Open main menu

Organizational structureEdit

Could you expand on the reasons on you having more then on level of management. I think it is important that the work environment among the employed staff should as much as possible resemble the community culture, ie very crative and selfgoing. Do you think your mgmt strucre supports or impedes this workculture, I see as wanted?Anders Wennersten (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anders, we're drafting our answers to both your questions. We'll publish them today or tomorrow at the latest. Just so you know your questions as been seen and are going to get answers soon :) Best, Schiste (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend making all positions voluntary positions, such as the Executive Director and all of the managers, and especially the "5 Civil volunteers". Apteva (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anders, thanks for your question. There definitely is a need of more than one level of management. We tried to have a flat structure, and it's not efficient. And when I say efficient, I mean that it generated frustration for everyone. For the board, the chapters members and the employees. There's a need for clear leadership and management structure.
Yes this is different from how the Wikimedia Community works. But those are two very different structures. On the projects, if someone stops checking for orphan articles, well it's ok, perhaps someone will pick that up in two weeks. For us, we need to ensure tasks get done in a timely manner. We also need people to have an oversight capacity, to be able to have a global vision of what we do in detail, and people in charge of managing employees. Management isn't just about who is the boss of whom, but it is mostly about having someone in charge to ensure his staff feels well in the organization, get the proper training to get their job done, etc. A manager also has a mentoring role, and one person cannot do that for everyone. You cannot expect one person to be able to bolster a communication manager and a GLAM project manager skills. So you need different persons.
That being said, we're currently working with a HR consulting company and part of their job is to make recommendations regarding our structure. We will adapt to their recommendations if possible.
Lastly, management structure does not support or impede anything, it just shows who answers to whom. Weither Wikimedia France employees are able to be autonomous and enjoy their work is, mostly, a different thing. Even a flat structure could totally remove their autonomy. In fact, we believe structure helps having people more autonomous in their work as they perfectly know where their autonomy starts and ends, what they're responsible for and who's responsible about what.
I hope this answers your question, but feel free to continue this discussion because it is one, as you might imagine, that we have had for months (years?) and, I hope, will keep on having. Because as long as we have it it means we still want our employees to feel well in Wikimedia France and be able to do their jobs at their best and in the best condition possible at the time. Schiste (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Organizational growthEdit

Could you please expand on the reasoning behind your plan to go från 5 to 15 employee. Such an expansion rate put a lot of stress on an organzaion, how are you thinking handling it pracically gicing al new employye basic intrdocuition and support. Do you plane for lower efficiensy during the expansion? Have you considered doing this expsnsion in smaller steps in order to get a more managable situation?Anders Wennersten (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anders, thanks for your question, again ^^. So regarding the organizational growth. You asked different questions, we'll try to answer all of them but if an answer is lacking please tell us.
First "expand on the reasoning behind your plan to go from 5 to 15 employees". We can't just say we "go from 5 to 15 employees". As of now, we have 6 employees, one started its long-term internship this week. Second, the 9 new employees can't all be put in the same bucket:
  • Executive director : most delicate part since the exact mission of the job is being defined by a HR firm. But he will only interacts with board member and existing employees. His arrival will represent a decrease in workload for everyone, though mostly for the board, and will make employees life easier as he'll have power to make decisions.
  • Education & Research, GLAM, and Francophonie projects manager : of course during the transition, each of these programs will slow down. That is expected and planned, the recruitment also have been planned for the period when those programs have an organic decrease of activity. GLAM and Francophonie transition will be the easiest since Adrienne is currently doing these jobs and she will manage them directly. Education & Research will be a little more tricky since the future employee will have to learn from Carol Ann but will be managed by Adrienne. That being said, our offices are small, and interactions between employees is really easy.
  • Volontaires Civiques : This 5 people, in organigram, are only one case for a reason. As they'll work remotely with their local Wikimedia community and will be managed by one person who will be fully dedicated to their support, training and management, they, virtually, have little impact on the rest of the staff. Moreover, for this year, they're a 1-year program. During this year, and at the end of it, we will assess whether they are efficient or not, if the program should be reconducted and if it should be modified or not. We don't consider them as part of our staff but as a 1-year program.
On the reasonning. As you noted the recruitements focus mainly in programs per se and on civic volunteers, the rational behind it is that we're currently not able to answer the workload we're facing. Current employees do much overhours and have to decline lot of requests. Hence the recruitement of project managers on very specific areas (GLAM, Francophonie and Education). As you can see, none of these areas is new to us, these recruitements happen on fields we already have many projects going-on. Then you have the civic volunteers.
We believe a chapter has the power to bolster local communities. To create bonds, physical opportunities to meet and share. We believe that is part of the answer to the decline of our editorship. But believing it is not enough, we have to test it, that's what we're gonna do. We picked 5 cities where there will be a civic volunteer. Some cities will already have an active community, others won't. The goal is that in one year we'll be able to report back to the movement and say whether we were able, as a chapter, to support the community growth, and under what conditions, so, perhaps, other chapters could use that in their turn.
So a growth from 6 full time permanent employees to 10 + 5 civic volunteers over 12 month, including one manager, seems, to us, a perfectly healthy and manageable growth. If you want, we can also upload a timetable for those recruitements so you can see we made them span over few month to decrease organizational risks. This is a smaller version of growth, if we had to hire as much as we "need" to do perfectly everything we want, we would need twice that number of employees. But that was not a healthy growth, so we went for that smaller step, from 6 permanent staff to 10. I hope this answered your questions. Schiste (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the proposal formEdit

Please remember that changes to the proposal form may only be made with the written approval of FDC Staff, and should be requested by an authorized representative of the organization here on the discussion page. Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 22:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi that is understandable. Would it be ok for us to resume the typo fixed showed in this diff please? They don't change the content and it fixes some typo, including one pretty important. Thanks Schiste (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Schiste! Those changes are approved, but please do correct them by striking through the old text and writing the new text by its side, as in, "258,984$25,898$." Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I reintroduced the suggested change about the figure, by strinking the previous figure. Else, I understand the FDC wants a consistent version which is quite immutable, but I don’t understand what is wrong with changing the two other very cosmetic typos (extra parenthesis and wrong link to an inexistant page). ~ Seb35 [^_^] 00:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making the approved change. We do very much appreciate you taking the time and care to look through the proposal so carefully. We strive to be very clear and consistent about the no changes policy, to ensure that the process is as fair as possible. Thanks again, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have no opinion about the question but I wonder if it would not preferable in this case either to protect the page (this is perhaps too much) either to add in the first lines of the wikitext a comment with a big warning to make it clear for people not to edit without asking on the talk page. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 22:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Both good suggestions. We did already add text to the template at the top of the page in bright blue that requests that the page is not edited without permission, but it is a great idea to also add an edit warning in the wikitext that would visible after the User has already clicked "Edit." We've considered protecting the pages but haven't yet found that necessary as people still generally seem to follow the guidelines. Thanks again for your attention to this, Seb35. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


hello what I propose to do is a group for Mexicans so we can write and do many things about our culture and we have the same opportunities to have a computer. thanks --Roedor25 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your comment but I think you were misled by the confusing banners: you won't find an answer here, you should probably ask the people at Wikimedia México. Cheers, Nemo 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying questions from FDC StaffEdit

Thank you very much for the time and effort you have put into this proposal. We appreciate it! We have some initial questions about this proposal, listed below, and may follow up with some program-specific questions once these are answered. Thank you for taking the time to respond to our questions. If we have not understood some aspect of your proposal correctly, please do use this as an opportunity to provide more clarity. Please respond inline or create a new section if necessary. Many thanks! Best regards, KLove (WMF) (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. Growth rate: WM FR is proposing growth from a budget of US$ 635,818 to US$ 2,434,763, which would be a very large growth rate of 283% within one year. Such a rapid rate of growth is not consistent with the guidelines presented in the FDC Framework, which suggest a maximum increase to 120% of the total budget (or a 20% increase). Can you please explain why WM FR plans to grow so quickly, and how WM FR would manage this rapid growth?
    The budget presented in this proposal includes the 778K€ dedicated to the FDC. So actually our growth is of 123% this year. This indeed is an important growth in percentage but, in number of employees, it's much more understandable. Wikimedia France is right at the step where in a short amount of time an organization grows quickly. The first employees is the first big step, the second one is when your core employees are not enough to fulfill your missions and you expand quite quickly in one year (this is consistent to most organisation, including Wikimedia organisations if we look back at WMF or WMDE). The 20% growth is a good ratio once you're over the professionalization step. WMFr is actually going through it.Schiste (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. To what extent were members of WM FR and other community members engaged in the development of the proposal?
    This proposal is based on both our budget and program plan.
    Our 2013 program plan was drafted in early November on our wiki, mainly by the chapter staff and based on discussions with the thematic workgroups. Members were invited to comment on the wiki, on the mailing lists and during a Skype call with the staff. It was reworked after the results of the first FDC round.
    The 2013-2014 budget was developed by the staff and board, and published at the beginning of February, and approved by the members the same month.
    Members had the possibility to step in and work with us on the budget, the program and even that very proposal. Even though, few members did participate in the end. Schiste (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. WM FR has a number of partnerships. Which partnerships will require the most attention over the coming year and how will they be managed?
    The Afripedia partnership should be the one that will need the most attention as it involves numerous partners and has an international scale. We also have several smaller partnerships that, as a whole, generates a large amount of work - but we believe that taking part in smaller, volunteer-based projects is also part of our mission. Schiste (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. Are any funds allocated to pay WCA membership dues?
    No, just like our previous proposal we did not include WCA membership costs in our budget as nothing is defined as of now. Schiste (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  5. In Table 8 the largest program is the Wikimedia Movement, with a budget of over $1 million USD. What is that program and how does it link to the 7 programs listed in the proposal?
    This $1M budget includes the money raised by WMFr and transferred to the FDC − this amounts for 97% of this line.
    For the sake of consistency, we used the same separation that in our official budget, voted by the General Assembly. This budget presents the FDC as an expense to “sustain the movement”, not as a funding, this presentation only shows the financial flow from Wikimedia France bank account to the movement. This presentation is the only one which is financially accurate ; but we do realise the money raised by WMFR belongs to the movement. Indicated under table 8 is the total amount of expenses without the transfer to the FDC. Schiste (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  6. Which of your seven programs are the main priorities for WM FR? Do you prioritise according to funding or staff time or both?
    I would tend to say all of them as the growth plan reflects our needs to fulfill all of them. That being said, we organically have a strong focus to give higher priority to projects involving volunteers and those with a high cost/efficiency ratio. In this case, we would tend to prioritise the following programs: Community Support, Expand Free Content, Reach New Contributors, and Afripédia. The reasonning behind that is that those are the projects that have the most impact regarding the on-going movement issues and/or contribute the most to the movement goals. Schiste (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
We hope that our answers to your questions have made our proposal more understandable to you. Please lease ask any follow up question you need to develop on specific points. Schiste (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your questions ! We are preparing the answers, they will be coming soon :-) Benji 20:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

SMART criteriaEdit

hi, could you be a bit more elaborate on the SMART criteria for your programs? It would seem that not all of them actually give concrete measures of success... Pundit (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pundit, what specific programs would you think have not enough concrete measures of success? Thanks for your answer it will make ours better for you and all the other readers :) Schiste (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The thing is that most programs do not give precise measures (what is going to be measured? why is this a good measure? what quantified result will be considered a success? what is the deadline for this measure to be fulfilled in terms of an exact date?). Pundit (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pundit. I see what you mean. The actual proposal is a presentation of the main activities of Wikimedia France and contain the main elements of our program and goals. We have published on meta a more detailled version of our programs see Wikimedia France/Programs 2013-2014/en. Our 2013 - 2014 programs have been built based on the 2012 program report we did beforehand Wikimédia France/Annual report 2012.
For the programs presented in the proposal we tried to provide as much as possible information without making the document too hard/long to read. As you can see for the first program (“Community Support”) as an example, metrics are specified in the first question: microfunding → « 30 demands in 2013 » ; photographers support → « 9,000 photos "supported by Wikimédia France" in 2013 ; of which 5% of photos with a Commons Label, and over 80 different uploaders » which are pretty detailled metrics. As of the "why are those measures", we can detail on that but this would make the FDC proposals much longer to write and to read. If you have questions about the metrics of a specific preogram, be bold ask for them :) Schiste (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Perhaps it would be a good idea to post the relevant measurements for the ease of reading the project as well? Otherwise it is difficult to establish the links between each program and the planned SMART goals (and this has been the main reason for this section, I think). cheers Pundit (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll think of a way of doing it. That being said, while preparing the proposal we had a hard time figuring out how to show correctly our goals and how we measure them. We will probably make a feedback to the FDC regarding that as it is an issue we perceived and one you experienced too. Schiste (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Good idea! My experience is that defining SMART goals for projects is always difficult, and often helps reformulate the projects themselves. Through thinking about measurements, and through defining visible impact we often make projects better. This is one major reason why SMART criteria should not be discarded, the other is obviously persuading the readers that your work is indeed meaningful, useful, and also that you know exactly what you do and why you do it :) Pundit (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Totally agreed. SMART goals are also proven, to us at least, really useful to ascertain programs efficiency. Like what we were doing in high schoools, thanks to smart goals, we had hard data to see that it wasn't really efficient to train directly students. So now, we're changing our approach and testing a new. I'm really fond of the tray-fail-learn-succeed approach, and for that SMARt are so useful. But now we have, all together, to find a way to have a FDC proposal form that actually shows SMART goals in a way that reflect the work of the chapter and is easily readable, which is not easy I think. But it's only the 2nd round of the FDC, I'm sure we'll get there :) best Schiste (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, and we are all learning in the process :) Updating SMART goals now may simply help in understanding and evaluating this particular project, other than that I am certain we all learn from round to round. Pundit (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


This is just a formatting issue, while putting euro after the amounts is fine, a dollar sign is normally placed in front of the amount. Apteva (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Apteva, your right, mistakes from different conventions sorry. As any modification now would need us to strike the former content of the proposal, I fear making that modification now would make the proposal less readable. I hope you understand, but we will not make it next time :). Best, Schiste (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Budget amountsEdit

Please could the budget amounts be clarified here? Table 2 says that you're asking for $748k from the FDC, expect to get $472k from non-FDC, and $97k from last round's FDC. That adds up to $1,317k. However, you're saying that your total budget is $2,435k - which is some $1,118k different. Please could you explain the source of this difference, which is significantly in excess of the cash in hand in Table 9? Is the total budget also somehow intended to include a grant to the WMF from last year's fundraiser? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for your question there is a slight misunderstanding here. The $2.4M figure fits our entity total money balance − meaning, in input, the expected $1.9M from the fundraising + $0.47M raised elsewhere + $0.1M from last-round FDC (see table 4 for details) ; and in output, the endowment to the FDC (~$1M) + our actual programs ($1,7M, see table 8) and staff expenses ($0.7M, see table 7). Does that make more sense to you? This presentation was meant to match the official document of our budget, voted by our General Assembly, for easier reading. Schiste (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Schiste. Many thanks for the clarification; things make more sense now. :-) Saying "endowment to the FDC" is wrong and somewhat confusing, though, as the money will (presumably) be going to the WMF rather than the FDC. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I had the same question and understood globally; it would be great to add a note to the Table 2 about the 801k€ endowment, but I don’t know if it is possible. In the details, I don’t understand how exactly is obtained the figure 571,299€, because, excluding non-FDC sources of 361,440€ (I aggree), I obtain « FDC request = 1,500,000€ - 801,700€ - 73,800€ = 624,500€ », given the net balance is 0€. I am missing something? ~ Seb35 [^_^] 01:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
@Mike well that's the tricky part, the most correct way to say it would be to say Wikimedia endowment, but well tricky.
@Seb I'll check on that and get back to you (I don't have the spreadsheet with me right now) Schiste (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
So there was a missing parameter in your calculation, the 10% from the fundraising total we keep to have it running. so FDC allocation = Expenses - Revenues - 10% fundraising - fundraising == 1,082,739 - 1,861,440 - 150,000 + 1,500,000. I hope this answer your question :) Schiste (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. And the FDC allocation of round 1 must not be considered in the calculation. I now just have a difference of 1€ with you because of the expense figure (1,082,739€ vs 1,082,740€), let’s say it’s ok :) ~ Seb35 [^_^] 23:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

growth rationaleEdit

As you surely know the general purpose for 120% capping for FDC funding is limiting the growth beyond safety limits. It is quite common for organizations, which grow too quickly, to get into trouble, and waste resources not because of bad will, but because of a too fast development simply. So, in general, any proposals which seem to be relying on a rapid increase in funding have to be even more persuasive in terms of showing that this increase is really crucial for the organization. In the case of small chapters such cases are not rare, as practically just employing the first full time staff member can result in a huge jump in numbers. However, with medium and large organizations it is much less typical, and especially then the rationale has to be outstanding. This is so in any case, but in your situation yet another factor matters: hiring an ED requires a particular effort and will surely not be easy, and rapid growth in the interim times may be difficult to manage. So, my question to you would be whether you can add to the rationale and show that your case has to be an exception, because it is the only way you can develop, grow, prosper :) Pundit (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pundit, you are totally right, a quick growth unprepared can be hurtful to an organization. We believe we are prepared to face it and let me explain why. First of all, as you say, such growth is expected in small organization, which we still are. You mostly have two steps where you expect to see such growth
  • when you hire your first employees
  • when you reach the point when you need to professionalize the organization
those are, usually, two separate times as the first employees tend to be some "jack of all trades". That is the situation we're currently in. Then you move toward a more organized structure where you have dedicated administrative people and when you expend your programs. That is the situation we're in. As you can see we do not hire anyone for a program we didn't do before. The one new thing, civic volunteers, will be handle by Carol Ann O'hare who has been with us for almost 2 years. The new employees, ED apart, are all managed or heavily related to employees that already are part of Wikimedia France for some time. This mitigates the structural risks. Regarding the ED, again you are right, hiring an ED is a lot of work. It also requires a really heavy recruitement process. To address both issues, we're getting the help of a HR consultancy company. They're performing an audit regarding Wikimedia France staff organization and will handle the recruitement of the ED. In the contract, they even provide support to the board for the first months and if something would go wrong with the new ED (from either side), they will perform a second recruitement process.
On top of all of that, the board with the staff has been working for a few weeks on management Tools, such as detailled planning, timesheeting Tools and reporting Tools. All of that, to ensure everything goes well and be able to forsee eventual issues before they happen.
We believe that all of those actions together provide us with a strong structure ready to get through that growth. I hope these answers your questions, please do follow-up on my answer if something is not clear :) Schiste (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this explanation. Just one comment: you mention that you still are a small organization, but your budget is not that small, as compared to other Wikimedia chapters :) I understand that you're comparing to other organizations. Pundit (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Les Français ne parlent pas aux Français ?Edit

Je trouve décevant - le mot est bien en dessous de ma pensée - que vous n'ayez pas utilisé le français pour formuler cette proposition, quitte à en proposer une version anglaise aux utilisateurs étrangers. Non seulement c'est discourtois vis-à-vis de vos compatriotes, mais de surcroit la présence d'une proposition française, qui se targue de soutenir l'afrique, devrait être une occasion d'avancer à visage découvert, dans la langue de cette culture qui est la nôtre et qui est largement active sur Wikipédia, à la fois comme sujet d'article et comme source faisant autorité, plutôt que de ramper ainsi, masqué d'une humble civilité diplomatique qui impose de s'adresser dans la langue dominante à ceux qui ont votre culture en partage.

En dehors de cela, je suppose que votre proposition est plutôt bonne; mais à dire vrai, je n'en sais rien, je n'ai pas pu la lire correctement. Sans aucun chauvisme, please accept my cordial support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jean.jul (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2013

Bonjour. Cette rédaction prend énormément de temps (salarié donc argent et bénévole) et en prendrait encore plus si rédigée aussi en français. Le but de rédiger en anglais est surtout d'être compris par le plus grand nombre, y compris par des personnes dont l'anglais n'est pas la langue maternelle.
Vous pouvez voir un résumé de la proposition, tel qu'il a été soumis au vote des membres de Wikimédia France. Léna (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
fr: Je regrette aussi un peu que ça ne soit pas en français, mais puisque c’est la première fois (enfin deuxième plutôt) qu’on soumet un programme au FDC, ça serait bien de le proposer aussi en français la prochaine fois, ça fait un point à améliorer. Par contre, il faudra s’organiser pour tout ce qui est traduisible à l’avance soit traduit (modèles divers), que les traducteurs disponibles pendant la période en question soient prévenus à l’avance, et probablement mettre en place le système de traduction sur la page pour gérer les mises à jour. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 10:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
en: I also regret a bit this page is not translated in French, but since it’s the first time (or rather the second) we submit a program to the FDC, it could be great to propose it also in French the next time; it is a point which can be improved. But, we must organize all that such that everything which can be translated in advance would be (various templates), that all translators available during this period would be warned in advance, and that the translation system would be turn on on this page to manage the updates. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 10:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
fr: Oui ça serait mieux. Il faudra en reparler une fois ce processus terminé, mais la rédaction de la demande est déjà très consommateur en temps, j'ai peur que la traduction ne soit très compliquée. Mais à réfléchir, on peut trouver des solutions je pense :)
en: Yes, that would be better. We will have to talk about it once the process is over, but writing such a proposal requires a lot of work already, and I fear that topping that with a translation it would mean much more work than we actually could do. That being said, this is a really issue and perhaps we can find a fitting solution Schiste (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I know enough French to tell that this is a whinge against having to do the application in English. I'm happy to assist in copy-editing pro bono any subsequent application by Wikimédia France, as long as it's not in an approaching-deadline period in my real-life work. Tony (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    To clarify: this is not exactly a whinge against having to do the application in English. The above user is disappointed that they were asked to review an application from a French entity written in English. FDC proposals have been advertised using CentralNotice − and (unless I am mistaken) there was a short period during which it was not made completely clear that the landing page would be in English.
    (That said, we do take note of your kind offer Tony − we will make sure to remember it ;-)
    Jean-Fred (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
When was that "short period", and what was the wording of the banner you saw? The French-language versions of the two banners we ran in this round clearly indicated (from the beginning) that the proposals are written in English:
  • "Envoyez vos commentaires sur les demandes faites (en anglais) par quatre organisations au Comité d'allocation des fonds (FDC)" [1]
  • "Merci d'examiner la demande de 571 299 € faite (en anglais) par Wikimedia France." [2]
"en anglais" means "in English", right?
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I see, my mistake then − I seemed to remember reading so (and it would have explained the reaction of the above user), but I can totally by mistaken (I should have put more conditional in my above statement). The text you quote is crystal clear, yes. Apologies for the confusion, thanks Tilman for clarifying. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify year-to-date financialsEdit

Can you please clarify the current year financials? What period do they cover? Does the projected final amount cover a whole year or part of a year? If it's just part of a year, can you please give an idea of what expenditure over the last twelve months (or some recent twelve month period) has been? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tango, just so you know Wikimedia France changed it's fiscal year from 01/01 to 31/12 to 01/07 to 30/06 in 2012. Knowing that, could you please specify what data you're missing from the proposal precisely? Just so I don't answer wrongly to your question due to a misunderstanding :) Thank you Schiste (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Because you've changed your fiscal year, you have had a year that wasn't twelve months long. It's not clear what period of time the numbers you have quoted for your current year refer to. Do they just cover 6 months? If so, can you please provide 12 month figures so we can make direct comparisons? --Tango (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok got it, I transfer that to our treasurer and get back to you as soon as possible, thank you for the clarification :) Schiste (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, so finally here is your answer :). As said we changed our fiscal year from 01/01 to 31/12 to 01/07 to 30/06 in 2012. Hence, we have had:

  • a first fiscal year during semester 1 of 2012, financial report
  • the current fiscal year from July 1st, 2012 to June 30th, 2013, where we have revised the plan budget on mid November after result of round1.
    • between July 1st and November 15th we had a total revenue of 84,864.20 € and a total expense of 237,282.01 €
    • budget for November 16th to June 30th inclued a total revenue of 110,300 € and a total expense of 540,300 € wich gives a total of 486,100 € for the expenses excluding the fundraising expenses. As the result of round1 was a bridge funding for WMFR, we have included the cash reserve in the total revenue of the budget (because it was planned to use it) which increased the total revenue up to 532,300 €
    • After revision of November the budget takes into account the real expenses and revenues of July to mid-November 2012 and the planned budget from mid-November 2012 to July 2013

Table 3 would looks like this with the revision of budget of November 2012:

Current fiscal year planned budget Year-to-date actuals Variance Projected final amount Variance
In currency requested In $US In currency requested In $US % In currency requested In $US %
July 1st → November 15th 2012 Revenue 84,864.20 € $ 111,002.31
Spending 237,282.01 € $ 310,364.69
Revision after round 1
November 16th, 2012 → June 30th, 2013
Revenue 532,300.00 € $ 696,248.00 558,545.00 € $ 730,576.00 104.93 % 559,117.00 € $ 731,325.00 105.04 %
Spending 486,100.00 € $ 635,818.00 195,042.00 € $ 255,114.00 40.12 % 391,215.00 € $ 511,709.00 80.48 %
Revision after round 1 (Total fiscal year)
July1st, 2012 → June 30th, 2013
Revenue 617,164.20 € $ 807,250.31 643,409.20 € $ 841,578.75 104.25 % 643,981.20 € $ 842,326.93 104.35 %
Spending 723,382.01 € $ 946,183.13 432,324.01 € $ 565,479.48 59.76 % 628,497.01 € $ 822,073.62 86.88 %

I hope this answers your question. And a special thank to our administrative assistant Nadia and to PierreSelim for compiling all those numbers :) Schiste (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's great - thank you very much! --Tango (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions from FDC Staff about programs for all entitiesEdit

Thank you for your responses to the questions on your proposal! The FDC and FDC staff appreciate the time and effort you continue to put into the discussion. We have a few more questions that we are asking all Round 2 entities to respond to about proposed programs. Please answer them as they apply to your proposal, and do let us know if any of them are unclear. Thank you in advance for your response; we know that this proposal process is time-consuming and challenging, and we sincerely appreciate your work to help us all better understand your proposed plan. Best regards, KLove (WMF) (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. Microgrants programs:
    • What types of activities will the entity fund through its microgrants program
    • Any activity that would support free knowledge as long as the amount remains quite small. Projects so far included buying reference books to help improve Wikipedia articles/Commons descriptions ; purchasing photo equipment such as lenses (owned by WMFr but lent to wikimedians) ; funding travel for people covering an event and taking pictures ; funding the rent of a booth for an exhibition, etc. That being said, so far, and it might remain so, we only provide grants to active wikimedian with a contributing track record. Schiste (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • How will the entity make sure the funds are spent on those activities?
    • The microgrant programs is live for more than a year and we either buy directly the stuff the grant is asked for or, especially for travels, we only reimburse with bills and proof of travels (invoices and boarding tickets for plane travels). Schiste (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • How are these activities related to the goal of the microgrants program?
    • The goal of the microgrant program is to support the community. Thoses grants often helps the community to improve the quality of the content (better references with books, better illustrations with professional lenses, etc.). All thoses micro-grants are reviewed by an internal committee to check whether each projects associated with a grant is within the scope of the chapters. If an activity isn't supporting free knowledge, it's not funded. Schiste (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • How will information about this program be visible to the community?
    • For the first month, the program was openned only to people we know, mostly current or former members of Wikimedia France. We wanted to use this first 18 month to test the process and improve it. We are currently make adjustements to it in order to ensure:
      • Decisions are taken quickly
      • The microgrant committee doesn't become a SPOF
      • The whole process scales to the openning of this grant to everyone
    • In the coming weeks we will roll the program out toward the global french community on a meta page and will advertise it on the local village pump. We most likely will provide to the community a regular feedback on what grantees have done and how they improved the projects. Actually already frequently inform French-speaking community about the committee on the frwp village pump. And on the french Wikipedia there's a presentation of the microfunds committee Schiste (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • How does the entity plan to track the results of this program?
    • Does the entity plan to make any international microgrants or grants (outside of its country)?
    • No, international fundings are not part of the microgrant program. If WMFr is to spend money abroad that is a board or ED level decision. That being said, if we don't seek to give international grants, we might on specific occasions provide some grants to francophonie related projects. If that was to happen, we will inform the grant committee to ensure one person, or one project, doesn't try to benefit from both grant system. Schiste (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Partnerships: This proposal highlights building partnerships as an important part of your entity’s plan, and as a key task for proposed staff. Is there additional information you can share about why partnerships are prioritized in your entity's strategy and about your strategy for pursuing partnerships? What will make a strong partnership?
    First things first, when we talk about partnership, we talk about signed contract between two, or more, partners. That being said, partnership in France are the best way to be recognized as a serious organization. They also usually open doors to other partnerships or to public fundings.
    Partnership based projects ensures a the other partners will commit for the whole project and won't disappear suddenly as there's a contract surrounding the project. We consider a partnership to be strong when there are mutual obligations and clear definition of the goals and metrics of the project. When all of the partner knows the boundaries of their actions.
    For the past few years, we have mainly signed partnerships with museums, universities, libraries, national or international institutions like the "Institut Français" or French-speaking University Agency (for Afripedia), and with ministry (like Ministry of Culture).
    Other reasons we seek official partnerships are:
    • Sustainable: Signed partnerships tend to have the projects last longer, evolve and get bigger than "unofficial" partnerships
    • Makes things official: especially the case with the french ministry of culture as the signing of the partnership happenned in the ministry and important people in the french culture world were invited, as long as journalists. Schiste (talk)
  3. Setting targets: In general, how does the entity set and monitor target numbers (e.g. workshops held, participants trained, articles downloaded, etc) and how does the entity share those targets with its community? When these targets are not achieved, how do you learn from the experience? If applicable, please share an example here.
    To be honnest, targets setting is something we're pretty new to. We first did it for our 2012 program, so we're still in the learning/adapting process. That being said, the first set of targets were defined as "ideal" objectives. For the 2013 - 2014 program, we built new targets based on the report made on the 2012 targets. We adapted what data we were tracking to fit our needs but also what is possible to do.
    Our targets, as seen in our proposal, revolves around different area:
    • Evangelization: How many new people were informed on how Wikimedia projects work
    • Growth of the editing community: How many people started editing the projects after one of our training session
    • Feedback: After some events we ask feedback from the participants, we ask them to rate the usefulness of our action
    • And more but that's detailed in the proposal
    • Regularly, at least quaterly, but we're moving to a monthly review, we review the efficientness of a project vs the targets. From there, we decide to keep the project running as it is, make it evolve slightly, dramatically or stop it. Best exemple would be our hoigh school project where, after some reports, it was clear that we spent a lot of time preparing trainings, training, following up and in the end had really little impact on the projects. So we decided to dramatically change the project and move from a in person training to educational kits to be provided to teachers. The targets has been changed and we'll decide what to do after few month going that way.Schiste (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. Diversity: How does the entity define diversity?
    During our preliminary work regarding the definition of our chapter's strategy, an orientation "increasing the diversity of Wikimedia projects readers, contributors as well as (active) members of our organization" was defined. We realize that "diversity" can mean lot of things : age, socio-economic status, level of education, cultural background, geographical situation, gender... We believe that diversity is an inclusive term and that, as an organization, we have to focus on specific sociotype. With the programs we had we were mainly getting new editors from science background (researchers) or museum employees. One of the goal of the civic volunteers is to widen the diversity of the people we engage with. With local presence in say, Toulouse, we will be able to talk with local association and get to engage with people we don't normally have contact with. Schiste (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  5. Continuity: With continual changes in board composition, how does your entity ensure goals are met and organizational focus is steady?
    6 years ago we moved from a board members system to a 2 years term seats system. Now the board is renewed by half which ensures there's never more than half of new board members. This has been done avoid radical shift in the strategy, but also to have the organization running smoothly and not experiencing every year the massive arrival of new board members.
    On top of that, around the same period, the board decided that all of its decision, except the confidential ones (mostly legal or HR related), will be drafted and voted on the Wikimedia France members wiki. This ensure that even a member can keep track that there's no shift from a past decision.
    Finally, the AGM votes the budget, this means that even if a board would want to dramatically shift WMFr strategy, it still would have to have it approved by the AGM. Schiste (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  6. Growth: How is your entity planning for financial sustainability and budget growth over the next several years?
    Those are, I believe, two very different questions. Regard sustainability, we've already started to work on that. Sébastien Baijard, our fundraiser, is working on different actions to provide additional streams of income to Wikimedia France and lower our reliance on FDC allocation. The first things he's working on, and are getting set up, are the possibility to make a monthly donation directly to WMFR, which should increase the number of donations we receive directly outside of the fundraising period. That will be toped by two other actions aimed to donors. First one is a test, we will try to create a "ring of important donors". The goal is to create a special relationship with them and increase the rate of recurring donations from them. Second one is to improve our ways of communications with our donors, going to a more personnalized relationship and for them a more sustained flow of information of our actions. The work on donors is important, but we believe that in order to be sustainable we need to look for totally different streams of income:
    External fundings of specific programs. For specific programs we start to look for external fundings, would it be money or in-kind donation. We believe that, locally, it is much easier to find other organizations to fund a specific program rather than us as an organization. This is what we are actually doing with Afripedia where two other organizations are either giving us money or providing with important in-kind support. We work towards developing this kind of things.
    State-level subventions. As we try to have local projects, we believe we can get more support from local entities (city level and region level mostly) to support local programs. The rational behind that is that organizing local projects around Wikipedia can help highlight local culture, and cities and regions are particularly fond of that in France. With the arrival of civic volunteers we expect to be able to ask for much more support than we actually have.
    Now regarding our budget growth over the next several years. First of all, I fear, but I might be wrong, that there is confusion between our budget and the allocation we ask from the FDC in the mind of many people. FDC allocation does not fund 100% or our budget. Never has, never will. The goal is to reduce the FDC part to the minimum because as a "big chapter" we are in the capacity to go seek for other sources of revenue, that is why we hired Sébastien. By doing so we aim that, at worst, our FDC allocation not increase much over the coming years, and at best even diminishes. So FDC allocation staying at the same level or diminishing in the next few years (might be an increase next year as we're at the beginning of seeking other sources of funding, but that should be it).
    Regarding our budget, we expect our budget to be in the 2 digits growth over the next few years. How do we plan the budget growth. To be honest we don't. We plan our programs growth, our "HR" growth, but not our budget growth. Budget are numbers and they don't really mean anything (ok never show that to an account or to me, I'd go berzerk...). What I mean, is that as a non-profit organization we plan our programs, then our HR needs, then our budget. And from there we adapt our programs to fit reality.
    Crazy example, if tomorrow we find a way to provide Afripedia plugs to every school in Africa and India and we find partners to fund it, ship it and set it up. That would be a huge growth in our budget, but not a huge one structurally (would mean dedicated staff, but not that much in the end). So, no we do not plan our sheer budget growth but we plan our organizational growth. All that being said, the planning part is, until now, the one we are not excellent at. We started in August a strategic plan process with our members, but with internal issues met in Fall and the fundraising and now the FDC, this hasn't gone well yet. Still, that will be one of the first mission of the ED. Take the time to formalize the future of Wikimedia France, and the biggest part are not about the structure but about how we position ourselves within the movement and within the french culture/knowledge world. Schiste (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  7. GLAM: How does your entity determine which GLAM projects are of interest to volunteers and the community? Is there a system or process in place for this?
    Easier to answer the last question first. When a GLAM gets in touch with us, we first assess of their seriousness, understanding of free culture and legal constraints, their involvement. Then we draft with them a raw project definition. This raw project is presented to the members. This is when we can detect community interest. In fact we, as an organization, do not determine if a GLAM project is of interest to volunteers/the community, we let them tell us. Schiste (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for those interesting follow-up questions. We will answer them in the coming days. Schiste (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
First question answered, the rest is coming later on :) Schiste (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Schiste, for your thorough responses and your thoughtfulness. It is much appreciated! KLove (WMF) (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions from FDC Staff about WMFR's proposed programsEdit

We have some questions about WMFR’s programs. Please answer them here and let us know if any of the questions are unclear. Many thanks for your continued work on this proposal! Warm regards, KLove (WMF) (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. We are interested in how WMFR is approaching the sustainability of some of its programmatic activities that rely on partnerships. In particular, we are interested to know how WMFR will leverage its activities in the areas of Afripedia, workshops for seniors, and Territorial Development in order to reduce the reliance of the community and WMFR’s partners on WMFR’s intensive involvement. For each of these programs, how will WMFR identify and select local partners and volunteers, and how will WMFR continue to support these partners and/or the communities being served after each project is deployed?
    Good question. This one is a recurring discussion within the board, especially about Afripedia. It also is a hard question as it will depends on a lot of things we do not control.
    Anyway, as you might have understood, one of our goal this year, through the territorial development program, is to decrease reliance on WMFr direct ressources for program to be done. We have always said that we want WMFr to provide support to volunteers and not do thing in their stead. That was the initial idea, but we're facing, as are most of the chapters I guess, issues to bolster community involvement. That is clearly one of our priority for the coming year.
    Regarding Afripedia, we already have partners, what we lack is local community relay. This is why we increased our budget on french language activities. We believe WMFr support can help local communities develop in french speaking countries.
    For seniors, we're starting the program this year, so it is too soon to have identified how we will get the program to continue without WMF high involvement. As said earlier, Territorial Developement goal is to develop local communities. Even once the local community is active, we will let the civic volunteer in place to support the local community and help it achieve more things.Schiste (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. The goal of the Outreach program is to improve knowledge about how Wikimedia projects function, while the measures of success will track downloads and participant numbers. Even if these numbers are high, how will this will lead to increased participation (and turn participants into active contributors)?
    This is a tricky question, but that might be due to language. Anyway, is outreach sole objective is to increase participants or is to increase the number of people having a good grasp of what Wikimedia is? In the UNU-MERIT Survey it was stated, as the two main reasons to contribute, were:
    • I like the idea of sharing knowledge and want to contribute to it - 72.91%
    • I saw an error I wanted to fix : 68.78%
    So before they contribute, they have to understand that they can share knowledge and that they can fix errors. This is the main goal of outreach.
    Now we have activities where we can actually track if people become active contributors. Like Afripedia, where we know that over 100 people started to contribute thanks to that project. But for conferences, keynotes, etc... we can't track it. No one can. What we know however is that people start contributing only once they know how Wikimedia works and how they can edit, and our Outreach programs aim to explain that. Schiste (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for thos interesting follow-up questions. We will answer them in the coming days. Schiste (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding two additional questions below that have emerged as we continue to learn about your work and understand your proposal. Thank you for continuing to provide answers and insights; these are much appreciated.

3. The FDC is interested in learning more about how entities make strategic decisions around resource allocation to ensure high cost/efficiency ratio, as you mention in your proposal. Therefore, we’d like to ask a hypothetical question: if Wikimédia France were to execute this plan with half of your proposed hiring, which staff positions and programs would you prioritize?
"It's a trap". Joke aside, would we be in a normal year, we would pinpoint specific parts of all the main areas of our programs and reduce their size. As said in the proposal, our plan has a global coherence and if some parts can be lowered, unless we had a major setback in our funding, all of the main areas remain (we would go from 5 civic volunteers to 2 or 3, reduce our education and research efforts, reduce our francophonie efforts, etc) sor in the end we could remove 5 new employees. But this year is specific as the Territorial Developpement is the one brand new thing we'll do and represents half of the hiring we'll (even if as explained in aprevious answers civic volunteers can't be considered as regular employees). So If we had a major setback regarding our allocation request, we would postpone the Territorial Development program. Schiste (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Can you tell us more about the strategy for bringing on the 5 volontaire civiques: will the 5 volunteers be Wikimedians, or will they be working directly with local Wikimedians? What kind of profile will the volunteers have? If they are not Wikimedians, would they be well placed to do outreach activities?
The 5 volontaires viviques will be working with local wikimedian. They will support local wikimedians. Their goal will be to make local wikimedia life easier when organizing local projects. We know from the few active wikimedians we have that organizing projects takes a big tool, that they have to take more and more days off to participate in half a day meetings, etc. All of that, in the end, makes Wikimedian burns out and freak new people to get involved. Civic volunteers goal will be to make that easier. There's a meeting to go during the day, they'll go and make the report. A conference to organize, they handle it. Etc. We're looking for higly autonomous individual, soft leaders (by that I mean they would make people want to get involve but wouldn't push them). Them being wikimedian is not a criteria. Of course if they know about Wikimedia and how it works it's better, but that's not the main expected skill. At the beginning of the program, all civic volunteers will be trained by us, about their missions but also about the movement. Schiste (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

On behalf of the FDC staff, thank you very much for your continued engagement on this proposal review process. We sincerely appreciate it. KLove (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


  1. I wouldn't normally bother with semantics, except that three inexplicable terms – two at the start of the summary – are rather important to understanding the application: (a) what does "sensibilize" mean, please? I have no idea, and the context doesn't help; (b) does enforce, in enforce the previous successful programs mean compel, or is it a typo for reinforce, which has a very different meaning; (c) is there a christian religious element to the chapter's program? Please explain the use of the term evangelize.
    No problem with your question, if some passages are unclear it is important to clarify :-). Note that English is not our native language, so we might still have translation issues and gallicisms.
    a) We used sensibilize as “making aware”, “raising awareness among”;
    b) Yes, we meant pursuing and reinforcing our previous programs;
    c) No, there is not :) In French, Évangéliser is etymologically related to religious elements, but is widely used to express “explain in order to convert to new ways of thinking”, especially when values are involved − in this context, contributing to Wikimedia projects.
    Jean-Fred (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    Please (i) use a dictionary, and (ii) get someone (like me, if you wish and if I have time when you need it) to copy-edit it. There's no excuse for getting it so badly wrong, especially in an exposed place like the opening. It's just not professional, and the whole idea of this movement is to achieve professional standards with both volunteers and staff. Tony (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    Non-religious uses of the term are quite commons nowadays, see e.g. w:Technology evangelist, w:Platform evangelism, w:Evangelism marketing. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    It's important to remember that while we hope that FDC proposals are as clear as possible to a global audience, we recognise the challenges of writing in English for those who are not native English speakers. Sophistication in language is *not* a parameter the FDC proposals are being judged on, it is impact on local communities and projects, and thereby on global communities and projects. --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    But I'm not asking for sophistication: just something very basic. Tony (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    Hi Tony, I agree with you that we all need to avoid confusion as much as possible. In this sense, if indeed there was a reader who honestly had an impression that Wikimedia France is hinting that they are going to preach gospel, the word would have been unfortunately chosen. However, I believe that there is also a common sense, context, etc. Regarding the use of a dictionary, the word does have a potential for a non-religious reading, although it definitely has a religious connotation. Clearly, the FDC process is a baptism by fire to all of us. Am I my brother's keeper, to insist on how non-natives use their second language? Surely, maximum accuracy and clarity is required, but being holier-than-thou in terms of vocabulary may go a little bit too far. After all, your argument could be applied equally rationally to using legalese (why not? it is an application for a huge amount of money, should we demand a strict legal language then?). I'd suggest that we all strive for highest communicative clarity and avoid confusion by asking questions and giving answers (and your comment about evangelizing was great in this sense), but let's not call some minor obvious ESL error unprofessional, unless we as a movement decide that we really, really, really need native professional editors for each application (and I am strongly convinced we don't). PS Many apologies for many language slips that must be present in this and other of my posts ;) Pundit (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    Pundit, thanks for your post. I just don't see this level of puzzling semantic usage in other FDC applications. If WMFR could just make it as plain and simple as possible, without inviting trouble by using adventurous words—which are likely to render their summary meaningless—it would be a good start. As I said, no one else has trouble doing this. The easy way to try to blow down my points is to claim that I'm a perfectionist. I don't accept this argument. Tony (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    Fair enough :) Let's just agree that it is good that the ambiguity in the phrasing has been clarified now, and all strive for the better in the future. Pundit (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  2. The application claims that "last year, we've had 5 to 10% of operating spendings (depending on whether you include fundraising costs or not)." Does this mean that fundraising represented 5% of expenditure (10 – 5)? I see elsewhere that "we deduct 10% of the fundraising amount as fundraising costs". I'm confused.
    The 10% is a fixed percentage. Whatever are our exact operating costs, 10% of the money raised is kept to fund the fundraising and its developpement for the next year. The operating costs, and fundraising costs, are not calculated the same way. Schiste (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    Seems confusing, but should be transparent. Heck, I'm on your side; I'd hate to think what an antagonist would say. Tony (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  3. "€150,000 (= $196,200) are also to be deducted from our annual expenses." – is this to do with fundraising? I can't see how the figures are calculated.
    10% of the fund raised through the fundraising per the fundraising agreement binding WMFr and WMF Schiste (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. If "it is virtually impossible to know if the reasons why the French Wikipedia project is not following the same trend as the English Wikipedia project", why make the claim that the chapter's "numerous activities play their part in it" – and which particular trend or trends on the linked page does "it" refer to, please?
    The community health. French projects are the only "old" projects that still has a steady growth in contributors. WMFr has been having activities for years. We don't say there's causation, impossible to prove, but there's a correlation and we keep an eye on those numbers. Here is the stat page. Schiste (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    And there are more detailed stats in the most recent Report card that might or might not bolster your case. Here's just one interesting page, particularly in relation to the Francophonie project. I'd be keeping an eye on it over time, and using it as part of your case if that works. Tony (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  5. I'm particularly interested in the Francophonie project, and nowhere more than in Africa. What skill-set are you looking for in the "Francophonie and Language manager" ("Francophonie project manager" in the organizational chart) you plan to hire?
    We're looking for a project manager, no big surprise there. So someone well organized, autonomous, that is able to train people and has understandings of cultural gaps and can adapt to it. We don't specifically look for a wikimedian, as our culture can be taught. However he will, obviously, have to share our values. Schiste (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    At a guess: (i) cross-cultural sensitivity; (ii) fluency in French (of course); (iii) knowledge of, or experience in, or the ability to rapidly learn about the cultures of people who might be targeted by the Francophonie project; (iv) understanding of gender issues in various cultures (you assume it will be a man?); (v) ability to organise and motivate both employees and volunteers (you could break that down into several points). When you say "share our values", do you mean the chapter's values or the WMF's values? Ideally, they shouldn't be too different. A good manager, anyway, should be able to absorb the values of her/his employer and optimise them, whatever they are. This is the kind of answer I wanted. I might have got it wrong, since I'm second-guessing what the chapter wants here; but I don't see the kind of confident control of detail that these FDC applications should encourage to be on display. Tony (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  6. How is it possible for the movement to learn lessons from your interesting observations about the slowness and capriciousness of public institutions' responses to GLAM plans. Is this an issue that goes beyond France? And in particular, is it an issue that will dog attempts at collaboration with them by your own chapter and local chapters in the developing world?
    I'm sorry, I don't understand the last part of your question. The lessons to learn, but we're still learning ourselves, is that projects with gov, or gov related, organizations are slow. Hence it needs to be handled by someone deeply involved as they will have to follow a project over few years sometimes. We also recommend to try to work with small cultural organizations rather than with big ones. The smaller the better usually. Schiste (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    It's a pity my meaning didn't get across; this is an important question. Maybe this was my fault. Either way, we'd be very interested in your experiences in a year's time: working with public cultural institutions seems to be difficult in all countries. Tony (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  7. In the organizational chart, there's a reference to "5 Civil volunteers to be hired". How can volunteers be hired?
    That's a language issue :). This is a direct (and apparently misleading) translation from “volontaires civiques” a special status in French law. It means that people are volunteering for this kind of contracts that are supported by the state and have specific criteria to be used. They are not volunteers, they volunteer for this status. This status is described more precisely in Program 7.Schiste (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    OK, but for better or worse, the application is in English. The whole FDC application process needs to be as transparent and comprehensible as possible to world readers. Tony (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the Programs of activities yet, but will attempt to do so soon. NB I thought Wikimédia France's Round 1 proposal contained interesting proposals (more so than some applications that succeeded), although there wasn't enough detail to judge. Thanks. Tony (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks a lot for your questions. We are drafting the answers ans will get back to you as soon as possible :-). Jean-Fred (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Quelques questions supplémentaires... en françaisEdit

Corne diable, je partage l'avis précédent de Jean Jul. On sollicite notre avis en français et se retrouve sur une page tout en anglais. En plus pour donner un avis sur l'usage d'argent collecté en France et en français et qui va être utilisé pour la Wikipédia francophone. Alors exprimons nous en français ! Surtout qu'un grand nombre de lecteurs de Wikipédia comme moi sont incapables de s'exprimer correctement dans la langue de Shakespeare qui n'est qu'un lointain et douloureux souvenir. Donc plusieurs questions en français (si une bonne âme bilingue veut la traduire, elle est la bienvenue...)


Sur le budget annuel présenté :

1. Quel est le pourcentage qui part en fonctionnement et quel est le pourcentage qui part en collecte d'argent ? Pourquoi cela n'est-il d'ailleurs pas présenté dans le budget comme le font la plupart des associations ou fondations appelant de l'argent auprès du grand public ?

2. Quelle est l'évolution de ces pourcentages par rapport aux années précédentes ?

3. Quelle est la part consacrée aux serveurs informatiques et à tous les autres volets technologiques mis en avant lors de la campagne d'appel aux dons ?


1. Comment sont fixés les salaires des personnes employées par Wikipédia France ?

2. Quelle est la politique salariale de l'association (valeur de marché, autres...) ?

3. Comment est déterminé le niveau des salaires et qui a le pouvoir de les fixer ?

4. L'association publie-t-elle les 3 principaux salaires (pas trouvé, obligation si l'association reçoit des subventions publiques) ?

5. De quels avantages (mutuelle, retraites complémentaires, tickets restaurants, autres..) bénéficient les salariés ?

6. Une augmentation salariale est-elle prévue dans le budget prévisionnel ? Si oui, à postes salariés stables, de combien est-elle ? S'agit-il d'une augmentation générale ou d'augmentations individuelles ?

7. Quelle a été l'augmentation moyenne des salaires sur les 3 dernières années comptables (si j'en crois les comptes publiés, l'association a eu des salariés sur ses 3 dernières années comptables ?)

Merci de vos réponses.

Ce paragraphe de questions n'a pas été signé mais en regardant l'historique de la page on s'aperçoit qu'il a été écrit sous le log TCY, c'est à dire moi. Sauf qu'à l'heure de l'écriture de ce paragraphe (22h29 UTC soit 0h29 heure française si je ne me trompe pas), j'étais en train de conduire sur l'autoroute entre Rennes et Paris comme le prouve ce ticket de péage, interrompant mon WE de Pâques en Bretagne, mon père ayant été admis aux urgences quelques heures plus tôt suite à un accident de la circulation. Pas les meilleures dispositions physiques et psychologiques pour poser des questions sur le FDC non ?
L'entête un peu ridicule, l'absence de syntaxe wiki et de signature, l'erreur grossière "Wikipédia France" combinés avec des questions précises voire pertinentes (la deuxième partie ressemblant même étrangement à un doc que j'avais écrit il y a quelques temps sur l'évaluation de la professionnalisation du mouvement) combiné avec mon log me laissent perplexe sur le but recherché par l'auteur. J'ignore comment il a pu se connecter sous mon log (même si celui-ci n'était pas très dur à trouver pour quelqu'un me connaissant). Ma première réaction fut de me dire que je demanderai un check-user (si cela est possible sur meta). Maintenant vu la "préparation" de ce paragraphe, j'imagine que l'auteur ne l'a probablement pas écrit de chez lui donc que l'IP ne m'apprendrait pas grand chose. Mais surtout je ne souhaite pas consacrer plus d'énergie que cela à cette question. Wikimédia France est derrière moi, j'ai déjà consacré suffisamment de mon temps et de mon énergie à cette association. C'est fini, la page est tournée, je ne souhaite plus ni m'en mêler, ni en entendre parler. Je voulais ici juste remettre les point sur les i.
Merci quand même à celui qui a trouvé ces questions suffisamment étranges pour m'en avertir.
TCY (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Return to "APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimédia France/Proposal form" page.