Grants talk:PEG/WM PH/Chapter startup 2/Report

Extension of project period

We would like to request the implementation period of the project to December 31, 2012 in order to synchronize with WMPH's fiscal year. This grant was primarily used as the chapter's operational budget. A big portion of the fund was also used for the period beyond June 30, 2012 which was the provisional completion date. -- Namayan (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Namayan: Can you please make this request here on the discussion page for your submission? We'll discuss it there. Thank you! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it for you to speed matters up. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 22:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This particular item is resolved. See, Grants_talk:WM_PH/Chapter_startup_2#Request_for_an_extension_of_the_project_completion_date. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for extending the implementation period of the grant.-- Roel (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Grant agreement

Hi, WMPH: The grant agreement for this grant consisted of the terms Emailed to you by Asaf on 3 October 2011 in the Email entitled "Start-Up 2 approved!". Please provide an answer to this question Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement? based on the terms set forth in that Email and agreed to upon your acceptance of the grant funds. I will also forward you a copy of the agreement Email with the terms for your records. Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 22:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Receipts (or documentation) of all expenses that will paid or reimbursed by this grant must be kept on file by the Project Lead in case of the need for review of spending and provided to WMF at the time your report is due. — All receipts/documentation of expenses are in the custody of project lead for this grant Roel Balingit. -- Roel (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
2. If you were able to achieve your proposed activity under budget, WMF will require that you return unused funds or submit a request to re-allocate the remaining funds to other mission activities. — Not applicable, as expenses exceeded the budget. -- Roel (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
3. A report on the funded activities must be publicly posted through the template provided at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index no later than 3 months after the end date of the grant. Please notify us by e-mail when the grant report has been posted. — Report was submitted late. Complete documentation was submitted even way much later. They were only sent via e-mail on July 5 (2011 expenses) and July 24 (2012 expenses). -- Roel (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. If the project requires extension past the estimated end date submitted on the proposal, a project extension request must be submitted within 3 weeks of the end date projected on the proposal. — Winifred Olliff granted us extension to cover until December 21, 2012. It was greatly appreciated. -- Roel (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Finances

This section is marked with "This section is still in progress." Is this comment still applicable? If so, would you please let us know exactly what is missing before we continue reviewing this report? Thank you! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 23:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for updating. Please remove the "in progress" note if this is complete. Also, please provide an explanation here about why this financial information was supplied so late. Thanks again, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Completed. -- Roel (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Increase in project budget

The proposed increase to the funded project budget must be discussion on the discussion page of the grant submission before we may consider reallocating any funds from Philippine WikiCon. Thank you! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 23:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is important. Please see the new instructions here, and follow them since they are available now: Grants:Index/Request_changes_to_project_budget. If you have questions about requesting a budget increase or change, please do ask. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for extension

Please answer this question (it is applicable): Will you be requesting an extension or were you granted an extension? Thank you! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An extension was granted, so please answer accurately. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Extension was earnestly needed to cover all expenses until December 31, 2012 to synchronize it with WMPH fiscal year. It was granted, and WMPH is extremely grateful.-- Roel (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Impact

Please do answer this question about impact. It's not covered sufficiently in the project goals section, since we would like you to specifically discuss how the project's results have contributed to the strategic priorities mentioned here: Increased Reach, Increased Quality, Increased Credibility, Increased and Diversified Participation. Thanks. Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 23:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please add this section as we requested: it does not need to be long, but simply referring to another section is unfortunately not sufficient. If you have questions about this section, we are happy to answer them. Best, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly see section.-- Roel (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Report incomplete

This report has been moved to "Incomplete" since the grantee has been unresponsive for more than 21 days. Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This report is still incomplete. You are out of compliance with WMF Grants Program requirements. Please answer our questions here to complete the report, and contact grants at wikimedia dot org now with any questions about completing it. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This report is still incomplete, unfortunately. This makes WMPH currently ineligible to receive any funding from WMF. We're glad to see you've done some work on updating the budget, and I have since added some notes to clarify exactly what we need in order to review and accept the report. As always, we are happy to answer any questions about these requests or to clarify them. We do, however, expect WMPH to respond. We hope to review your complete report soon. Sincerely, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally, after a long period. This has been completed. All our apologies especially mine.-- Roel (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Roel: thank you for these changes! We will change the status of this report to "Under Review" and should have questions or a decision for you soon. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 16:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions about this report

Partnerships

You mention that my visit helped "in partnering with schools and organizations". Would you describe what partnerships actually took place following the visit? Thank you, Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It was seen from the very beginning that partnering with institutions/schools was an ideal way to tap the pool of potential contributors. Jojit who was in charge of the task had availability problems and the group of people who worked with him wasn't able to follow-up on these partnerships to see its fruition. -- Roel (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. Please amend the statement in the report, then, and avoid claiming achievements that are aspirational rather than concrete when reporting. The phrasing in the report as submitted certainly suggests those opportunities (I'm glad to have been able to create) were utilized and brought to fruition. It's okay, though regrettable, that this was not the case, but you should tell it like it is. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Asaf. I revised that particular bullet point. --seav (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Asaf, sorry for the very late reply. I just like to comment here that your efforts going in the Philippines were not gone to waste. I admit that I have some shortcomings in following up some (not all) of the schools/organizations but at the very least, we have successfully partnered with three organizations and they are Mozilla Philippines, Computer Professionals' Union and Creative Commons Philippines. (See the final outcomes of each school/organization that you visited here.) If you notice, we are more successful in collaborating with like-minded organizations. It seems that schools or other non-like-minded organizations do not understand how Wikimedia works. So, I think it's hard to collaborate with them. Although, when we like-minded organizations come together to conduct an event, we are able to penetrate schools and other organizations. These like-minded organizations helped us in partnering with other organizations. And I thank you for initiating the talks with these organizations. --Jojit (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Impact

Strategic priorities for the movement

The strategic priorities listed in the grant report form are strategic priorities for the Wikimedia movement that target Wikimedia projects. When we refer to “Increased reach” or “Improved quality” we mean that the the projects' content has reached more people or that the quality of the projects’ content has been improved.

We are not referring to the increased reach or improved quality of the chapter organization itself (although these may be good results), and many of the results you list here are more closely linked to your chapter’s development (ex: increase in membership in numbers and beyond the Manila area, the development of your strategic plan, and the increased diversity of your chapter membership).

You list “Increased credibility” here; this may be a better fit for your chapter-related goals like complying with regulatory requirements.

Would you please revise this section about impact accordingly to reflect the movement priorities? Let us know if you need any support on this or if you would like us to clarify this request further. Best, Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for that we'll edit it.-- Roel (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do, so we may proceed. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Asaf. I added more information to the report. Please do reply if this is the kind of information you expected. --seav (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted below, I filled in answers for the impact section yesterday. Will those answers suffice for the section in question, or should I proceed to provide more information? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Efforts focused on small-language Wikipedias

We would like to ask you to draw conclusions regarding very small language wikipedias like Pangasinan and Waray-Waray. Since promotion does not seem to bring new editors, and since viability of these Wikipedias is low to begin with (in terms of total number of speakers, availability of secondary materials, and demographics). Do you think WMPH should consider focusing its efforts on English, Tagalog, and Cebuano, as the languages where an encyclopedia (specifically) is most viable? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The ventures to Pangasinan and Eastern Visayas (Waray-Waray speaking region) were unplanned, unprogrammed but nevertheless a welcome initiative. It brought in some members who have signified their intent to learn how to edit. In my own opinion due to the lack of a program plan, these gives birth to the question: "What happens next?". I would have to give credit to Butch Bustria who thought about it, perhaps after seeing the enthusiasm and the ability of those from Bikol to initiate projects themselves with funding assistance from WMPH. I believe if a program plan was employed it could have produced better results like establishing a "base of operations" like the university department that focuses on Pangasinan studies to develop their work in Wikipedia.

Before another venture could be created for smaller language Wikipedias in the Philippines, a program plan with phases in developing their Wikipedia projects would have to be created. WMPH could very well experiment with Kapampangan Wikipedia (Pampanga is just 52 miles NW of Manila). The provincial government is working vigorously together with various organizations in averting their language from being lost to Tagalog/Filipino. They also have the Center for Kapampangan Studies within a university. If a base of operations could be created there, students can be enticed to write articles in their language. Kapampangan has also adopted last year a standard orthography. Kapampangan is also now used as a medium of instruction in Pampanga (it used to be Filipino and English only). In my previous exchanges with some members of the Board phases like: Use of commonly-known terminologies to allow ease of editing. Once done, this may be presented to the target potential editors. Series of Wikipedia editing workshops with basic, intermediate, advance classes. Have the universities which have Kapampangan language programs develop the content in Wikipedia, then usher in writing contests which have proven to shore up content.

The development of Tagalog Wikipedia is also being planned similar to the plan for Kapampangan. For ENWP, we have taken note of the general ambivalence of the old-time editors in the Tambayan. JP Antes (new member of the Board) has brought up the idea of a Wikipedia Rewards system to see if they will avail of Wikipedia merchandise if they have produced a N of content/edits or helped push an article to earn a Good article status. Open Web Day was a good project, it could have also seen the creation of training modules for beginners, intermediate and advanced editors. Having different levels of workshops somehow ensures a follow-up on the ability of an editor to create content for Wikipedia. -- Roel (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad to see this is being thought about in WMPH. I encourage WMPH to base its plans in the indigenous languages on attainable goals and reasonable investments of time and money (securing a "base of operations" at a partner institution is certainly a good prerequisite to avoid spending large amounts of money trying to do all the work from Manila). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Variances from project budget

There are a few significant variances from the project budget that we would like you to explain in a little more detail.

1. Regulatory requirements: overspent by 12,536 PHP
2. Books and reference materials: overspent by 16,398.51 PHP
3. Office supplies: overspent by 13,696.5 PHP
4. Virtual office rental: it seems you may have budgeted for one year but spent for two years. Is this correct?

Thank you for the additional information. Regards, Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The grant was used beyond the original implementation period. It was used for 15 months, instead of the 9 months as originally planned largely due to the inability to come up with another grant proposal for a general operations budget by the time the original completion date was about to end. The six additional months pushed the expenses beyond the allocations that was meant only for 9 months.

As for the Reference materials, we only learned of the need to have NGO administrative costs capped at 30% around late 2011. Computing expenses during the last quarter of the year yielded admin expenses breaching the cap. In order to bring this down, and since there wasn't enough time to plan and create projects, it was decided to purchase additional reference materials which are for editing activities (projects). Hence, as early as 2011, the budget of ₱15,000 was already exceeded. Come 2012, an additional ₱7,640 ($175) was spent on the same item because the references which are not locally available (The Wikipedia Revolution, How Wikipedia Works and Wikipedia the Missing Manual) went on sale on Amazon.com.-- Roel (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Participation expenses to international Wikimedia events/meets

We notice that you spent about 43,216.59 PHP on unanticipated expenses related to international events. Did you ever send us a request to approve this very large additional expense? Apologies if this was addressed elsewhere and we missed it. Thank you, Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I may have been oblivious, but I'm trying also to recall if it was also properly communicated.-- Roel (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

please do make an effort to ascertain what event this expense was for, and then we can both look for correspondence around it. It is of course not okay to unilaterally repurpose a significant amount; if this is what happened here, please consider this a strong reminder that budget changes (above 10% variance) are perfectly okay, but need to be requested (in current grants we've added handy buttons to make this easier) and approved by us. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Asaf. The events that this expense targeted are listed in the expense documentation that we submitted to the Grant staff. These are:

• 2012 Finance Meeting (Paris) (~₱7,600) (we ultimately were not able to send a representative to this meeting)
• 2012 Chapters Conference (Berlin) (~₱11,000)
• 2012 Berlin Hackathon (~₱9,900)
• 2012 Wikimania (Washington, D.C.) (~₱13,000)

Unfortunately, we didn't foresee that we would need to spend for travel-related expenses (visa fees, travel tax, airport terminal fee, etc.) to international Wikimedia events and meetings when we submitted the Grant request. Certainly, the Chapters Conference is one meeting that we should have considered at least. We also weren't able to request budget changes, I think, since this did not occur to us that we can do so. I am also certain that we didn't discuss these expenses with WMF. I will admit that this is a big lapse on our part.

There may be a case to consider these expenses as under the "Meetings" section of the budget. However, these meetings are for local meetings and WMPH membership meetings so we decided to separate these into their own item as "Participation". In addition, we were over budget for Meetings already.

As a lesson learned, we have added "Participation" to the provisionally-approved General operations 2013 Grant. --seav (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Development of the strategic plan

You mention the 2-day strategic planning meeting with the Board, but we noticed that the plan on your website here is not yet well-developed. Are the results of your planning meeting located elsewhere? We would be very interested in the results even if that meeting was not funded by this grant. Thank you, Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I just uploaded the file of the strategic plan document which was prepared by Butch and Josh last September 2012, please find it here. It is still in plain text, awaiting to be complemented with images and graphs and presented in the website. What we have so far in the website are the additions to the strategic plan, especially on the part of compliance. -- Roel (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that this plan is a draft, but this is what came out of our strategic planning meeting last year. We're planning one more meeting to finalize the more salient points of the plan, but the final product should more or less hew to this one. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I look forward to engaging more closely with WMPH around strategy, in continuation of the recent conference call we've had. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete

Sadly, we have moved this report back to "Incomplete," since it has been more than a month since the grantee responded to our questions. Once the grantee provides the missing information, we will be happy to move it back to "Under review." Note also that WMPH is currently out of compliance with grants program requirements because of this incomplete report. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Winifred. As far as I know, only the impact section was incomplete, and I have completed that yesterday. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Accepted

This report is accepted. Thank you for completing the missing section. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)