted on WMF wikis. Please move or copy the financial pages to Meta or Commons. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Tracking the hardware purchased with grant fundsEdit

We would like an update on the current status of the netbooks and how WMID is tracking these chapter assets that were purchased with grant funds. Would you please confirm in writing that they are still the property of WMID and are being used solely in furtherance of movement work and let us know how you are tracking their use and whereabouts? Wolliff (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of netbooks and laptops bought for the purpose of competition prizes, all of the hardwares bought by WMID are still intact and used for the furtherance of the movement's goal. These hardwares (netbooks, modems, and such) are passed to project directors, project committee, and/or interns who currently working on wikimedia projects under Wikimedia Indonesia. Every project director/committee/intern are responsible to brought back the hardwares to WMID once the projects are finished. 06Ivonne (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thank you for the response. Would you be able to provide us with a quick breakdown of where the equipment funded through WMF currently is and how it is being used? From the above response, I am assuming you have that information documented somewhere. If you have privacy concerns, feel free to send us that information offwiki and we will confirm here for the public record that we have received it. Wolliff (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Winifred, off course we documented the asset/equipment from WMF grant in our internal wiki. I will give the summary directly by email. FYI, at first we used to put it on Ford Foundation office (in which we had a temporary place to stay) for a while, then we moved out those equipments are carried by our volunteers. Since we are not only doing project in one specific area, it is more efficient and effective for us, especially for volunteers in outside town. In Wikimedia Cipta writing class, you can also see that one of our lesson learned is hard to find affordable teaching place, we had to move from one place to another and carry our stuff with us. For some big hardwares, we store it on Creative Commons Indonesia office (the office leasing will be ended on March 2013 and we will move out those stuffs too.) --22Kartika (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Kartika. I will also note here that WMF has received a detailed account of where this equipment is located from WMID. Wolliff (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolving outstanding concerns about this reportEdit

Request for clarification regarding significant overspending and underspending in planned budget areasEdit

We have asked for an explanation regarding budget areas in which WMID has significantly overspent or underspent. We are not asking for details regarding these expenses; rather, we need a general explanation as to why spending in each area did not occur as planned.

  • Communications
  • Administrative equipment
  • Transportation
  • Meeting room rental
  • Consultancy fees

Assuming there is a reasonable explanation provided here for each of the above budget areas, we will retroactively approve these reallocations within the project budget. Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for reallocation of funds to Beacon of TheologyEdit

The request for reallocation of funds from the Wikimedia Cipta budget to Beacon of Theology is not approved. WMID is required to return any funds repurposed to the Beacon of Theology project from the Wikimedia Cipta project to WMF.

Out of a total of IDR 64248400 spent on the Beacon of Theology project, WMF provided approximately IDR 20821050 (the equivalent of USD 2400 on the date of approval, or 11 March 2011, as quoted by Hans in the project report). The remaining amount spent on Beacon of Theology is approximately IDR 43427350, although support from WMID in the amount of only IDR 21028950 is quoted elsewhere on this talk page. Would WMID please confirm the amount repurposed from Wikimedia Cipta to Beacon of Theology? If this is an amount less than IDR 43427350, please also explain how WMID provided the additional funds for Beacon of Theology, since the money provided by WMF and IDR 21028950 would only account for a total of IDR 41850000, while a total spend of IDR 64248400 is quoted in the report for Beacon of Theology. Thank you for the clarification, Wolliff (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Final amount due WMFEdit

Ivonne confirmed that the actual amount spent is IDR 346,838,423. From this amount, we will deduct the amount confirmed above that was repurposed to the Beacon of Theology project. We will then calculate the difference between this amount and the amount provided to WMID for Wikimedia Cipta (IDR 367603329). WMID may return the final amount to WMF, or may instead choose to deduct this amount from the funds transfer for a future grant. Sincerely, Wolliff (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Final answersEdit

Hi Winifred,
I will answer this backwards since it is easier.
Based on the WMC grant report on January 2012 Mulwardi Tjitra, our treasurer confirm that underspent is IDR 37.634.349,- [~ USD 4,181], this amount is returned : IDR 37.634.349,- equal to USD 3,788.32 using Bank Mandiri USD rate on 27/12/2012 and changes has been made to the grant report.
"Out of a total of IDR 64248400 spent on the Beacon of Theology project"

and

"a total spend of IDR 64248400 is quoted in the report for Beacon of Theology"
Where did you get the amount "IDR 64248400" from? We cant figure out how you've arrived at that number. It is not found in any report.
The cost of the project is at Grants:WM_ID/Beacon_of_Theology_2011#Grand total = 65.700.000.
(Winifred) Please confirm here the total actually allocated to Beacon of Theology through the WMF-funded Wikimedia Cipta, so that we may resolve the actual amount due.
OH MY GOD! It is IDR 65.700.000,- you are confuse by your own request. Look at the table in the financial report submitted in 2011 (on meta). The balance is IDR 7,600 which is 80 cents. You are wasting my time.
"Would WMID please confirm the amount repurposed from Wikimedia Cipta to Beacon of Theology?"
It is IDR 21,028,950 as recorded.
This will be returned as well.
"Please also explain how WMID provided the additional funds for Beacon of Theology"
The entire concept of the project was that Jakarta Theological School had provided inkind contribution of 19.350.000
When the WMF underfunded the project Beacon of Theology 2011 on 11 March 2011, providing $2400 instead of the requested $5150, WMID tasked the Beacon of Theology 2011 project team with raising additional funding themselves as part of capacity building. They did, but it wasn't enough, so WMID fill the gap. This explanation is already in the report.
"The request for reallocation of funds from the Wikimedia Cipta budget to Beacon of Theology is not approved. WMID is required to return any funds repurposed to the Beacon of Theology project from the Wikimedia Cipta project to WMF."
On March 3, 2011 at 3:06 AM Cced to you, Barry wrote that he approves a partial amount of of $2,400 to implement the project. At the time it was granted he is "not yet convinced" about the need for 5 people to work on this project for 8 hours per day for 4 months. I provide the link in the line with the job descriptions provide by Ivonne. He also would be willing to consider some additional amount to cover costs for the volunteers who are managing the project.
Now my question is, if WMF is not approving the funding reallocation, they should provide a reason why. Is the project fails? Didn't meet its goal? Committee went on spending spree? Didn't provide a report? The project is done, went very successful where Barry congratulate it on the report on November 8, 2011 to Hans and the money is spent accordingly to the budget. Do let us know your logical reasoning for this.
"We need a general explanation as to why spending in each area did not occur as planned. Communications// Administrative equipment// Transportation// Meeting room rental// Consultancy fees"
In phase one and phase two during volunteer recruitment was budgeted for two person but in reality it funded a total of 15 people (10 persons committee from two projects, one staff, and two volunteers). In phase four also budgeted for two persons but it is still on going project for one (Javanese), while there are one new project (Sundapedia) with four persons committee started about this time. The same goes for logistic in phase one, it is budgeted for 18 sessions however we have 35 meetings for the first 3 months instead of 18. The same explanation applies for meeting room rentals and transportation. For phase four we budgeted 12 meetings, there are 101 meetings instead. Administrative equipment budget was suppose to by paper and supply, we don't do that, we don't have an office then, however the three projects need communication materials such as banners, posters, and this is not budgeted. We also printed "how to instructions" printed because of the bad internet connections for a total of 300 trainees accross projects. Javanese project lasted for 7 months, the winner's article is printed in the form of posters that rotate every 2 months and pasted on the Universities to raise awareness of the Javanese Language Competition still on going. Consultation fees went at the highest during the monitoring phase, like I said budgeted for 12 meetings and realize we need 101 instead. It is underspent during the reporting period, cause it is done during the monitoring. Siska.Doviana (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for reason for not approving the reallocationEdit

WMF does not need to convince WMID of its decision not to retroactively approve WMID's decision to reallocate funds. WMF did not think the Beacon project was impactful enough to justify the requested expenditure, and accordingly approved only partial funding for it. WMID's unilateral decision (communicated to WMF, yes, but not approved) to fully fund the project effectively overruled the WMF's assessment of the program's value. We remain of the opinion it does not make sense to have spent that amount on that program, and so we do not approve the retroactive request for re-allocation.

We do acknowledge a more timely response to WMID's e-mail announcing its unilateral decision (or a reminder from WMID) would have saved all sides a lot of time, and this conversation, and have taken steps to improve our processes to avoid such delays in the future. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Asaf, your delay in response is seven months or six. You said it is my responsibility that I answer this, absolutely, in this 30 pages response there's not a single sentence that I said I wasn't responsible. However my responsibility as a grantee expired a months after the report is submitted, after that it is your responsibility. You got paid for this, I'm not. After a month, I volunteer to do this, this whole grant Q&A is wasting my time! MY TIME! Yours is paid. If within that 30 days you said: return the money, here's how much, here's the account. WE'LL DO IT. But you didn't say that. You are a bad bad bad grant administrator. BAD. You would never help the global south if you keep this attitude. The title should be change to helping the global north chapters.
Of course you/ WMF didn't need to convince us, you need to give a logical explanation of why. And thank you for that explanation, it clearly showed that your measurement is skewed. There's this fallacies petitio principii your argument that it is not "impactful enough" has no measurement, ours do. It didn't said it wasn't approved, WMF stays silent for SEVEN MONTHS, it just said it wasn't approve recently, after one year the project ended and everyone responsible for it already move on. I am happy to return IDR 21 million back to WMF even though if it means I have to raise the fund myself. It is a proof that WMF is unable to assess a successful project in mid scale. You got confuse and stick to the gun even though you are wrong. Siska.Doviana (talk)

Resolving the final amount due WMF and requests for further clarification around variances from the planned budgetEdit

Hello, Siska. Thank you for your replies. Please address the following outstanding concerns:

  1. IDR 64248400 is the total amount provided by Hans in the budget tables that list the actual expenses of the project on the discussion page of Beacon of Theology's report (see, Grants_talk:WM_ID/Beacon_of_Theology_2011/Report#Revised_Table_of_Beacon_of_Theology_2011_Project). We are not interested in the budgeted expenses or budgeted revenue sources for this project, but in the actual amounts sent and received from each revenue source. Please confirm here the total actually allocated to Beacon of Theology through the WMF-funded Wikimedia Cipta, so that we may resolve the actual amount due.
Please see the above response, and please don't make another thread, it is already too long. Your calculation is wrong, see link above.
  1. Regarding the total amount underspent, we earlier calculated that IDR 37,634,349 does not match the actual amount underspent according to the numbers for actual expenses presented in your own tables. Ivonne also has acknowledged this in a previous conversation on this talk page that the actual total amount spent is IDR 346,838,423 out of out of 367,059,991.90 received and that the balance is therefore only IDR 20,221,568.90 (see, Grants_talk:WM_ID/Wikimedia_Cipta/Report#Total_expenditures_reported), and that the amount in your report from January was in fact a miscalculation. We would rather the total returned is based on the actual amount underspent, which is likely less than the amount you have sent WMF (pending WMID's response to the above inquiry regarding Beacon of Theology).
It's done. Whatever the transfer is it is not a damage to WMF, whatever the damage is WMID will handle it. Siska.Doviana (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. Your explanation above regarding variances from the original project budget does not address Communications (cell) expenses, which were not included in the original project budget. Please offer an explanation for that variance here.
See old budget approved, one that you think we should follow and report in the communication above. The first thing appears in that link is cellular expenses, and that one is approved. If not, just tell me how much so we can get over this. I have a meeting a whole day tomorrow so the day after tomorrow would be the latest that WMID return the complete numbers with addition of cellular phone or whatever. WMID will not provide anymore human resources to answer this one year and thirty pages Q&A. This is the longest of all grant report ever. Hurrah. I want a guiness book of world record for this. Siska.Doviana (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. Provide WMF with a list of names of any person who was paid for work on any aspect of these projects (Wikimedia Cipta or Beacon of Theology): this would include the name of the consultant or consultants hired. If you prefer not to disclose this information publicly, you may Email it to grants at wikimedia dot org.
It's public and it is in the report. Can you please read the report? Please please? The name is all there 1 (meta), 2 (meta), 3 (meta) all receipts is in activity report (meta) with names, 4 (meta), 5 (meta) all names are there, if not just click the blue link, 6 (meta) all names are there, 7 (meta) names is one click away, 8 (meta).
Siska.Doviana (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Funding returnedEdit

 
Money is transferred
  1. WMC underspent IDR 37.634.349
  2. WMC portion to fund Beacon of Theology IDR 21.028.950
  3. Total returned IDR 58.663.299 or equal to USD 5,930.31
Thank you for the details here. WMF confirms that a second transfer was received on Thursday 17 January, and the total amount reported here (IDR 58,663,299) has now been received by WMF. Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

NoteEdit

For an outsider, can I just say how confusing and depressing this thread is, that's been going on for 6 months (!) now? Abbasjnr (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. Do you see something we could do better? (Beyond the initial delay in reviewing the report, which we have fixed (for ongoing reports) long ago.) Alternatively, do you think we're asking the wrong questions? Do you think we should have accepted the report despite these concerns? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 22:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Asaf, I really can't go into more detail: mine was just a simple observation after making a quick perusal of the talk page. I don't have the patience and the volunteer time to go through the whole discussion to fully understand both sides of the issue. Thanks, Abbasjnr (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. We are very close to resolving this. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is already a year since the report first submitted. Six months waiting for response, and another six months of *God Knows What*, which, if handles wisely, can be concluded in three sentences. If it is in human form, this grant report could already walk and talk Siska.Doviana (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Another year and it could even be riding a bike Siska.Doviana (talk)

That big sign on top of our reportEdit

conclusion
If WMF Employee didn't respond for 8 months, it is a matter of public record, however if grantee didn't respond in 21 days they are unresponsive and uncooperative
Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) .

One word: wow! Siska.Doviana (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please Asaf. This is a double-edged sword. If a WMF employee did not respond for 8 months, they are equally unresponsive and uncooperative. It's that simple. Abbasjnr (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Abbas, do read what I actually said, in the images, and not the false quote Siska has created by paraphrase.
Also, note that marking a report "incomplete" is not a punishment but merely a reflection of the grant report evaluation status. It is easily removed as soon as the report is completed.
Do understand that my saying "it is a matter of public record" is not the only thing I have said about the delay; it is just the only thing Siska chose to quote. I said it is a matter of public record when it was implied we were hiding or not acknowledging the fact of the delay.
In fact, we have long ago acknowledged we were remiss in taking long months to respond to this report, and have already taken steps to prevent this from recurring. Those steps are proving effective, as no report has gone unreviewed for more than 30 days since then; indeed, reports are now generally reviewed within 14 days. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if those were not your very own words, then I take back what I said. --Abbas (sorry, can't sign via mobile)

Note to Siska from AnasuyaEdit

Hi Siska, As you might know, I joined the Foundation six months ago, and lead the Grantmaking team, of which the Wikimedia Grants Program (headed by Asaf) is a part. I thought I'd step in after some of the responses you've left in the past few days. I understand there is a long and complex history to some of these grants, but for now, I thought I'd share a few quick thoughts: I know there's a lot for us to learn collectively about sharing resources, about having impact, about deepening our movement across the world. As the grantmaking team, we have a disproportionate responsibility to the community to ensure we are being accountable; the questions that are posed around a grant request or report are meant to support that process. I know that lack of capacity in the past has caused delays and confusions in communication, but we are doing our best to learn from the past, and build more effective systems and processes for the present and future; this will always be an iterative process. Most importantly, it would help if you could respond to the questions Asaf and Winifred have posed, both on this page and the Apsara grant request page, without attacking their integrity and competence. While I haven't been around long, it's been long enough to see how committed they are to the Wikimedia movement, and to supporting our communities to grow effectively and well.

I am new to the movement, but as an activist in social justice movements for most of my life, I do know that communities and movements get strengthened by dissent, debate and dialogue, but not by disrespect. Winifred will shortly be summarising the outstanding issues, and I hope that helps to resolve this situation. I am happy to talk more to understand what the different issues are, so we can be substantive and constructive in moving forward, and please: assume good faith. Thanks --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary of outstanding issues with this reportEdit

1. Key information about this report is not hosted on Meta.
The information provided on Meta alone is not adequate to evaluate this report: many of the details that should be contained in this report consist of a collection of links to WMID’s own wiki. WMID never responded to Asaf Bartov’s clear request on 14 November 2012 to consolidate the relevant materials and move them to meta.wikimedia.org.
2. Some variances from the approved budget are still unexplained.
WMID still has not presented an explanation for some variances from the original project budget. For example, WMF has repeatedly inquired about the exact nature of the need for additional communications expenses and has still not received a clear explanation for significant overspending in this area.
3. There are still inconsistencies around the total amount of grant funds spent on Wikimedia Cipta.
Despite returning some funds to WMF, WMID still has not confirmed or acknowledged the actual amount spent on Wikimedia Cipta. WMID’s representative Ivonne has claimed a different amount than WMID’s representative Siska. Ivonne has claimed here, “The accurate number is Rp. 346,838,423 or US$ 38.537,60,” which yields an underspend of only IDR 20,764,906. Siska has claimed here, “Based on the WMC Grant Report on January 2012 Mulwardi Tjitra, our treasurer confirm that underspent is IDR 37.634.349,- [~ USD 4,181], this amount is returned : IDR 37.634.349,- equal to USD 3,788.32 using Bank Mandiri USD rate on 27/12/2012 ...” This total amount actually spent must be clarified on the public record before we may accept the report. The total amount spent should match what is documented in the financial report and by the receipts.
4. There are still inconsistencies around the total amount of grant funds spent on Beacon of Theology.
Despite returning some funds to WMF, WMID still has not confirmed or acknowledged the actual amount spent on Beacon of Theology. A useable financial report on Meta was not originally provided for this project. Hans supplied a financial report on the discussion page of the report for Beacon of Theology at WMF’s request that yield total expenses of IDR 64,248,400, which is a different total than that found in the tables on an external site referenced by Siska (meta) that report total expenses of IDR 65,700,000. This total amount must be clarified on the public record before we may accept the report for Wikimedia Cipta. The total amount spent should match what is documented in the financial report on Meta and by the receipts.
Sincerely, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Required to accept this reportEdit

We would like to proceed with accepting this report. In order to do so, we need the following:

  1. Move all information in this report to meta.wikimedia.org (including images) and link to it clearly from the grant report.
  2. Confirm the total amount actually spent on Wikimedia Cipta and ensure this total amount matches all financial reports submitted, and is backed up by receipts, and explain why there are discrepancies if they exist.
  3. Confirm the total amount actually spent on Beacon of Theology and ensure this total amount matches all financial reports submitted, and is backed up by receipts, and explain why there are discrepancies if they exist.
Thank you, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Winifred & WMF Grants team,
Thank you for the comment, and your understanding to our situation in dealing with this project. Although regretfully too slow, I am determined to complete the sending of the receipts, as discussed before. And yes of course, once all the receipts completely sent, we'll discuss anything that's not clear and/or confirm the final numbers for both Cipta & Beacon, to the best that I can. Hopefully this comment can suffice, and again I say thank you. Rgds, Ichsan Mochtar (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ichsan! As we mentioned, the priority here is for you to answer questions #2 and #3 (we need to know the amounts spent on each project) so that we can provisionally accept this grant report. If you can get that information from your upcoming meeting, we will move forward with the provisional acceptance, assuming the receipts will eventually be submitted in good faith. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 22:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Winifred & WMF Grants team,

Season's greetings! I'd like to confirm the information, as stated below:

  • The total amount actually spent on Wikimedia Cipta is IDR 329,968,980.- (three hundred twenty nine million nine hundred sixty eight thousand nine hundred eighty rupiahs), and all is backed up by receipts (link).
  • The amount actually spent on Beacon of Theology out of Wikimedia Cipta budget, is IDR 21,028,950.- (twenty one million twenty eight thousand nine hundred fifty rupiahs) (link, see Beacon part). The total amount actually spent on Beacon of Theology is IDR 65,692,400.- (sixty five million ninety two thousand four hundred rupiah), and all is backed up by receipts (link).

Could they be provisionally accepted now? And since it's already holiday season perhaps we would get your responses/in touch again in a 2 weeks time? Thanks and best regards, Ichsan Mochtar (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Report provisionally acceptedEdit

Dear Ichsan:

Thank you very much for confirming both amounts publicly! This is enough for us to provisionally accept the report.

This provisional acceptance is pending WMID's final delivery of the receipts to Wikimedia Foundation, which is already in progress. At the time the receipts are received, we will then work through the financial report together to make sure any inconsistencies or questions, if they still exist, are resolved or explained. We look forward to working together with WMID to resolve any remaining questions about this report or the expenses at that time. We thank you for your efforts to resolve this report, and for your continued efforts as we move forward together in or work.

In the mean time, WMID will be considered in compliance, eligible for future grants from Wikimedia Foundation and able to act as a fiscal sponsor.

Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 19:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Report acceptedEdit

Hello @Naval Scene: Many thanks for all your work in gathering and submitting all the receipts for this grant. I confirm that, as of today, we have received all 9 batches (726 receipts)! Your report is accepted. -- Best wishes, Jtud (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Return to "PEG/WM ID/Wikimedia Cipta/Report" page.