Grants talk:PEG/WM PH/Annual program plan 2014

Evaluation by the GAC

GAC Members who oppose this grant request

1. I thought this avenue for funding was for project-based funding only, not general organisational funding. Tony (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
   • Hi, Tony. This is actually WMPH's understanding as well and this was why WMPH had submitted a Letter of Intent for FDC funding for Round 1 of the 2013-2014 cycle. However, a few officers of WMPH had a Skype meeting with Asaf and Anasuya of WMF last August 21 to discuss the pros and cons of seeking funding for WMPH's annual administrative expenses either via the FDC or the Grants program. Unfortunately we don't have a written record of that Skype conversation but WMPH specifically raised the point that the Grants program would seem to preclude WMPH from getting funding for administrative expenses since it is not a project-based expense. Asaf and Anasuya assured us that funding admin expenses through the Grants program is still acceptable for recognized Wikimedia affiliates. WMPH also noticed that WMCL had a successful Grant for their 2013–2014 Annual Program Plan and Board of WMPH thus decided to pursue general funding through the Grants program for at least 1 more year before switching to FDC funding. --seav (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
     • I don't agree with Tony as the minimum criteria to apply in the APG programme are not well met by all the chapters and affiliated organisations. If we don't allow those parties who don't qualify for the APG to submit their annual plans in the PEG, then the easiest way to game the system is to separate their annual plan into smaller programmes, projects, events and activities and submit multiple requests at the same time. In that case, there is no way to do our job in evaluating those requests more efficiently instead of having only one. I know that the new names of the different grant programmes sound more exact on their scope, but they don't provide rules of accepting grant requests that are written in stone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Summary: This proposal is acceptable and appropriate for the PEG program. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Details: while the primary goal of this program is indeed to support specific projects and events, it has a secondary goal, which is to support organizations that would like to operate on the basis of annual plans and annual budgets on the one hand, but don't require or aren't able to hire long-term full-time staff yet (this will be made clearer in program info pages soon). This is precisely the position WMPH is in, and so their proposal belongs here. The reason for accommodating such proposals here rather than in the Annual Plan Grants program is that the APG process is designed to support larger requests including staff hires, and puts a much heavier burden on applicants (while offering the benefit of supporting full time staff and allowing full discretion in spending within the granted allocation rather than spending by budget line-item). It seems to WMF that a better use of the time of both WMPH's and the FDC's volunteers would be to keep WMPH's burden lighter as long as they don't require full-time staff. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern, then, is that the info pages don't yet reflect this. All I could do was to go by that information. Tony (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Comments MADe

Hey, a very well-drawn proposal, thanks. Just some questions:

1. 1.03: rent: will WM PH get a phyiscal office?
2. 1.13: Strategic planning: What costs does this contain?
3. 4.01: WCC conference participation. Please double check as I think the travel costs are borne by the WCC itself
4. 6: I'm not a big fan of a WM organisation stocking up merchandising. Do you guys really need to have Mailman bags, umbrellas, aluminum sports water bottles, shirts, hoodies, pens, stickers, ID lanyards? MADe (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks too for your questions. Please find the answers below numbered accordingly:

1. 1.03: Rent: We have been using the same virtual office since 2010. The same office provided us for additional fee for some of our furniture/equipment (steel cabinet, collapsible backdrops, etc.) but they are crammed in a small space which broke already some of it. The facility doesn't have anymore space to provide us and we still have more items/equipment at home. We'd be leasing a non-commercial space (as it's cheaper) to serve as our storage which can double as a back office and work area.
2. 1.13: Strategic planning: facilities rental (training/conference/seminar room), team-building activities, overnight accommodation for at least 9 (at most 15) persons, transportation.
3. 4.01: I noticed that, we'd really prefer though to handle it ourselves if WMF would permit for our convenience and of our participants to lessen the need for several communication between the WCC hosts and the chapter just to secure preferred flight dates mainly due to conflicts in real life work schedules.
4. 6: This is being readied for the Wikipedia Rewards Program we would like to unveil next year and the several community outreach already being planned next in 2014. Producing at bulk will definitely be much cheaper. -- Roel (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Conferences

I never understand who pays for travel costs. Sometimes I see them in the costs of the organizers, sometimes in the costs of the chapters. May you describe exactly to whom are assigned these costs and if you checked that these are not calculated also in the organizers committees? Nothing to say if we are speaking about hundred dollars, but here we are speaking about thousands dollars. --Ilario (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As for WCC I removed the airfare and accommodation budget. I retained the budget for visa fees and other incidental expenses that may be incurred by our representatives. As for the other conferences like Wikimania, we would be sending two chapter officers/members who won't be vying/competing for slots for the Philippines, to allow other Wikimedians to earn it. As for the rest, often scholarships if grant to the Philippines are costly and would eat a lot from the budget of chapter organizers offering them, it would be best that we don't compete for these slots to allow Philippine Wikimedians to participate in these conferences and arrange their participation earlier, as we are required to secure visas which would take some times 30 days just for it to be scheduled and sometimes three weeks for results to be known. Experience has taught us, most of these scholarships are made available just a few weeks before the actual conference and we would scramble for time.-- Roel (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ilario (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Tony1 comments and queries

OK, FDC: kiss your role goodbye.

It's a long application, and well done to those who've contributed. My inclination is to support the chapter's work. But here are a many queries; I wonder whether the actual application text could be updated as necessary in association with the responses:

1. I guess I'll have to hunt down the WMPH site/page. It would be nice if a link were provided at the top of the application where the chapter is first mentioned. I find myself asking basic questions like: How many members are there? How many active members are there? When was it affiliated, and has it grown much in the past few years? Does it have stable governance?

   I think it's a good practice to have a conspicuous section for the applicant's website if available. Here it is though: www.wikimedia.org.ph.

   We have 121 members as of the last count, I don't think the Board would meet before year end to approve new members. Here's the membership link on our website: Membership

   In as much as I think this is something GAC should know and it's not the first time we're submitting a grant proposal, but for your benefit WMPH was affiliated in April 2010, beginning with nine (9) incorporating members, by end of 2010 there were 20 members, end of 2011: 48, end of 2012: 85 and end of 2013: 112.

   I believe it's safe to say that there are more less 35 active members are active, meaning to say we see them during our activities and annual meetings or meet-ups in the past year.

   On the part of having "governance stability", I realized I have used "stability" in a contradicting manner throughout the proposal, I apologize for the confusion. Needless to say, we are operating and have come up regularly with projects; and since 2011 we have renewed our business registration permits annually, submitting requirements with our local regulatory agencies like the Bureau of Internal Revenue (monthly withholding tax returns, annual summary of monthly tax returns, annual income tax return, financial statements, annual registration fees, etc.) and Securities and Exchange Commission (annual corporate information data, financial statements). We have provided a list under Previous reports a link to the summary of our grants and if it helps here's a list of our 2013 Activities. And have been holding elections as required under our bylaws, submitting to the general membership propositions that require their concurrence. And here's the list of the Resolutions we have passed to date. -- Roel (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for clarifying. We really do need more explicit instructions about providing these details in the first place. On board meetings, I wonder whether you're able to have IRC and/or skype-audio meetings at least some of the time; that would open up board membership more to people from outlying communities. Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   We've had a Skype meeting back in 2012 (if I'm not mistaken), when Josh Lim was overseas, we've had two meetings where one member was phone-patched.-- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

2. The opening sentence of "Project goals" indicates that WMPH operations have not been stable. Could you explain more, please?

   My usage of "stable" in this statement is more of coming up with a systematic/seamless operation wherein reports would be regularly churned out including meeting minutes within a prescribed period to avert falling out of compliance with WMF. We aim to streamline our operations, and have well defined procedures (like a Program Operations Manual which we don't have) and have lead times for every particular task.-- Roel (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   Presumably the program ops manual will be online, not on paper. If not, may I ask why, when the organisation is at its essence for online purposes? I notice a bid for US$538 for the publication of your annual report. Why wouldn't it be more accessible, and free, to put it online? There's also a budget for lots of printing (toner, office supplies—paper included, I suppose). My vision of a physical office is not entirely paperless, but all the same mostly online, where people come to meetings with their laptop. But I like the request for funding for the scanner—at least it's on computers and not paper. Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   The program manual will be made available on our website, but we'd prepare printed copies of it. Published annual reports are a requirement for NGO certification in the Philippines, hence we cannot do away with it. Unfortunately we can't go paperless in as much as we want to, NGO certification which is a very tedious two-year process that requires a lot of documents—resolutions, meeting minutes, reports, expense reports, check vouchers, accounting records, tax returns—to be on paper. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

3. Measures of success: conducting at least four members' meetings ... how many in the past year, for context? Will the "meet-up of all communities during the year" be one of those four?

   Recruiting 20 new members ... but how many are there now, so we can judge the significance of that increase? [LATER INSERTION: GAC members, this is what you're looking for. 20 new members doesn't seem like many given that table; and how many are currently active?

   Ah, finally got to the chapter website link ... ok, but better to explicitly background it at the top. Your main page: very nicely written, I must say. "Update the chapter website's main page every month."—so you mean "continue to update ... monthly"? Looks like monthly updates already.

   "Publish and distribute the 2013 Annual Report in time for the 2014 Annual Membership Meeting"—I'd like a specific period, rather than the vague "in time for".

   "Submit all regularly requirements on time avoiding penalties because of late submissions."—to your regulatory authority or to WMF grantmaking? This is unclear, and suggests that you've already been penalised.

   "Actively involve at least ten members"—but how many have been actively involved?

   20 new members doesn't seem like many given that table – It's not. But we would be working to ensure this 20 new members is not an addition to inactive members. As to the number of active members, as answered above, more or less 35.

   OK, would have been good to say this in the application, to stop some a-hole like me complaining about the mismatch with your member page. Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   We'll update the application. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   Update the chapter website's main page every month – There are months when the chapter's website doesn't get any update at all. I'm referring to content too. This is planned to ensure that we develop more website content and make sure something is updated in the website every month. This is planned to be a monthly task.

   Publish and distribute the 2013 Annual Report in time for the 2014 Annual Membership Meeting – By the AGM on May 2014.

   Submit all regularly requirements on time avoiding penalties because of late submissions – This is for local regulatory agencies. It can be tasking as it is very bureaucratic.

   Actively involve at least ten members – Answered above. But these 10 would be from the already existing members as we have a low rate of participation below 30%. -- Roel (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

4. Numbering confusion (again): three "general" projects to be implemented; and "one major project of a community" to be implemented. Is the latter one of those three or in addition?

   The community projects is in addition as they have a separate "general fund" in case their respective allocations are used.-- Roel (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

5. "Elections for five members of the Board will also take place this 2014."—you mean at the AGM? Unclear.

   Yes. Well, the "election" sentence is included under the "Annual Meeting (May 2014)" heading so I don't know how it could be more clear. --seav (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   It says in 2014—unclear. Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   Replaced "in 2014" with "in this 2014 meeting". --seav (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

6. Quarterly physical meetings of the board: it states that these are necessary for WMF compliance. Are you sure? If it's a wording issue, could you insert (1) and (2) in the sentence, so we're sure?

   I've edited this part. The meetings themselves are not required by the WMF but in the latter half of 2013, we have become non-compliant with providing reports to the WMF. We've noticed that holding meetings especially in the last 2 months of 2013 enable us to keep track of what needs to be done. --seav (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

7. No link to the 2013–17 strategic plan. Nor is it linked from your main page ... so I guess I'll go hunt it down. WMF grantmaking staff: could you include in the instructions a guideline on linking to things like this when they form important parts of an application text?
8. "Wikimedia conferences participation: The chapter values its participation in international Wikimedia conferences where it is immersed in the movement, gets to share and learn from the best practices of every chapter, exchange ideas and share their experiences with fellow Wikimedians."—Forgive me: I'm deeply cynical about value for money in expensive carbon-emitting trips to the other side of the planet for rather non-intensive, unfocused get-togethers. We're essentially an online project. I ask: in what way wouldn't spending all of that money instead within the Philippines, and cultivating online year-round strong personal/professional relations with other Wikimedians, have considerably greater impact?

   Unfortunately, I don't think this point can be debated in the context of this particular Grant. As long as there are conferences such as the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin where chapters are expected to attend, then WMPH will see value in attending. If the movement and especially the affiliate organizations feel that it would be better to reduce the number of face-to-face meetings, then WMPH would adjust accordingly. --seav (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   I don't believe we should be isolated from the rest of the global Wikimedia community too.-- Roel (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   "where chapters are expected to attend"—I don't think that is true. "I don't believe we should be isolated from the rest of the global Wikimedia community too."—I rest my case about the low value added compared with spending a large amount for few people to jaunt to Germany. But I'm pleased to see that WMDE is paying for airfares, accomm, etc. to Berlin. Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, there is an expectation, particularly for smaller chapters, that we should attend the Wikimedia Conference. Not only is it the forum for which ideas about chapter governance, projects, etc. are shared among chapters and other affiliates, but it is also an effective means of checking up on affiliates and seeing what they are up to. Online meetings and the like are not always effective as offline meetings are, if you ask me, and I think it is a good thing that WMPH (and other affiliates) is sending people there, so there is still some value for money for affiliates attending. This does not happen during Wikimania, for example, where there are inevitably going to be some communities that will be completely absent. (P.S.: Just to make it clear, I am responding to this in my capacity as a member of the Affiliations Committee, and not as the Secretary of Wikimedia Philippines.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

9. What are the governance structures for these four local language communities, and how do these structures relate to the central board? What are the lines of communication and decision-making? Could we have the numbers of active, semi-active, and potentially interested people for each of these communities—both now and hoped-for next year.

   As for the structure I think this link should answer your question. In a nutshell, they are supervised by the Board.
   I'd like to give some background, I have to give credit to Bikol (recognized Feb 2012) because they are the only community so far to have come-up and created their own activities. Kapampangan (recognized May 2013) has had one activity they had requested from us, an editing workshop which was conducted last October and they are requesting for another which has to be scheduled. For Pangasinan (April 2013) and Waray-Waray (February 2013) we've got to visit them only once and they have requested to be recognized as a community. Their activity levels differ from one another, though we recognize Waray-Waray activities may be put on hold since Tacloban the regional center where most of our members from that region are from was several damaged by Typhoon Haiyan (power is not yet 100% restored). I am closely working with Kapampangan community to roll-out projects next year. Another Board member who is from Pangasinan is planning on staging projects for her community. -- Roel (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   What you say sounds good. Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

10. Rewards program: in what way is it innovative? I'm not seeing explained the benchmarks for innovation, which are newness and cleverness (read: well-thought-out, I guess); so you might remove the word if it can't be justified. On the contrary, I'm concerned that motivational rewards will be offered for raw numbers of edits, which will encourage quantity, and fragmented editing, and will favour script-running); why are the rewards not solely directed towards quality forums such as FA and GA, and photographic equivalents? This would be better than the labour-intensive auditing of people's edits. You might consider adding specific rewards that target good things: "Best medium-sized and full articles on the Kapampangan WP, etc. Why not get those communities to form panels to judge, and even encourage outsiders from those language groups to serve on panels (as WLM does—great for promoting the cause). Now that kind of structure would inch towards being innovative, if you could develop and explain briefly the bare bones of it ... would require some quick leg-work now with your communities. Another reward target could be topic-based, such as "Best topic on female Philippina subjects"; "Best topic on a Ph. school or university"; "Best topic on a village, town, or city in the Ph." If you time them all for a single announcement, there's your press release and WMF blog material. Pens and lanyards, umbrellas, bottles? Please no. Um ... what's wrong with cash prizes? What we care about is the motivational results: whatever it takes.

    Generally we don't have a strong writing culture in the Philippines. These give-aways are a way of "luring" them into continuing their editing work or commence editing in Wikipedia. Our focus this year is for editor retention and developing new editors and we thought that these merchandise will be a start. As for Wikipedia writing contests, specific topics as you suggested that is in our long-term plan and we are planning them in 2015 (prizes in cash/gift vouchers/gadgets would be considered), we rather get a whole bunch trained first in Wikipedia editing that's why we are coming up with regular editing workshops. I must say you got good points raised, we could evolve this to your suggestions. We would like to see which topics are often edited, rather than asking to work on certain topics. It's a way of customizing to their interests. -- Roel (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, cash prizes will be a good motivator but we are not only after the motivational results but as well as to sustainable impact of this project. These rewards also intends to remind them that the Chapter acknowledges and values their contributions to free knowledge. In addition to that, reward items like mailman bags, umbrellas, or pens with Wikipedia or Wikimedia logos will be seen in public and may create attention to other people who might be interested to join our advocacy.--Markadan (talk) 2:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

    "Generally we don't have a strong writing culture in the Philippines."—I don't know how to interpret that claim. Where is there a strong writing culture? Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

    You can skim through a couple of Philippine related articles, especially on cities, towns and you'll find they are mostly in bullets. Those contributing them (if they're not copy-pasting) have difficulty constructing these into encyclopedic like material. I'd attribute this to the local culture which doesn't have a prolific and extensive literature. Asking even college students what's the best Filipino novel they have read may end without an answer. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

    Compared to Western civilizations, Southeast Asian methods of communication tends to be more oral as opposed to written. That is what we mean when there is not a strong culture of writing in the Philippines. As stated in this page: "The significance of oral history is especially great in Southeast Asia, where 'orality' and the 'oral tradition' often take precedence over the written form." In my opinion, this is because Southeast Asian cultures are Reactive cultures as stated in The Lewis Model. Reactive cultures are very people-oriented and so oral communication is preferred over written. --seav (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

11. Editing workshops: Have you noted WMF grantmaking's concerns about the lack of impact of workshops unless held under certain conditions? Who would run them, anyway? Would they be a series for the same people? Would the money not be better spent on a paid mentoring service for a specific period, online?

    We know about WMF's concerns that workshops per se do not have as much impact. But we also note WMF's Education Program strategy and we want to conduct these editing workshops under that vein by partnering with educational institutions like the Polytechnic University of the Philippines where we have connections. As for online mentoring, I think this is a cultural issue. Filipinos are a very sociable people and we are more receptive to learning things through face-to-face sessions rather than online. --seav (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

12. Reference materials: what are they?

    Mainly bilingual dictionaries for help with editing in local language Wikipedias as well as reliable sources like history books. --seav (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

13. Why would a cinema or theater ticket be useful in gathering information for a WP article? Surely you don't allow personal experience to be the basis of articles ...

    This will be for local movies and theater plays that are not in Wikipedia, just like locally published books that can be used to create or expand Wikipedia articles. It should be noted that there are not a lot of Philippine materials online that could be used to write these articles. This for us is a way for developing Philippine content in Wikipedia. The articles should be beyond personal experience, which they should be able to demonstrate in their writing. For certain those who would be tasked to see/review their written articles have a lot of Wikipedia experience and are aware of the standards of writing. -- Roel (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

    I would like to add that giving out tickets under the Microgrants program is not something WMPH will do willy-nilly. The applicant for such a Microgrant will have to demonstrate impact. --seav (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

    I'm not convinced by the answers on cinema and theatre tickets! Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the budget table. You may wish to respond under each point using a colon and hash for indenting. Tony (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to some points. I or Namayan will respond to the other points. --seav (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Budget table:

1. Admin: "provision for tax"—vague. Is it on the rent? Is it a single tax as a %?

   We do pay tax for rent and certain transactions, depending on their frequency/amount of a supplier. This includes penalties that may be incurred. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Prof. fees look fine (cheap); "outsourced admin services" needs just a few words after it to explain.

   Added notes to it.-- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

3. What is "strategic planning"? That's vague when asking for $1127. Just a few words in the first column?

   The strategic planning will be an annual assessment of our Strategic Plans 2013–2018 (I'll get it uploaded on our website and provide the link), to make sure will be meeting our goals by the end of the 5-year period. On the sidelines it will also have some team-building activities. The amount covers venue, accommodation, food and transportation. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

4. Project management: could you be more explicit? Is it a contractor to help organise? If so, how many hours, what hourly rate, please? I'm used to those two factors being expressed ... same for Logistical support. Otherwise, how do you arrive at those figures?

   We arrive at those figures based on standard expenses we encounter during these projects. For logistical support this will go student-volunteers who serve as manpower, coordinators, runners, etc.-- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

5. Wikimania 2014: can scholarships be applied for to reduce this cost? I see little value in this context in expensive trips to a GLAMcamp and especially a hackathon. Why a hackathon???? By contrast, your estimate of $1352 for promotion and tutorials and editor meet-ups among the four communities sounds rather small. Isn't that a higher priority?

   As mentioned, we don't intend to compete with other non-chapter member Philippine-based Wikimedians for slots for the Philippines, our work in the chapter gives as an advantage over them. Participation in Hackathon gives our small Media-Wiki team the experience in developing our website and perhaps conducting Media-Wiki trainings which they had already done last June, they have also been collaborating with Philippine IT organization.

   The budget on communities are rather small because we don't want to request for funds that will not be fully utilized, as mentioned above their level of engagement differ greatly and we don't want the fund to remain idle, we also don't want them to develop a mentality that they have to use-up for whatever purpose an N amount of funds. We can work out another grant proposal for them should they need more than what our allocation can provide.

   I believe the two shouldn't be compared, because these are two different programs with objectives that do not compete with each other. I think the chapter, which has ground knowledge should be allowed to determine which programs it can prioritize or simultaneously develop and priority doesn't mean funneling more money as their costings vary greatly. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

6. What is "community outreach"? Two or three categories stated would explain enough, probably.

   Community outreach refers to: (1) community meetings, gatherings, or meet ups initiated by the community and facilitated by the Chapter, (2) support to activities or projects implemented by the communities by providing close supervision from the Chapter, i.e. physical presence of a Member from the Board will be necessary, (3) rolling out Chapter's activities in the communities like the Rewards program, and (4) providing guidance and direction to communities on replication of certain Chapter projects like Open Web Day in Angeles University Foundation in Pampanga. -- Markadan (talk) 1:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

7. No. 5.4 contingency just here is not expressed as a percentage.

   Because it's not meant to cover incidental expenses of community projects, rather we will allocate from it the budget for community projects beyond their regular meet-ups. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

8. No. 6.1 I suggest that mailman bags, umbrellas, shirts, hoodies, pens, are totally inappropriate. Can you remove that item please, or redirect it to something that is more likely to further the WMF's aims? That's $2600 or so.

   Scrapping those will mean scrapping an entire project that WMPH believes will be beneficial for the local community, so I will standby with that.-- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   Any reward, big or small, motivates our members to create more quality articles and to provide more quality edits. These stuff that you like to remove are in the core of this project because these rewards aim to remind them that the Chapter acknowledges and values their contributions to free knowledge. In addition to that, these tangible rewards will also serve as free advertisements for the Chapter because items like mailman bags, umbrellas, or pens with Wikipedia or Wikimedia logos will be seen in public and may create attention to other people who might be interested to join our advocacy.--Markadan (talk) 2:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

9. No. 7.1—who's the trainer? How many attendees expected? How long? How many sessions? Will you follow any of the existing frameworks for these sessions?

   We don't have the trainer yet, we'll make an announcement in our community page once that particular project is approved in the program plan, to give opportunity to those who are interested and have the needed skills to be the trainer. We're targeting to have at least 10 attendees per training. It's best that it will be a 4-hour workshop for beginners and another 6-hours for advanced (templates, etc.). The target is to have at least 12 workshops but we will be working overnight to get as much as 20 to 24 for the entire year. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

10. WLM—I'm surprised so little is allocated. Don't your people need transport for their photogrphy? Are you not offering a good set of cash prizes?

    This is just an exhibit as recommended in the WLM 2013 grant discussion. It will showcase the past 2 years of WLM in the Philippines, it's not the contest proper, which should come as a separate grant. The exhibit is timely, to show the impact we have made in documenting our heritage sites, as there were numerous heritage sites that were destroyed by the Bohol earthquake and Typhoon Haiyan in Q4 of 2013. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for your incisive questions too. -- Roel (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed assets

Thanks for the submission. My main concern regarding the budget is about the group of expenses for fixed assets. The same ownership-related issue remains all the time and I remember that it has been already discussed in some of your grant requests in the past. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kiril, I do understand your concern, and we're not oblivious to the fact you've pointed that out before. The equipment/furniture is placed under the custody of the chapter and will be passed on whoever will replace the current officers/board, and it is reported in the financial statements of the chapter too. -- Roel (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for it. It's definitely worth knowing. The rest of the budget with all other planned activities appears to be in place and not drastically different than the items we usually see in the similar requests we evaluate. I also see that many important questions have already been answered here on the discussion page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from WMF

General context and concern over impact

I think the proposal is hard to evaluate on its merits, because the context for its submission is unclear:

Timing

The "General Operations 2013" grant which was supposed to cover Jan-Dec 2013, was only submitted in late April 2013, and although it was was provisionally approved in June 2013, was only actually disbursed in October 2013, when WMPH finally returned to compliance. Presumably, this means much of the funding is yet to be spent, and certainly, it is too early to see a report about what those ~$10k yielded in terms of impact.

Now, this proposal is submitted, again seeking to cover Jan-Dec, but again submitted about two months later than would have been ideal, in terms of having adequate time for discussion and deliberation before the beginning of the grant term. The timing, given the funding situation, is not clear. Would it not be better to seek this funding in a few months, when more is known about the current work and its impact? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The "General Operations 2013" which was funded in October, covers expenses from the beginning of 2013. Usage of the fund is more or less at 75%. I am behind setting the grant period from January-December (and I would be keen to stick to it) to synchronize it with our fiscal year. It is quite very difficult to track one grant especially an admin related grant in two fiscal periods, just to make sure they are properly reflected in the books and the remaining amount of the grant after the fiscal year cut-off is accurate. My insistence on the grant period stems from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SRC Rule 68) requirement in 2011 for an additional reporting (attached to the Financial statements) of "A schedule showing the nature and amount of each items comprising the total receipts and disbursements according to sources and activities (e.g. pursuant to primary purpose financial reporting of an attachment...)." I am also expecting that any unused funds would just be deducted from upcoming grant endowments. I'd leave the question on impact for the others to answer. -- Roel (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Track record and impact

As things stand, what the GAC and WMF have to base a decision on are only:

• the report on the fairly successful WLM 2013 competition (~$6.5k)
• the report on the not-so-successful WikiCon 2013 (~$10k) (we commend WMPH for realizing this and deciding to refrain from holding another WikiCon until more clarity is obtained on participation and needs served, as evidenced by its not being budgeted for in this current proposal)
• the annual activity report for 2013, which, beside the WLM project, participation in international movement events, and the Tagalog 10th anniversary celebrations, describes mostly outreach efforts of unknown impact.

I wonder if WMPH has given enough thought to the impact of its activities so far, and in particular, if it intends to change its strategy to ensure more return on investment. I note that according to the activity report, the board has gone on a strategic planning retreat in November, and I would be very interested in reviewing what was agreed on. this page seems a very partial draft. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Activity details and impacts of projects are now enumerated in this page [1] for your reference. Markadan (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Asaf, while I believe your criticism is valid, I think it's unfair to paint the chapter as being errant in not giving enough thought to the impact of the activities that we've pursued. I hope you remember that we are pursuing programmatic work in a country where circumstances - both internal and external - require us to deal with a lot of community-building, which other chapters don't have to do. I think it's unfair that we're now forced to reduce this effort - even suggesting that we should not pursue work in regional languages (as you did below, and in a country where such a suggestion is anathema; as it is, we're dealing with criticism that WMPH is perceived to be a Tagalocentric [ethnic group, not necessarily language], Manila-centric organization, and your suggestion will alienate not only our regional membership, but even local communities, in the process) - for the sake of metrics and returns on investment.

I think Roel and the other Board members who have responded to you in the course of this discussion have made it clear that circumstances in the Philippines require us to build communities in a country where the number of active Wikipedians who meet each other regularly can be counted with one's fingers, and in a country where we would want to encourage our members and local Wikipedians to take charge of projects that they've proposed, but have apparently chosen not to do so. As you've noticed, almost all projects are initiated (and implemented) by members of the Board of Trustees, and we're still trying to build the capacity of our membership to be self-motivating in pursuing projects. However, we're fighting against Filipino culture here: for one, Filipinos are a people who want to follow a leader's lead, rather than take the initiative to lead. Filipinos tend to be enthusiastic about something, only to burn out and lose interest mid-way without ever finishing it ("ningas cogon" mentality). Filipinos like to pull each other down and not see others succeed ("crab mentality"). I can go on and on.

I don't think therefore that the imposition of Western standards of behavior will suddenly make people more motivated; rather, we need to build their capacity to motivate. We may be lacking in this regard, but I'm certainly hoping that the Foundation can help us somehow, instead of asking us to stop work completely because cultural considerations prevent these projects' potential from ever being realized. I think it's valid that we should look into the impact of what we're doing, but I've realized in my four years in the organization that any sort of effort on the part of the chapter is an investment on Filipino Wikipedians in the hope that they will eventually take the reins. If we're so hell-bent on building communities, on coming up with meaningful projects, then we should continue cultivating an environment where this can grow and flourish, rather than nipping them in the bud or preventing them from being realized at all. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're actually arguing here. You cite some stereotypical "national traits", but it's not clear how you think they should affect this discussion. Are you saying "just give us the money and hope for the best"? I'm afraid that's not an approach I can take; it would be irresponsible. If that's not what you're saying, what argument are you putting forward to support spending $33k on all this, given ningas cogon etc.? You say yourself that activities are still being run largely by the board, i.e. that no significant "capacity building" has taken placed. (And yet we were happy to see the Cultural Heritage project involve a "new face", and were glad to support it.)

(And regarding the regional languages issue: I do understand WMPH is accused by some of being Manila-centric or Tagalogocentric. I think the most effective way to respond to that, though, is to welcome non-Tagalog active Wikipedians into WMPH and invite them to act; I think WMPH is already doing that. As for my facts and figures being 'anathema' in the Philippines, well, good thing I'm not running for office! :)) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

^ +1 on that relief you're not running for office. LOL! -- Roel (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no Tagalog Community until now when a large number of its members are from Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite and other Tagalog areas? Is it the allocation specifically for the Communities:

5 Philippine Wikimedia Communities ₱30,000 $676

5.1 Communities General Fund – ₱30,000 ₱30,000 $676 Fund shall be used for visiting communities to gauge the projects that will benefit them.

"Activities are still being run largely by the board". --Filipinayzd 04:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Growth

Given the above, and specifically given a rough total of approximately $27k of spending in the past year, this new proposal, seeking ~$41k (and an additional ~$31k in a parallel proposal), spells significant growth in WMPH's spending, which I hesitate to fund without stronger evidence of impact, or of an updated and more promising strategy. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, highlighting the amount gives the impression that we are limited to request only N amount, just like the 20% cap in FDC. Though I know the merits of the two parallel projects are being assessed before they receive funding, it breeds the notion that if we are requesting within N amount we will find it easier to be funded. But such significant growth can be expected from a smaller base. I'd say the significant growth in spending can be attributed to opportunities that are being presented to us to do projects which we believe can convince our target audience to provide contributions to Wikimedia projects, we won't promise that everyone reached will be retained, but the series of activities will be significant enough for others to take notice of what we planned to do when we were just starting. The parallel proposal on the other hand does corner the target audience, as before they become the target audience their commitment and qualification will be assessed, we will not commit to a 100% delivery but "wastage" (for the lack of a better word) will be very minimal. I/We may not have been able to convey with full vigor the impact that we would like to present, or perhaps a rewording/rehash of impact is what is needed (but then again talk is cheap), we can certainly revise that part. -- Roel (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, we are definitely not limiting growth a specific number, such as 20%. We will consider funding this much growth, but need to see stronger evidence of impact or an updated strategy. Please see the above remarks regarding track record and impact. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Communities" (small languages)

I am concerned at the plans to invest (even relatively small amounts) in Wikipedia (as distinct from Wikisource or Wiktionary) in small languages with (almost) no active community, and I am not convinced WMPH has a reasonable strategy that would result in a viable Wikipedia in any language other than Tagalog (and just possibly Cebuano).

Specifically:

• The Waray-Waray Wikipedia has 9 active editors and 1 very active editor, and does seem to have been growing this year. The coordinator is a veteran English and Waray-Waray Wikipedian. This is good.
• The Bikol Sentral Wikipedia has only 3 active editors, and not even one very active editor (100+ edits/month), at least one of whom does not, in fact, speak Bikol, but is a global sysop doing cross-wiki maintenance.
• The Pampangan Wikipedia has 5 active editors and one very active editor; the proposed coordinator for this effort is the president of DILA, i.e. has an obvious interest in promoting the language, but is Mrs. Henson an active Wikipedian, familiar with our norms?
• The Pangasinan Wikipedia has zero(!) active editors. It is only being edited by bots and global sysops. The proposed coordinator is Ms. Vanj Padilla, who has so far made fewer than 10 edits to that Wikipedia, and a grant total of 12 edits to all Wikimedia projects combined. Editcounts are not everything, of course, but it is not reasonable to plan outreach without any editing community and led by someone who is not (nor ever was) an active editor.

My concern is that these Wikipedias are not viable, and not likely to ever be viable, as actual reference information sources, as distinct from vessels for language preservation, practice, and hobbyism. As I have remarked before, Wikimedia's mission does not include the preservation of languages; we deal with the creation and sharing of free knowledge, and need to provide it in all the languages people need it in, but no more. Are there any people out there who can only consume knowledge in Pangasinan, for example?

That said, I want to emphasize that the free knowledge we should be dealing in does include knowledge about all languages, so a more worthwhile focus for emphasis in those language communities might be to improve coverage of articles in English (and other languages) of topics such as grammar, phonetics, literature, local history, etc. for each of those languages and cultures. Additionally, documenting any existing written literature in those languages via Wikisource is definitely on-mission, as well as documenting the lexicon of those languages via Wiktionary. I encourage WMPH to focus its efforts in supporting these languages on these two projects, or not at all. (At least until such time there is evidence of a self-motivating core of active editors who actually contribute in the language, as well as evidence of the availability of the kinds of reference resources (newspapers, secondary sources) that any Wikipedia needs.) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Asaf. Thank you for the comments. Actually, when we envisioned the [local communities in WMPH], while they are at first glance about promoting and developing their respective local-language Wikipedias, they are also intended to help build [English] Wikipedia content about their respective regions/provinces since they would have better access to reliable sources in their localities. At least for the Pangasinan and Eastern Visayas communities, this (developing content on the locality) is an explicit goal, and for the other two are implicit goals. This is why we have supported Bikol projects like Wikipedia Takes Naga since it builds up content about the local city. That said, I appreciate the suggestion about seeing contributions also to Wikisource and Wiktionary as this personally had not crossed my mind.

Regarding the current Grant, we are amenable to reducing the total proposed amount for the communities. As of today, we have not yet received any concrete project proposals from the communities (for Eastern Visayas it's understandable since they are still recovering from Typhoon Haiyan) and I think given the current situation, it would now be better if community projects will be submitted as separate Grant requests so that we don't overbudget for the communities. —seav (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We've downsized the allocation by as much as 80%. Support will be provided once they have initiatives. -- Roel (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This plan looks good. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk)

No recognized Tagalog Community. --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

AGM

We're certainly happy to support the necessary expenses related to holding an AGM, such as venue and travel support. I wonder at the "project management" item -- is it really beyond WMPH's ability to organize its annual general assembly without paying someone to do it? Also, why are 100 hard copies' of the annual report needed? I understand a few (five?) may be needed, for the organization's own archive and for complying with regulatory requirements. But why print more? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A publish annual report does add value to the organization, though it doesn't happen often we've had instances wherein guests asks for materials from us. I personally don't want to scramble to print one or simply refer them to the website should the need arise. Would you allow 50 copies to be printed? That is around the number of attendees we have during our AGM. -- Roel (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

50 copies of the Annual Report is fine. Please respond to Asaf's above question regarding the need for a project manager to organize the annual general assembly. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Project management actually sums up all preparatory expenses like transportation, meal allowance and other incidental expenses during project preparation. When preparing for events, we also expect phone charges when calling and asking for quotations from different venues, coordinating with project members. There is also a need to do ocular visits when making reservations, plus meetings of the project team. We find it convenient to have a lump sum, rather than itemizing it and be worried about the 10% allowable limit without obtaining prior permission. 17:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Virtual office

In the current "General Operations 2013" grant, we have ~100000 PHP (roughly $2200) budgeted for the "virtual office" and related expenses. This current proposal seeks about double that amount to support this office, which does not even provide WMPH with a venue for its AGM. Just how virtual is this office (seeing as you're asking to buy tables and chairs for it)? How often is it used, on average? What changed from last year that makes all this additional expenditure necessary?

While I understand an office with a physical address is required for compliance with local non-profit law, I wonder at the sheer amount of expenses (another filing cabinet? and a steel rack and a bookcase?) and storage WMPH seems to require. Is having a legal entity costing us more than the relative benefit it provides over what an unincorporated user group would provide? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I could have asked three steel/storage cabinets at the same time because basically that's exactly what we needed, but where to put it would be a problem. The increase in cost is for the 25m² room we'd be maintaining as our storage, that is still way cheaper than renting an accessible commercial storage unit/facility. We acquired equipment in the course of several activities (as already previously communicated), which are reused from one activity to the other, though I could really just leave them on the floor (we intended the steel rack for that). The chairs and table will be set-up in the 25m² room, so we can maximize its use as a small meeting room, especially whenever the virtual office won't be available (holidays and Sundays, when most of us are free).

I believe a legal entity will really cost a lot rather than an unincorporated user group (personally I like that thought). It will also save a lot of volunteer man hours. It's a reprieve not to worry about the submission of monthly returns and annual returns to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (even at zero-value), no financial statements to be submitted to the BIR and SEC, in short none of these, and it may not be only limited to that. But of course an unincorporated user group can't open a bank account, etc. as they are not a juridical entity, they as a group can't also enter into agreements with other entities. -- Roel (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on your office needs and reduction in budget. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Second round of feedback from WMF

Thank you for your responses, the changes in the proposal so far, and the improvement in reporting and linking to documents. I apologize for taking a little longer to respond, mostly due to long travel.

I have some remaining concerns before I will consider approving this proposal. When all of them are addressed, we would be ready to make a decision. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Larger Concerns

Too much merchandise

Please cap the merchandise item at $1000. I'd recommend avoiding expensive items (bags, hoodies). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

All right, I amenable to that. -- Roel (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No focused plan for editing workshops

We are not prepared to fund the Wikipedia Editing Workshops budget group. It does not appear to be backed by a concrete plan, or have a dedicated group of volunteers to support it. In the discussion above, you mention you are looking to conduct the workshops in accordance with the model of the Wikipedia Education Program. That would be worthwhile, but let me reiterate that the WEP model calls for semester-long engagements with specific courses and professors willing to assign Wikipedia editing work to students as academic assignments.

Does WMPH have such professors ready to engage in this manner, if this is funded? Also, the mention of developing materials suggests not enough attention was given to program design so far -- as many resources are already available in English (and I'm assuming the university editing activities would be in English in this case), from the Foundation and others.

In the interests of proceeding with the rest of this proposal, therefore, I propose cutting it from this proposal and doing some more planning, studying of available materials, and identifying interested professors and university departments, as well as the availability of at least a handful of volunteers (even if the main trainer is compensated for their time) to support the participating students. Once those are in place, we'd be delighted to support such a program, with a separate grant. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll replace it with a series of Edit-a-thons instead, we need an editing activity where new contributors can be assisted in editing Wikipedia. -- Roel (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is acceptable. Separately, since the WEP model does seem to work in many places (though I don't automatically assume it would work in the Philippines), I'd recommend thinking about possibly deploying it in the future. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Cut the strategy planning

WMPH has already had a "strategy retreat", but its (documented, at least) fruits still leave much to be desired. That being the case, we are not prepared to fund further strategic planning at this point. Once other WMPH activities advance this year, and once the results of this last strategy retreat are clearer, we would be happy to reconsider and fund further strategizing get-togethers (possibly as a dedicated project grant, i.e. you won't necessarily have to wait a whole year). Therefore, please remove it from the proposal. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Got it, though it would have been ideal for team building activities, would you permit us to have team-building activities? -- Roel (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, though I don't know why an additional ~$900 would be needed for that. Team-building activities can be had for free when people are in the same room/location, and the rest of this plan (and the parallel Cultural Mapping project) should provide ample opportunities to engage in team-building as well. So please cut this. Again, when you're ready to follow up on the strategy work, we'll review. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, understood. It's been cut. :) -- Roel (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WLM Exhibition

First, what would these $1800 actually pay for? Please offer a breakdown of the costs. Secondly, we see value in such an exhibition if it can indeed be placed at the National Museum, but, having had the opportunity to visit the NCCA offices during my visit a couple of years ago, it seems to me an exibition in that space would not reach enough of an audience to be worth the effort and expense. Can you confirm the exhibition can definitely take place at the National Museum? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm letting go of the NCCA gallery as a venue, I talked to them last January, they cannot accommodate us too soon since they schedule exhibits 6 months in advance. We wanted it there for May since its the "Heritage Month". The costs cover:

1. rental of display panels
2. printing of the photos using material that would look presentable enough at the National Museum (sticker on sintra boards don't look good, we haven't searched enough for the right exhibit type material, the one that was presented to me last December was too expensive)
3. a simple ribbon cutting ceremony to open the exhibit. I am just to send a letter to the
4. labor to setup/dismantle the exhibit
5. project management costs (transportation, meeting expenses, etc.)

I haven' talked to the person in charge at the National Museum recently, but when I talked to them last November I was informed they would just require a request letter. The project lead of the Cultural Heritage Mapping project had frequent interaction with the National Museum director, we can definitely tap him to obtain a positive response to our request. We could definitely strategize this exhibit with them, as something of interest to them because National Museum is part of the task force restoring the damaged heritage sites in the Visayas by the earthquake and typhoon last year. -- Roel (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving this in, but let it be clear that this portion can only be spent if presentation at the National Museum actually happens. (In my experience "just send a request letter" is just the beginning of a process, and is also a convenient way of not saying "no" to one's face, so I wouldn't consider that sufficient evidence that the Museum is ready to host this. I'm also not saying it isn't; just that sending a request letter may be far from everything you'll need to do to make this happen.) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Though request letters are sort of formalities here. In my experience whenever going to government offices just to ask for certain data/file or browse over public records, they would always require you to prepare a letter, even if it's just handwritten (a blank sheet of paper would always come handy), so it's not surprising they will require it too, because they need to be stamped received and course through the proper channels/authorities and likely the Commission on Audit will check for documentation hence the letter request is always a must. -- Roel (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Smaller Concerns

Cost of domain

You budget ~$220 for the renewal of the wikimiedia.org.ph domain for two years. This seems quite inflated: I have just gone through the steps of registering a domain with dot.ph and saw that the current fee is $35/year (2 year minimum indeed). I note that in the 2010-2011 grant you also seem to have overpaid, paying $140 for two years. Can you explain and amend the budget accordingly? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I should have indicated also www.wikimedia.ph (directs to www.wikimedia.org.ph) and wikilovesmonuments.ph are also covered by it, hence the figure. The latter has been renewed since it expires February 10. -- Roel (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Thanks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrative contingency

Please limit this line item to no more than $400. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

All good. -- Roel (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidental expenses for Wikimedia Conference 2014

What incidental expenses are there beside visa fees and airport fees? note that meals and local transportation are provided by the hosts. Please explain or amend accordingly. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Transportation is upon their arrival at the airport to the venue. Other incidental expenses would be for dinner, as they don't provide dinner most of the time.-- Roel (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this year, WMDE is providing dinner at the WMDE offices. But I'm fine with keeping this amount as it is, provided it's a contingency rather than an automatic per-diem given out regardless of the provision of meals. (For example: WMF is only providing per diems for the day of arrival and departure, and not for the two dinners during the event itself.) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference materials

This seems like a worthwhile investment, provided there is a demonstrated need for it, i.e. at least a handful of active editors committed to actually making use of these materials. Can you offer any evidence of that? For example, has this been discussed somewhere public? Or is it just a hope that people would use these materials if they're made available? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

These materials complements the workshops that will be done. When the first edit-a-thon was done during the 2013 WikiCon all these materials were brought out which were well utilized. Since the workshops will now also be edit-a-thons, these materials will certainly be of great value. -- Roel (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, good. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Next steps

Once you respond re the strategy/team-building item, we would be ready to make a decision. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Request approved

This request has been approved. Thank you to WMPH and the GAC for your engagement on this request and your thoughtful responses to feedback. We look forward to continuing the conversation with WMPH around impact and strategy. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

On behalf of WMPH, thank you! :) -- Roel (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Budget changes

May we request the description of Item 7.1 budget changed to "Food, supplies, and incidentals"? -- Roel (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That is fine. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Roel (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WMPH new officers

Hello, the new Board of Trustees just had its first meeting earlier to elect the new set of officers for the term 2014–2015. As such, the people listed as project leads and contact persons here for the General Administration and Philippine Wikimedia Communities items are hereby assigned to the following new officers:

• Chairman - Eugene Villar
• Vice-Chairman - Jenna Delos Reyes
• President - Johnny Alegre
• Vice-President - Paolo Barazon
• Secretary - JP Antes
• Treasurer - Roel Balingit

Note further that the Wikipedia Rewards project is still handled by JP Antes and Eric Calica.

For your guidance. —seav (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting reallocation of Item 9.1

We would like to request the reallocation of Item # 9.1, initially planned for a Wiki Loves Monuments Philippines Exhibit (at the National Museum) to be used instead for Wikimedia Philippines' continued participation with Smart Communications' Tap & Learn Training Roadshow for public school teachers. The budget will be used for transportation (incl. airfare), accommodation, allowances, food and materials that may need to be produced and distributed to the audience, who are public school teachers.

The project provides us an opportunity to introduce to Philippine public school teachers chosen by the regional Department of Education to:

1. navigate the Wikipedia app
2. educate the teachers on how they should treat Wikipedia information, (focusing on the verifiability of the articles)
3. show the dynamics of how collaboration takes place (show the Talk pages to also preserve neutrality, etc.) and a general overview on how they can also contribute
4. utilize Wikimedia Commons images as illustrations to be used in classrooms and how to properly cite/attribute media.
5. introduce them to local Philippine language Wikipedias which can be used as a platform to create content to further the use of the regional languages (apart from Tagalog/Filipino)

The said roadshow was first held in Urdaneta, Pangasinan last August 9 and will be brought to other cities every month:

• Legazpi, Albay
• Cagayan de Oro
• General Santos
• Cebu City (tentative)

We are hoping for your consideration on this endeavor. The Board has similarly endorsed this reallocation request. -- User:Namayan (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This reallocation request is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- User:Namayan (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Grant implementation extension

We'd like to extend an extension of the grant implementation date until January 31, 2015. -- User:Namayan (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Namayan. Can you please let us know if there is a specific reason for this extension request? Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting for a two-week extension

May we kindly request for a two-week extension of the submission of report. -- User:Namayan (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. This is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)