IRC office hours/Office hours 2013-09-18

Chat on FDC Proposal Process
Wednesday 18 September 2013
1200-1330 UTC

[2013-09-18 12:00:16] <Jon____> Is there anybody there?
[2013-09-18 12:00:37] <KatyLove> Hi @Jon____ !
[2013-09-18 12:00:42] <KatyLove> Yes, there are lots of people here.
[2013-09-18 12:01:02] <KatyLove> @Maggie_Dennis - shall we get started?
[2013-09-18 12:01:05] <Jon____> That's nice
[2013-09-18 12:01:16] <Maggie_Dennis> Sure, sounds good.
[2013-09-18 12:01:22] <KatieChan> hi Jon____ :)
[2013-09-18 12:01:26] <Maggie_Dennis> Hello, everyone, and welcome to the latest FDC chat.
[2013-09-18 12:01:32] <KatyLove> @Jon____: so far I know we have @KatieChan, @SRientjes and who else?
[2013-09-18 12:01:35] <Jon____> Hi Katie
[2013-09-18 12:01:46] <KatyLove> Hi, everyone!
[2013-09-18 12:01:58] <Jon____> Hi Sandra what have you been up to today?
 [2013-09-18 12:02:32] <KatyLove> Hi @wolliff !
[2013-09-18 12:02:42] <wolliff> Greetings, all!
[2013-09-18 12:02:48] <wolliff> Greetings, Katy!
 [2013-09-18 12:03:24] <Jon____> :(
[2013-09-18 12:03:27] <Maggie_Dennis> We have Katy Love and Winnifred Olliff here.
[2013-09-18 12:03:50] <Maggie_Dennis> They're going to talk about the FDC. KatyLove, wolliff, would you like to start with a statement before we collect questions?
[2013-09-18 12:03:59] <KatyLove> And the wonderful @Maggie_Dennis! We are grateful to you for helping us out!
[2013-09-18 12:04:01] -->| Dantman (~dantman@mediawiki/dantman) has joined #wikimedia-office
[2013-09-18 12:04:02] <KatyLove> Yes, we'd love to.
[2013-09-18 12:04:13] <KatyLove> But first, could we do a round of introductions of who is in the room?
[2013-09-18 12:04:22] <KatyLove> I'm Katy Love with the FDC annual plan grants process.
[2013-09-18 12:04:31] <wolliff> I am Winifred Olliff, the Grants Administrator, from WMF.
[2013-09-18 12:04:49] <KatyLove> Who else do we have here that is applying to the FDC for an annual plan grant?
[2013-09-18 12:05:01] <Jon____> Jon Davies CEO WMUK
[2013-09-18 12:05:13] <KatyLove> Welcome again @Jon____ !
[2013-09-18 12:05:28] * KatieChan is Katie Chan. I work for WMUK as Volunteer Support Organiser.
[2013-09-18 12:05:38] <wolliff> Hi, Jon! Hi, Katie!
[2013-09-18 12:05:42] <KatyLove> Welcome @KatieChan! And I know we have @SRientjes who is in two meetings right now. :)
[2013-09-18 12:05:49] <wolliff> Hi, Sandra!
[2013-09-18 12:05:50] <SRientjes> Sandra Rientjes, WM NL!
[2013-09-18 12:05:53] <KatyLove> Do we have anyone else here to talk FDC?
[2013-09-18 12:06:38] <wolliff> OK! Let's get started.
[2013-09-18 12:06:48] <wolliff> We're here today to discuss the proposal process, now that eligibility has been confirmed.
[2013-09-18 12:06:58] <KatyLove> Hi @Kasia_home - are you here to talk FDC / annual plan grants?
[2013-09-18 12:07:00] <wolliff> Congratulations to all eligible entities, and thank you for your work achieving eligibility for this round.
[2013-09-18 12:07:36] <Kasia_home> yes @KatyLove, Im actually Kasia (WMDE), just from home:)
[2013-09-18 12:07:44] <wolliff> Here is a link outlining the eligibility status:
[2013-09-18 12:07:51] <KatyLove> I figured! :) Welcome @Kasia_home !
[2013-09-18 12:07:55] <wolliff> Hi, Kasia!
[2013-09-18 12:08:11] <Jon____> Dobje Kasia
[2013-09-18 12:08:19] <KatyLove> Now that eligibility has been confirmed, the next and critical step is the proposals.
[2013-09-18 12:08:24] <KatyLove> Does anyone here know when they're due?
[2013-09-18 12:08:29] <KatyLove> (I have donuts if you get the answer right)
[2013-09-18 12:08:37] <KatyLove> (You will just have to come to San Francisco today to get them)
[2013-09-18 12:08:57] <KatyLove> Proposals are due on …. …. ….
[2013-09-18 12:08:58] <Maggie_Dennis> KatyLove, is Winnifred disqualified?
[2013-09-18 12:09:11] <KatyLove> Yes she is @Maggie_Dennis. Disqualified.
[2013-09-18 12:09:14] <wolliff> Oooohhhh Maggie!
[2013-09-18 12:09:29] <Kasia_home> Oct 1, Im coming to SF to get y donut
[2013-09-18 12:09:33] <SRientjes> October 1???
[2013-09-18 12:09:35] <KatyLove> Yessss!
 [2013-09-18 12:09:36] <wolliff> Oh yeah!!
[2013-09-18 12:09:41] <KatyLove> It's a tie between @Kasia_home and @SRientjes !
[2013-09-18 12:09:49] <KatyLove> You both have donuts here waiting for you!
[2013-09-18 12:09:57] <KatyLove> (I have several donuts)
[2013-09-18 12:10:07] <KatyLove> Hi @gbyrd ! Garfield, want to introduce yourself?
[2013-09-18 12:10:09] <KatieChan> don't eat mine! ;D
[2013-09-18 12:10:10] <wolliff> Ummmm not as many as you ahd.
[2013-09-18 12:10:15] <gbyrd> Hello
[2013-09-18 12:10:19] <wolliff> Hi, Garfield!
[2013-09-18 12:10:22] <wolliff> Thanks for joining us.
[2013-09-18 12:10:28] <KatyLove> Garfield is the Chief Financial Officer at WMF.
[2013-09-18 12:10:31] <wolliff> So, Katy, proposals are due on 1 Oct...
[2013-09-18 12:10:33] <KatyLove> Many of you know he's involved in the FDC process.
[2013-09-18 12:10:41] <KatyLove> Thanks @wolliff for getting me back on track,
[2013-09-18 12:10:44] <KatyLove> distracted by donuts and all.
[2013-09-18 12:10:55] <Jon____> When will he finance charts that we can use be released rather than struggling with the wikimarkup?
[2013-09-18 12:10:56] <KatyLove> Proposals are due on Oct 1. I know many of you are working on them right now, and that's awesome.
[2013-09-18 12:11:14] <KatyLove> @Jon____ this is something we have been talking about for a long time.
[2013-09-18 12:11:19] <KatyLove> And I'm VERY happy to answer this question.
[2013-09-18 12:11:32] <KatyLove> We recognize that the wikimarkup is not the ideal format for all who are submitting proposals to the FDC.
[2013-09-18 12:11:40] <KatyLove> I should note some people love it, others not so much.
[2013-09-18 12:11:42] <Jon____> Unless you are insane
[2013-09-18 12:11:46] <wolliff> I am!
[2013-09-18 12:11:47] <KatyLove> Well....
[2013-09-18 12:11:49] <wolliff> ;)
[2013-09-18 12:11:50] <KatyLove> I might be ;)
[2013-09-18 12:12:02] <KatyLove> The tables on Round 1 last year were considerably more difficult to navigate.
[2013-09-18 12:12:14] <KatyLove> They were revised for Round 2 and that has carried over for Round 1 of this year (2013-2014).
[2013-09-18 12:12:19] <KatyLove> Now they are more user-friendly.
[2013-09-18 12:12:25] <KatyLove> But they are STILL wiki tables.
[2013-09-18 12:12:28] <KatyLove> Which I think is your issue.
 [2013-09-18 12:12:38] <Jon____> So now new ones aspronised for September 1 - I can live with that but need to know
[2013-09-18 12:13:01] <KatyLove> ? Dont' understand @Jon____ - what's the question?
[2013-09-18 12:13:10] <KatyLove> Did you mean no new ones?
[2013-09-18 12:13:18] <Jon____> Meant NO new ones - crap typing!
[2013-09-18 12:13:22] <KatyLove> We use the wikitables for the following reasons:
[2013-09-18 12:13:27] <KatyLove> 1) it is public
[2013-09-18 12:13:32] <KatyLove> 2) it lasts forever
[2013-09-18 12:13:44] <KatyLove> 3) many people love wikis
 [2013-09-18 12:14:00] <KatyLove> 4) we have a record of all changes
[2013-09-18 12:14:01] <KatieChan> Visual Editor on meta any time soon?
[2013-09-18 12:14:06] <Jon____> Nothing last for ever Katy whatever people tell you - hearts get broken every day
[2013-09-18 12:14:07] <KatyLove> WE ARE HOPING SO!
[2013-09-18 12:14:14] <KatyLove> So true @Jon____ ....
[2013-09-18 12:14:15] <KatyLove> so true.
[2013-09-18 12:14:16] <wolliff> Thanks for bringing us down to earth, Jon.
[2013-09-18 12:14:25] <KatyLove> But yes, our ultimate goal is to have Visual Editor on Meta.
[2013-09-18 12:14:29] <KatyLove> That will make things much more clear.
[2013-09-18 12:14:41] <KatyLove> But in the mean time,
[2013-09-18 12:14:46] <KatyLove> we looked into google docs and PDFs.
[2013-09-18 12:14:54] <KatyLove> And spreadsheets.
[2013-09-18 12:15:00] <Jon____> I would really like tables that add up and we can do calcs on - this would make it much easier to check - but not this year heh?
[2013-09-18 12:15:02] <wolliff> Is everyone aware of the tool excel2wiki? That can sometimes make things a bit easier.
[2013-09-18 12:15:09] <KatyLove> Yes, we agree @Jon____. We would like that too.
[2013-09-18 12:15:22] <KatyLove> We asked the engineering team to look into some extensions that can do those calculations automatically.
 [2013-09-18 12:16:34] <KatyLove> Google docs aren't permanent, so that wasn't an option for the spreadsheet (plus, it's a Google doc...)
[2013-09-18 12:16:46] <Maggie_Dennis> (Excel2Wiki:
[2013-09-18 12:16:57] <KatyLove> PDFs don't show calculations either, and aren't easy to insert into proposals to make them easily comparable.
 [2013-09-18 12:17:08] <KatyLove> And with spreadsheets, they can't be hosted on wiki.
 [2013-09-18 12:18:24] <KatyLove> So for now, we made the wikitables as easy to use as possible.
[2013-09-18 12:18:36] <KatyLove> It's something we'll continue to look into in the future, as we know it's not the easiest thing to navigate.
[2013-09-18 12:18:46] <KatyLove> And we want to avoid making people go insane @Jon____ …. that is one goal of ours anyway ;)
[2013-09-18 12:19:06] <Jon____> No comment
[2013-09-18 12:19:20] <Kasia_home_> I have a question regarding one of the new questions in the proposal form: " If your entity does receive funding from other donors, please list a contact person." Just out of curiosity: What is the purpose of this question?
[2013-09-18 12:19:31] <KatyLove> Thanks for the question @Kasia_home_ !
 [2013-09-18 12:20:20] <KatyLove> The reason we ask this question is because it can provide us with a very different point of view from another funder.
[2013-09-18 12:20:36] <KatyLove> It can help the community/FDC/FDC staff understand what the applicant's history has been in working with other donors.
 [2013-09-18 12:20:57] <KatyLove> On that note, As you know, the FDC has encouraged entities to seek out other funding, and we know it's quite a challenge to do, but diversifying funding is important.
[2013-09-18 12:21:58] <KatyLove> When we are able to speak to the donor, the conversation would cover areas like their perspective on the project that they funded.
[2013-09-18 12:22:19] <KatyLove> It's another voice, and another perspective to share in the process.
[2013-09-18 12:22:41] <SRientjes> I am not quite comfortable with putting donor contact data in a public document...
[2013-09-18 12:23:01] <KatyLove> @SRientjes - that can be shared in private if you feel more comfortable that way.
[2013-09-18 12:23:19] <wolliff> We can add that option to the proposal form.
[2013-09-18 12:23:22] <SRientjes> Yes please
[2013-09-18 12:23:27] <KatyLove> Good idea @wolliff.
[2013-09-18 12:24:14] <KatyLove> I have found this question to be really useful in the past in other grantmaking contexts.
[2013-09-18 12:24:45] <KatyLove> Are there other questions?
[2013-09-18 12:25:11] <Kasia_home> thank you for answering
[2013-09-18 12:25:21] <KatyLove> No problem, that's exactly what we're here for.
[2013-09-18 12:25:47] <wolliff> Kasia and Sandra: one of the reasons is because of the nature of annual plan funding. Since this is general funding, we consider all of the organization's activities, and not only those activities we may be funding directly. We may not contact external funders in every case, but if we have the contact information on hand, it ensures that we may contact the donor right away as soon as we may need the additional information. T
[2013-09-18 12:26:19] <Jon____> Is there a threshold for this?
[2013-09-18 12:26:28] <KatyLove> Meaning a financial threshhold?
[2013-09-18 12:26:34] <Jon____> Yep
[2013-09-18 12:26:40] <KatyLove> No, there's not.
[2013-09-18 12:26:47] <Jon____> or a de minimis
[2013-09-18 12:26:49] <KatyLove> But we wouldn't be looking for individual donors,
[2013-09-18 12:26:59] <KatyLove> we are looking for institutional donors and funders.
 [2013-09-18 12:27:15] <Jon____> Fine - just checking
[2013-09-18 12:27:15] <wolliff> (Other grants.)
[2013-09-18 12:27:17] <KatyLove> We're looking for a donor/grantmaker/funder that would have given your organization a grant.
[2013-09-18 12:27:29] <wolliff> That's a great question, Jon.
[2013-09-18 12:27:34] <KatyLove> Indeed.
[2013-09-18 12:27:55] <Jon____> So are we - do you know of any who;d like to spend money on Wikimania?!
[2013-09-18 12:28:12] <KatyLove> :)
[2013-09-18 12:28:39] <KatyLove> It's tough…we acknowledge that external fundraising is really tough.
[2013-09-18 12:29:12] <Jon____> One general comment I think the form is OK but for the bigger chapters it is hard to know what to leave out and then it can get quite long.
[2013-09-18 12:29:40] <SRientjes> I have been working on the FDC application today - especially the programme description. No problem with providing the information requested but do I have some freedom in rearranging the sequential order of objectives, key activities, timeframe
[2013-09-18 12:29:49] <wolliff> That's a good point, Jon: it can be a challenge.
[2013-09-18 12:30:25] <wolliff> We do encourage you to group your activities into programs.
[2013-09-18 12:30:46] <wolliff> That can will help with keeping the form high-level and concise.
[2013-09-18 12:31:08] <wolliff> The summary sections that specify a length of 1-2 paragraphs or 1-2 sentences should indeed be kept short.
[2013-09-18 12:31:29] <wolliff> Also, especially for larger organizations, we encourage you to link to external documents as well.
 [2013-09-18 12:31:39] <wolliff> Sometimes these will provide staff or the FDC with additional details they may seek.
[2013-09-18 12:32:04] <wolliff> We have noticed that proposals from the larger entities tend to be very rich in linked material.
[2013-09-18 12:32:19] <Jon____> Fair point and we have so much of it.
[2013-09-18 12:32:48] <KatyLove> @SRientjes - are you talking about the order in which the questions are addressed in the program section of the proposal form?
[2013-09-18 12:33:00] <SRientjes> Yes indeed!
[2013-09-18 12:33:16] <wolliff> Can you offer us some insight into why that would be hepful, Sandra?
[2013-09-18 12:33:19] <wolliff> *helpful
[2013-09-18 12:33:32] <wolliff> We do strongly prefer to keep the order of the questions consistent.
[2013-09-18 12:33:43] <wolliff> That way we can understand the forms across entities when considering many proposals.
[2013-09-18 12:33:50] <wolliff> But we are very interested in your reasons for asking.
[2013-09-18 12:33:59] <KatyLove> That will make it easier for the review by the FDC and the community especially
[2013-09-18 12:34:22] <SRientjes> Ok I will try to explain. Difficult to do without pointing to our form!
[2013-09-18 12:34:56] <KatyLove> I'm looking at it :)
[2013-09-18 12:35:43] <SRientjes> You have programme - objectives - key activities -timing etc. I would like to list activities and timing per objective. Every programme having several different objectives in our case. Does this make sense?
[2013-09-18 12:36:28] <SRientjes> Meaning: not a whole list of objectives, then a whole list of activities, and another whole list of objectives.
[2013-09-18 12:37:03] <wolliff> Sandra, can you clarify? Do you mean you are listing more than one objective per program?
[2013-09-18 12:37:13] <SRientjes> Yes!
[2013-09-18 12:37:34] <Jon____> So are we - prgrammes have many strands if they are to be grouped
 [2013-09-18 12:38:34] <wolliff> It is possible that a program may have several objectives; however, those objectives should be related to the program and not its specific activities.
[2013-09-18 12:39:09] <SRientjes> No, but the activities relate to a specific objective. And all objectives together are the programme...
[2013-09-18 12:39:35] <Kasia_home> The same for us if I understand correctly
[2013-09-18 12:39:42] <wolliff> The program groups related activities -- these activities are related by a common objective or objectives.
[2013-09-18 12:40:06] <Jon____> Or just a common title sometimes if we are to restrict the number
[2013-09-18 12:40:08] <KatyLove> Can one of you give an example of a program and perhaps we can work this through together?
[2013-09-18 12:40:50] <wolliff> Jon, the activities in your program should be related by more than just a common title — they should be tied to the same objective(s).
 [2013-09-18 12:42:05] <SRientjes> I will give it a go. Programme is Community. Objective 1: Recruit more editors. Objective 2. Support the existing community of editors.
[2013-09-18 12:42:08] <Jon____> In which case we end up with 35 programmes again which we were trying to aoid. So External Relations (one of the magnificent seven headings) has two different elements in in domestic and external with different aims and targets
[2013-09-18 12:42:39] <KatyLove> From the WMF Program Evaluation & Design team:
[2013-09-18 12:42:42] <KatyLove> A program is defined as: "a group of related projects and activities that share the same objective, are repeated on a regular basis, are based on a similar theory of change, and use similar processes and interventions to make that change happen." Programs include: Wiki Love Monuments, education programs, on-wiki contests (i.e. WikiCup), edit-a-thons, workshops on how Wikipedia works, and so forth.
[2013-09-18 12:42:50] <wolliff> Sandra, are you comfortable providing a link to your draft proposal form so we may all follow along?
[2013-09-18 12:42:55] <wolliff> I think an example will be useful.
[2013-09-18 12:43:16] <SRientjes> Hate to admit this... but I am drafting in google docs...
[2013-09-18 12:43:19] <KatyLove> (for the definition)
[2013-09-18 12:43:35] <wolliff> Oh, that's OK, Sandra :)
[2013-09-18 12:43:39] <Jon____> On the 'program is defined model' we would have 60 + is that OK?
[2013-09-18 12:44:02] <TheCavalry> I think that the WMF idea of a programme is rather different to everyone else's idea...
[2013-09-18 12:44:13] <wolliff> Hi, TheCavalry.
[2013-09-18 12:44:15] <wolliff> Please explain.
[2013-09-18 12:44:19] <KatyLove> @Jon____ - 60+ programs would probably not be a good way forward.
[2013-09-18 12:44:24] <KatyLove> Are you talking about activities? Line items?
[2013-09-18 12:45:44] <TheCavalry> wolliff: This is a little frustrating, but to us, a programme is not what you are defining a programme as
[2013-09-18 12:45:50] <SRientjes> Try this link:
[2013-09-18 12:46:15] <wolliff> OK, TheCavalry. Can you provide us with your definition so we can understand better?
[2013-09-18 12:46:15] <Jon____> e.g. Under 'Community' we have honed it down to five distinct activities and within oneof them there are about fifteen activiites. I expect it will be OK and we jus gdocs too!
[2013-09-18 12:46:28] <wolliff> Thanks for sharing, Sandra.
 [2013-09-18 12:46:37] <KatyLove> Yes, Sandra, that's very helpful.
[2013-09-18 12:47:06] <KatyLove> Can you tell us how you're defining programs at WMNL, Sandra?
[2013-09-18 12:47:18] <KatyLove> That would be helpful, too.
[2013-09-18 12:47:31] <SRientjes> O dear....
[2013-09-18 12:48:02] <KatyLove> :)
[2013-09-18 12:48:13] <KatyLove> By the way, this is great to see!
[2013-09-18 12:48:38] <KatyLove> In terms of community, anyway.
[2013-09-18 12:48:43] <SRientjes> We tend to see a programme as a cluster of objectives that fall under a wider common denominator. In this case: working for, with and in support of the WM community
[2013-09-18 12:49:05] <TheCavalry> An editathon and an education programme and an international project like Wiki Loves Monuments are all vastly different to actually create and run, so it's not possible to realistically write them down as programmes. We do not really use the term 'program': we have budgets, and projects. A budget is a portion of money set aside for spending ona a particular 'topic' - such as legal fees, or office costs, or education p
[2013-09-18 12:49:06] <TheCavalry> rogrammes, or travel grants. Within (and across) these budgets, we have 'projects' - such as an individuall editathon, or a single conference
 [2013-09-18 12:49:43] <Jon____> We see programmes as areas of work that will be definced against our objectives and the WMF's like Richard says
[2013-09-18 12:49:44] <SRientjes> A community is one of six programmes. The others being Content, WMNL, Global, Money, Governance
 [2013-09-18 12:50:50] <Maggie_Dennis> Hi, guys. Just to note that we have about 10 minutes in this scheduled time, although I understand KatyLove may be able to stay over a little longer.
[2013-09-18 12:50:55] <TheCavalry> Yes: to elaborate on what jon says, we have 'grouped together' certain budgets to fall under the WMF's objective headings, but it's not something we actually use...
 [2013-09-18 12:51:42] <TheCavalry> we only really use those definitions for the FDC, and they're not ideal: we spend almost nothing on tech, and we spread our staff costs over budgets, rather than having a single 'staff cost'
[2013-09-18 12:52:58] <KatyLove> Let me say that's there's no one right answer.
 [2013-09-18 12:53:04] <Kasia_home> :)
[2013-09-18 12:53:17] <KatyLove> This conversation is a really important one, and one that is being led here at WMF by the Program Design & Evaluation team.
[2013-09-18 12:53:39] <Jon____> Love and good fathe (with some SMART targets) will see us through but is that Katy Love or True Love?
[2013-09-18 12:53:45] <KatyLove> But I understand not everyone is on the same page here
[2013-09-18 12:54:16] <KatyLove> I'll never say @Jon____ …  ;)
[2013-09-18 12:54:46] <KatyLove> In terms of our conversation here with @TheCavalry and @Jon____ I wonder if we could discuss more offline because we seem to have some major distance in our way of approaching tehse concepts.
 [2013-09-18 12:54:59] <KatyLove> @SRientjes - thanks for sharing how you approach it.
[2013-09-18 12:55:06] <KatyLove> Program(mes) that is.
[2013-09-18 12:55:30] <KatyLove> I think one area where I may differ is that "community" to me would be more clearly a program if it had an objective with it.
[2013-09-18 12:55:43] <KatyLove> Like you mention in the form
[2013-09-18 12:55:50] <KatyLove> as supporting and mobilizing volunteers and editors
 [2013-09-18 12:56:34] <Jon____> We could do that - onlt 4/7th of the way through my first draft so a little prem.
 [2013-09-18 12:57:43] <SRientjes> Well, for WMNL the programme Community has three objectives. And if you prefer I could deal with these objective as programmes for the purposes of the FDC form. But then we would end up with about 18 programmes?
[2013-09-18 12:57:52] <Jon____> Time to reflect - I'm off while the sun is still shining - thanks everyone.
[2013-09-18 12:58:02] <SRientjes> By Jon!
[2013-09-18 12:58:02] <wolliff> @Jon - it's probably still a good idea to discuss it soon.
[2013-09-18 12:58:08] <wolliff> Bye, Jon!
[2013-09-18 12:58:35] <KatyLove> Sandra, I think your approach here is right to have one program here--
 [2013-09-18 12:58:48] <KatyLove> the important thing is that the objectives are all related
[2013-09-18 12:59:21] <wolliff> *All* of the activities in the program should be achieving the objectives, even if there are multiple related objectives.
[2013-09-18 12:59:44] <Kasia_home> We have 3 programms that group projects with the same causal chain and the same ultimative objective, then we have operational targets for 2014 (which are part of the causal chain) and some example activities - where could we list the operational targets according to your form?
[2013-09-18 13:00:02] <Maggie_Dennis> I just want to note that Garfield and Winnifred are going to have to leave us. Technically our time is up, and they have other obligations.
[2013-09-18 13:00:14] <KatyLove> CAn you define 'operational targets?'
[2013-09-18 13:00:22] <Maggie_Dennis> Thanks, gbyrd; wolliff for joining us. :)
 [2013-09-18 13:00:31] <KatyLove> Thanks so much @gbyrd and @wolliff !
[2013-09-18 13:00:35] <WereSpielchqrs> As a practical example, one editathon might have the objective of improving quality, another might be increasing participation, a third addressing systematic bias. To us those are three editathons in our GLAM program, but to the FDC those are three separate programs
 [2013-09-18 13:00:47] <wolliff> (I will be lingering here if that continues, but need to be in another meeting at the same time so may not be prompt in responding.)
[2013-09-18 13:00:57] <KatyLove> One editathon is not a program though, would you agree?
[2013-09-18 13:01:03] <Kasia_home> these are thing that we would like to achieve in 2014 and we will have repsective indicators for them
[2013-09-18 13:01:06] <Maggie_Dennis> As I mentioned earlier, KatyLove can stay a little longer. If any of you cannot, of course, logs for this will be posted on Meta.
[2013-09-18 13:01:06] <Kasia_home> no its not
[2013-09-18 13:01:09] <KatyLove> One ediathon would be an activity to accomplish part of a larger goal
[2013-09-18 13:01:17] <Kasia_home> yes
[2013-09-18 13:01:45] <KatyLove> Thanks @Maggie_Dennis too for staying on with us for a bit longer!
[2013-09-18 13:01:57] <WereSpielchqrs> No in our way of thinking GLAM would be a program which contains many editathons
[2013-09-18 13:02:04] <KatyLove> Can you give an example @Kasia_home of an opp. target?
[2013-09-18 13:02:39] <KatyLove> Yes, that makes sense to me @WereSpielchqrs. What's/re the objective(s) of the GLAM program(me) to WMUK?
 [2013-09-18 13:03:53] <TheCavalry> Katy: Our 'programme' for GLAM that WSC pointed out is here:
[2013-09-18 13:04:02] <TheCavalry> As you can see, it's a conglomeration of budgets
[2013-09-18 13:04:11] <KatyLove> Yes, the budgets aren't the issue in my mind
[2013-09-18 13:04:23] <KatyLove> the budget follows all of the activities in the program, no?
 [2013-09-18 13:05:08] <wolliff> @TheCavalry: we see many activities listed here as well as a staffperson. Does the GLAM program have an objective?
[2013-09-18 13:05:34] <KatyLove> I was just typing that, @wolliff - I think GLAM in itself is definitely a program. But I would love to know what the objective is.
[2013-09-18 13:06:00] <WereSpielchqrs> GLAM is about improving quality, addressing systematic bias, improving editor retention, but different GLAM opprtunities may be more trgeted at some aspects than others.
[2013-09-18 13:06:41] <Kasia_home> operational target example: easy to use support structure for all wikimedia projects (de community) with clear support criteria. Would that be ok?
[2013-09-18 13:06:59] <TheCavalry> @wolliff As WereSpielchqrs says. However, those aren't activities listed under GLAM: they're budgets! :-)
[2013-09-18 13:08:31] <KatyLove> Thanks @WereSpielchqrs for the definition. I understand and agree that some activities will focus on different aspects.
[2013-09-18 13:08:36] <KatyLove> We're on the same page about that.
[2013-09-18 13:08:41] <SRientjes> I am wondering: are we now taking a different approach to defining programmes than for the last FDC round?
[2013-09-18 13:09:29] <KatyLove> @Kasia_home - still not sure I understand. a support structure with clear criteria?
[2013-09-18 13:09:57] <Kasia_home> hmm maybe I wasnt quite succesful with translating from German:)
[2013-09-18 13:10:00] <wolliff> @WereSpeilchqrs: it seems that this is a group of themed activities and not a program in this case. A program, for example, might have editor retention as its objective and include activities not only in the GLAM sector but also other types of activities that achieve editor retention. Similarly, activities focused on improving content might be in the same program even if some of them are GLAM-themed and others are not.
[2013-09-18 13:10:11] <wolliff> *WereSpielchqrs
[2013-09-18 13:10:13] <KatyLove> @SRientjes - you'll see on the proposal form that there is the same definition of program(me):
[2013-09-18 13:10:22] <KatyLove> Program / initiative: A set of activities sustained over a period of time which have a specific objective or goal.
[2013-09-18 13:10:22] <KatyLove> A set of activities sustained over a period of time which have a specific objective or goal.
[2013-09-18 13:10:25] <KatyLove> So that hasn't changed.
[2013-09-18 13:10:35] <KatyLove> We noticed last year that entities tackled the question very differently.
 [2013-09-18 13:11:02] <KatyLove> As I have mentioned there is a team at WMF leading the conversation on asking the movement how we define program(me)s and metrics, and then how we evaluate them
[2013-09-18 13:11:09] <KatyLove> This is still a work in progress, as many of you know
[2013-09-18 13:11:42] <KatyLove> The reason there are a set of questions under each program category is so that all the same information is shared across each program.
[2013-09-18 13:11:54] <KatyLove> Those questions should guide the text shared in that section
 [2013-09-18 13:12:18] <TheCavalry> KatyLove, will that team be creating programme metrics etc for the WMF, or for the entire movement? Because it seems like currently, the definition of a programme is not something that most of us can use
[2013-09-18 13:12:39] <Maggie_Dennis> Hi, guys. Katy has to relocate - the conference room she booked is being claimed by its next possessor. :)
[2013-09-18 13:12:41] <Maggie_Dennis> She'll be right back.
 [2013-09-18 13:13:54] <KatyLove> Hi everyone, I'm back--sorry for momentarily stepping out (I was bumped from a room
[2013-09-18 13:13:57] <KatyLove> )
[2013-09-18 13:14:10] <KatyLove> And now I need to move again
[2013-09-18 13:14:16] <KatyLove> Please give me 2 mins
[2013-09-18 13:14:52] <Maggie_Dennis> Our office is crazy crowded. Hard to find space for something like this. :)
[2013-09-18 13:15:12] <KatyLove> Here I am.
[2013-09-18 13:15:12] <Maggie_Dennis> The advantage of working remotely, as I do.
[2013-09-18 13:15:16] <Maggie_Dennis> Welcome back, KatyLove!
[2013-09-18 13:15:17] <janstee> YaY
[2013-09-18 13:15:19] <wolliff> We're all settled in now.
[2013-09-18 13:15:24] <Maggie_Dennis> Oh, and wolliff!
[2013-09-18 13:15:46] <KatyLove> Thanks @Maggie_Dennis. New room.
[2013-09-18 13:16:11] <SRientjes> I used the break to put some food in the microwave!
[2013-09-18 13:16:11] <KatyLove> @Kasia_home - can you try another one?
 [2013-09-18 13:16:18] <KatyLove> opperational target?
[2013-09-18 13:16:24] <KatyLove> Have a nice cup of tea with you @SRientjes ? :)
 [2013-09-18 13:16:40] <KatyLove> After this I will get one.
[2013-09-18 13:18:24] <KatieChan> I have to bid you all farewell
[2013-09-18 13:18:25] * KatieChan waves
[2013-09-18 13:18:28] * KatyLove waves back
[2013-09-18 13:18:30] <wolliff> Goodbye, KatieChan.
[2013-09-18 13:18:32] <wolliff> See you later.
[2013-09-18 13:18:33] <SRientjes> Bye Katie!
[2013-09-18 13:18:35] <KatyLove> It was great to see you @KatieChan!
 [2013-09-18 13:18:50] <KatyLove> @Kasia_home - do you want to try another opperational target? I agree it may be a translation issue
[2013-09-18 13:18:57] <Kasia_home> Ok, another try: We want more community member to be aware of our community support offers and we want more of them to use it -> this should lead to motication increase and in the end to more content production
 [2013-09-18 13:20:21] <KatyLove> So the objective is content production, @Kasia_home ?
[2013-09-18 13:20:24] <Maggie_Dennis> Hi, guys. As you know, we've run a little over. Katy can give us about 10 more minutes.
[2013-09-18 13:20:33] <Kasia_home> yes the ultimative objective is more content
[2013-09-18 13:20:39] <KatyLove> OK- got it.
[2013-09-18 13:20:51] <KatyLove> So the opperational target is the community support offer?
[2013-09-18 13:20:59] <KatyLove> (Sorry, this may be really obvious!)
[2013-09-18 13:21:12] <KatyLove> I'm just not familiar with the term
[2013-09-18 13:21:19] <Kasia_home> raising the awarness and better community support offer, yes
[2013-09-18 13:22:38] <WereSpielchqrs> Re Community support offers - you would probably expect to also get better quality nd better editor retention. Remember on the ground most programmes will support multiple objectives.
[2013-09-18 13:22:43] <KatyLove> That's the opperational target then @Kasia_home ?
[2013-09-18 13:22:48] <SRientjes> the number of community members making use of the various means of support offered by WMDE had increased by xx %
[2013-09-18 13:23:00] <KatyLove> Agreed @WereSpielchqrs
[2013-09-18 13:23:04] <Kasia_home> exactly
[2013-09-18 13:23:11] <KatyLove> Yes, I see.
[2013-09-18 13:23:33] <wolliff> Yes, Sandra, that would be a good example of an indicator.
[2013-09-18 13:23:35] <KatyLove> So this may be a difference in words--as we would call that an indicator
[2013-09-18 13:23:38] <KatyLove> jinx @wolliff
[2013-09-18 13:23:41] <wolliff> :)
[2013-09-18 13:23:54] <KatyLove> is that what you're saying is the opperational target @Kasia_home ?
[2013-09-18 13:24:17] <Kasia_home> yes more or less
[2013-09-18 13:24:22] <KatyLove> OK great
[2013-09-18 13:24:52] <Maggie_Dennis> 5 minute warning, guys.
[2013-09-18 13:25:01] <Maggie_Dennis> (Well, 5 1/2)
[2013-09-18 13:25:01] <wolliff> Thanks, Maggie.
[2013-09-18 13:25:04] <wolliff> ;)
 [2013-09-18 13:26:23] <SRientjes> So is this mainly confusion about terminology?
[2013-09-18 13:26:48] <SRientjes> And can we sort it out between now and October 1?
[2013-09-18 13:26:52] <KatyLove> So @Kasia_home to finish that off, please do include those indicators in your programs for sure
[2013-09-18 13:26:59] <Kasia_home> yes we will
[2013-09-18 13:27:06] <KatyLove> Or opperational targets that is
 [2013-09-18 13:27:24] <KatyLove> In the proposal form, it asks for objectives to be "SMART"
[2013-09-18 13:27:27] <KatyLove> which includes Measurable
[2013-09-18 13:27:39] <KatyLove> and metrics are measurable, so that percentage target would be key
[2013-09-18 13:28:15] <KatyLove> Which confusion @SRientjes needs to be sorted? The opperational target one I think is ok, right @Kasia_home, or do you still have questions?
[2013-09-18 13:28:40] <KatyLove> As for @TheCavalry 's question, I know that one hasn't been answered yet
[2013-09-18 13:28:44] <wolliff> That does not mean that objectives and indicators are the same — "measurable" means the objective listed can be measured (it is possible to measure it). The indicators are requested subsequently.
[2013-09-18 13:28:54] <Kasia_home> we will include both: targets (get more community members to use the support) and the metric (increased percentage)
[2013-09-18 13:28:59] <KatyLove> Great.
 [2013-09-18 13:29:07] <Maggie_Dennis> Okay, guys. We need to wrap up.
 [2013-09-18 13:29:36] <Maggie_Dennis> If you have any additional questions, please email
[2013-09-18 13:29:39] <SRientjes> OK - this was helpful!
[2013-09-18 13:29:44] <Maggie_Dennis> I'll be posting the logs in just a few minutes.
[2013-09-18 13:29:55] <Maggie_Dennis> Thank you, guys, for coming to the office hour and a half and asking such great and involved questions. :D
[2013-09-18 13:30:08] <Maggie_Dennis> Thank you, KatyLove and wolliff, for sticking around.
[2013-09-18 13:30:19] <KatyLove> @Maggie_Dennis thank you so much. @TheCavalry : I will get you some answers.
[2013-09-18 13:30:22] <wolliff> Thanks to you Maggie.
[2013-09-18 13:30:31] <KatyLove> It's not my team, which is why I can't answer for them. :)
 [2013-09-18 13:30:46] <KatyLove> I will put you in touch with @janstee
[2013-09-18 13:30:51] <wolliff> @WereSpielchqrs: I am understanding that you are giving the example of an activity that could achieve two different objectives.
[2013-09-18 13:31:07] <TheCavalry> Thankyou Katy - me and janstee are tallking now and she is being very helpful
[2013-09-18 13:31:26] <KatyLove> Oh great, I am really glad to hear that
[2013-09-18 13:31:27] <SRientjes> Bye all!
[2013-09-18 13:31:30] <KatyLove> Bye @sa
[2013-09-18 13:31:30] <wolliff> We would suggest including that activity in one program related to its primary objective, and also to mention it in the program with the other objective.
[2013-09-18 13:31:32] <KatyLove> oops
[2013-09-18 13:31:37] <KatyLove> Bye @SRientjes! Thanks for coming
[2013-09-18 13:31:47] <KatyLove> Anyone with questions please contact us at
[2013-09-18 13:31:52] <wolliff> We are sorry we have to go — and hope to chat about this more soon.
 [2013-09-18 13:31:56] <wolliff> Thanks to all for the great questions.
[2013-09-18 13:31:58] <KatyLove> Please follow up with any questions!
[2013-09-18 13:32:01] <wolliff> Goodbye, everyone!
[2013-09-18 13:32:02] <KatyLove> Yes, thanks all so much!
 [2013-09-18 13:32:08] <KatyLove> Especially @wolliff and @Maggie_Dennis
[2013-09-18 13:32:12] * KatyLove waves goodbye
[2013-09-18 13:32:32] <Maggie_Dennis> Thanks everybody. :) Off to post the logs!