Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimedia Norge/Proposal form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Proposal summary for Wikimedia Norge

Funds requested from the FDC: US$ 235,715

APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimedia Norge/Proposal form

Timing of getting new personnel on board[edit]

You have in your plan included two new personell from July 1 2013. Do you have any plan to make such a quick recruitment or is it more feasable to think this will take some time, a couple of month or even half a year before you have these on board?Anders Wennersten (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Based on experience, if we have funding confirmed around May-June, we would be able to advertise and do interviews during June. July is general holiday in Norway, so the employees would not in reality start before around August 1, but formal employment should be concluded quickly. Nowadays, you will have 100-150 applicants to such a job in our country. Selecting and interview will take typically 2-3 weeks. If the chosen applicant/s are in a job presently they would need some layoff period, but all in all it is realistic to expect that at least one candidate would be available right ahead. Under the law, we can favour candidates who are ready to start asap if it is stated in the advertising. It is optimistic but feasible. The employment role will have to be carried by the board. Bjoertvedt (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be godd working from your side to have the first on board Sept 1 and the second Oct 1. But with this more realistic time plan, you cost for employee should become 80% of whats in your proposal?Anders Wennersten (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a saying in Norway: "It is hard to predict, especially about the future". If signals about funding are ready before June, I believe summer-time employment is feasible. We are in talks with some NGO environments to see if we can share office premises and possibly accounting and employment practicalities (tax registry reporting), and from experience employment is quick to effectuate once the selection process is over. We have board members with considerable experience as employers. Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know your are competent, and will succeed in hiring, it is only regaring the lead time I think you are overly optimistic. Even when you come to an agreemnt with a new employee it can alos be som time before that person can leave the contract work.Anders Wennersten (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, it can happen. But it is hard to predict if we will be 1, 6 or 12 weeks delayed. So, it is difficult to foresee already now, whether or not the employee will be delayed - and how much. It is quite customary, and legal, in our country to prefere candidates who can start right ahead. In the interview, we can inquire on that and make it count. In reality, we could solve it by hiring a newly educated or unemployed person in one position, and have room to wait for the other. Again, it would be difficult to tell in advance how things occur. We are already starting the search for prospect employees, latest by encourgament in today's board meeting to start looking and noting good candidates. Br, Bjoertvedt (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying questions from FDC Staff[edit]

Thank you very much for the time and effort you have put into this proposal. We have some initial questions about this proposal, listed below, and may follow up with some program-specific questions once these are answered. 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. Thank you for taking the time to respond to our questions. Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 05:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Growth rate: WM NO is proposing growth from a budget of US$ 51,785.00 to US$ 305,360, representing an extremely large growth rate of 490% within one year. Such a rapid rate of growth is outside of the guidelines presented in the FDC Framework, which suggest an increase to a maximum increase to 120% of the total budget (or a 20% increase). Please explain why WM NO plans to grow so quickly, and how WM NO would manage this rapid growth.
  2. Community involvement: To what extent have members of WM NO and other community members engaged in the development of the proposal?
  3. Documents:The proposed budget and annual plan have not yet been approved by your General Assembly; what is the process for approving these documents, when will this approval take place, and where will it be documented? Provide links if applicable.
  4. WCA fees:Are any funds allocated to pay WCA membership dues?
I am just a member of Wikimedia Norway (WMNO), but as I assume my feedback is of interest I will comment on some of the points above. Regarding extremely large growth rate, it reflect that WMNO currently is run by volunteers only and the proposal aims to add two persons working full time. So if WMNO ever is going to have hired positions with the support from WMF, it has to be an extremely large growth sometime. In my view we have come as far as we can with only volunteers and we have proved that there is a basis for at least two full-time workers that can support the work the volunteers do. And one is not applicable, it has to be two persons. Regarding approval by the General Assembly, it will be held in April and it will be documented in the proceedings from the General Assembly meeting. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If rules only allow a 120 % growth rate annually, it will not be possible or Wikimedia Norway to hire anyone for a permanent staff, because any staff cost will naturally involve much more than such a budget increase. We believe this is not applicable since chapters of a similar standing have been granted staffing due to their former status as stand-alone donation objects. Donators in Norway each year contribute with a very substantial donation contribution to the WMF, due to the relative wealth of the country. It is similarly costly to staff a minimum office in order to professionalize activities in Norway, and that treshold cannot be passed before several years if a 120% rule is to be followed.
Community involvement have been achieved in three ways. First of all through the 2011-2015 Strategy process that involved substantial signpost involvement and a broad involvement from the board during the winter 2011-12. Further, input to the application process has been sought both by avdertising at the Bokmaal and Nynorsk signposts, and by continuos discussion among the 9 members of the Board of Wikimedia Norway. During the winter 2012-13, discussions on next years activities have taken place at every board meeting.
The Annual Assembly of Wikimedia Norway meets at April, 7 in Oslo. The board yesterday approved a budget proposal for 2013 and 2014, and approved accounts for 2012. The documents will be posted at the Annual Assembly site here with a document deadline of March 31. We always assemble the Annual Assembly in April, so unfortunately it has not been possible to publish approved documents to match the FDC cycle. Provisional documents are all posted in the application. Budget proposals rarely get changes by the assembly, but of course that is theoretically possible.
WCA membership fees are budgeted, but we have no clear indication as to how substantial these are. Still, membership will have to be formally accepted by the organization, awaiting the final preconditions and financial constraints inherent in membership.
Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments.
  1. The growth rate is to large if all of the expenses should be paid by a single source. I think some of the funding should be local, and that especially known failed projects should get at least some local funding and oversight if they are to be continued. I would also strongly advice WMF/FDC to demand timely and complete reports on spending and progress.
  2. There are some community involvement, especially in the present courses for Arts Council Norway. The so-called link to "substantial signpost involvement" [1] is not about WMNOs involvement in the community, it is a statement about what they want the goals to be, modelled on WMFs goals for the period forward to 2015, and given what they see as possible. The community then discusses whether this is reasonable given the present situation on the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia. None of points stated by the community had any consequence for the final strategy. I don't really know about other areas where there has been any true community involvement the last years. Perhaps the conference "GoOpen", but that mainly involves the same smaller group.
  3. I'm a bit worried because the board seems to expect funding from WMF in the present budget for 2013, and it is nothing about how they will proceed without the proposed funding. There are both a post for NOK150k in project grants and NOK660k from FDC grants. [2] As far as I can see there is no contingency plan if the proposal is not accepted.
  4. I think mr. Bjørtvedt have explained this good enough.
In all I think the proposal as it stand has a pretty high risk, and given the previous track-record on missing reports and failed projects, I think the proposal should be reformulated to lower the risk on each subproposal. Funding all of the proposals as one block will make it very difficult to act on information about one of the subparts without involving the whole proposal.
There are some additional point I'm not totally comfortable with.
  • Program 1, travelling app trial project (B) Heritage Here. This is as far as I know a commercial venture involving The Arts Council Norway. I think more information is necessary, and a decision whether WMF should be involved at all. It is probably in direct competition with other in-house activities, and I wonder if it is outside WMFs scope as it is formulated.
  • Program 2, is something I would say should be a community project, but even if WMNO has been offered help from the community in the previous years they have declined. If WMF/FDC is to support this program they should do necessary follow-ups to make sure the community is indeed involved.
  • Program 3, should primarily be paid by the involved external entities, but I can't see anything about this in the present budget. I guess there will be internal expenses on follow-ups, but I still feel that something is missing here. I also think its unclear who is actually paid here and for what.
  • Program 4, is important and should be the core activity before other programs are initiated. Only thing here is that I would like to see some documentation on the claimed progress on cooperation with external entities, and perhaps a more objective attitude towards those cooperation's that have failed.
That would be my comments so far. — Jeblad 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jeblad, we always appreciate highly your valuable insight. I will not go into detail on all, just some of the points where I have difficulty understanding your issue. First of all you mention some places "failed projects", but I do not understand which projects that are supposed to having failed. At least, I am not aware of any such during the last three years, but I do not have detail insight into the period before 2009-2010 As regards the Heritage Here project which you name as "a commercial venture" which you say needs "a decision whether WMF should be involved at all". First of all, the venture is not commercial as far as we know, there are only state entities behind it and we have no indications that this is commercial. We have presented our partners (including Arts Council Norway) with all the programs that we propose, and no such information has occured. However, we are aware that Wikidata is discussing and developing a substantial partnership with Heritage Here, and that it is you who are fronting those descussions with them. So I have some difficulties in understanding why WMNO (WMF) can not co-operate with Heritage Here, as long as you yourself are developing such co-operation with them on behalf of Wikidata. There might be some point I have missed here, but that needs to be explained. Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Sami Parlament requested the funding back after several years of delay and failing reports. In the end they limited the request to second part of the funding. (For one of the docs in the case, see [3]. "Tidligere utbetalt Kr 175 000" is the first part of the funding, "Tilbake trekt Kr 175 000" is the second part that should be paid out when the project was completed. The project is closed as of 31. Dec. 2012.) I can't see how you can say you are unaware of this, you was the vice chairman when this was going on and it is well documented.
I have no rights to initiate any "substantial partnership with Heritage Here" on behalf of Wikidata. What I have done is to inform Arts Council Norway about Wikidata and which effect it will have on Wikipedia, and how they can make content available on Wikidata. A long time ago I informed Arts Council Norway about a similar project to Heritage Here, but that was long before Wikidata. — Jeblad 13:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from disagreeing in all the factual parts of this, I am happy to answer these questions directly towards the Funds Committee. Bjoertvedt (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying questions about financial data[edit]

There appear to be a few inconsistencies in the financial data reported here. Please provide some explanations below. Note that if you require any changes to the proposal form itself, you should request written approval here on the discussion page and then make the changes using strikethrough after they are approved. Please respond inline or create a new section if necessary. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 05:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The amounts listed in Table 2 for the amount proposed to the FDC (US$ 235,715) and the amount to be raised from non-FDC sources (US$73,215) are not equal to the total annual expenses of the entity (US$305,360), but rather to US$ 308,930. The discrepancy is about US$ 3,570. Would you kindly explain what accounts for the difference in the two figures? Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk
  2. The Program expenses listed in Table 8 add up to only US$ 130,370, while the total listed in this table is US$133,930. Please account for this discrepancy of US$ 3,560. Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk
    Also those appear to be the letter o instead of zeroes for the fractional amounts. (.00). Apteva (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the explanations on differencies and inconsistencies:
  1. The amounts listed in Table 2 are first spending, followed by two items of revenues. I.e, we are planning with incomes NOK 20.000 in excess of spending, that means a surplus of NOK 20.000. See Table 9. That makes up for the difference.
  2. The discrepancy in Table 8 derives from the fact that one item row is missing: Event costs Technical Group, training: NOK 20.000. This item is listed in the notes below the Table, but for some reason the line was not inserted into the table. So, the total sum is correct.
  3. I am a Norwegian, in Norway we write the number ten thousand like 10.000,oo-, while in your country you possibly write 10,000.00- ? I know of several other languages with yet other ways of giving numbers. Please excuse me for not having a 100% insight into how fractions and decimals are written abroad, we non-native-english-speakers within the Wikimedia movement are doing our best.
Best regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inter alia, in Table 8 we request to add the missing row with the following text: Technical Group Costs NOK 20,000 US$ 3,560.
Best regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bjoertvedt: Thank you for these explanations. That requested change to Table 8 in the proposal form is approved. Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 16:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

organizational design and growth opportunities for Wikimedia Norge[edit]

The proposal demonstrates that Wikimedia Norge makes and fulfills sound plans and budgets.

These observations come from far away, so if they lack some basic understanding, it would not surprise their author. Prepare to forgive some ignorance.

  • The staffing proposal lists what you need to be doing and proposes to hire for two discrete staff functions. It's a sensible approach, but it will disappoint you if the organizational dynamics do not work. With two staffers in two offices plus common workspaces, the great advantage of teamwork will have to come each staffer's individual interactions with volunteers.
It is more important that the first hire be evangelistic and the second hire be masterful in organization.
  • Judging by the Wikipedia page on Store norske leksikon, you are the slipshod upstart competitor to that national treasure. Its editors are appealing for a thousand volunteers, experts willing to stamp their authority on a true encyclopedia worthy of the capital that has been sunk.
Before centuries of feudalism start, the global Wikipedia community should examine our own need for authoritative citation on a large scale and take note of the opportunities opened by the retirement of the travelling encyclopedia salesman.

Just leave a polite "thank you" if none of this is relevant.

Macdust (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macdust! These are relevant and good questions! As for the staffers, we will certainly seek to integrate them in each others workdays as best we can, and install one office and probably share meeting facilities with others. We know of a certain NGO group who are seeking tenants, so tour staffers will certainly not pass away from out of loneliness. And bedises, that office will be the place where we can (finally!) arrange board meetings, smaller meetups, etc.
Regarding Store norske leksikon, that is the historically national encyclpoedia, which is striving hard to survive. They have spent NOK 100 million already, but they'r still 150,000 articles behind Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmaal. Including Norwegian Nynorsk, we are having twice as many articles. I see from your english Wikipedia text that they are "seeking" 1,000 experts, well they are still having only some 325 experts to write for them and that is the same number as 3 years ago. I happen to be one of those 325 experts (my expert themes at the SNL are Mandal, Kristiansand and Montenegro), and I am not widely convinced by their progress. However, they keep up a good benchmark to the Norwegian Wikipedias in many areas, and we have a good and friendly co-operation with them. Wikimedia Norway has taken part in some of their strategy seminars, and we invite them to our academies. All in all, they will probably survive for a few more years but when 2014 comes and they have spent their present donation of NOK 30 mio, I am curious to see what their owners will do. It is all about burning tax-payers' money, but with less results than Wikipedia in Norway.
Thank you!
Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this responsive and credible reply. Macdust (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point I tend to agree with you, but they have made a proposal for specific functions and not for help in a startup. I think it would be better to get the overall organization working before they get involved in specific functions, because if they are to do specific functions in addition to organizational work (which they must do anyhow) I wonder if they would manage to do it all efficiently. On your second point I think it would be better to focus on whats possible as a Wikimedia-chapter instead of what some other organization have been donated for their work. WMNO have (as far as I know) applied for donations from the same organizations as Store Norske Leksikon, without any success. I think we should respect SNL for what they have achieved, and then try to achieve the same before we criticize them. — Jeblad 09:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can donations to Wikimedia Norge become tax-deductible?[edit]

This is not directly related to the proposal and may have been discussed elsewhere before, but is it possible for Wikimedia Norge to get the status of a voluntary organization, donations to which are deductible from donor's income tax? See Gaver til frivillige organisasjoner og tros- og livssynssamfunn - liste over godkjente organisasjoner. This might make it more attractive for many potential donors. Micromesistius (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the answer is yes, but it demands substantial work from us. Without any staff, this task is among the many revenue-driving actions that we have had to skip because volunteer force doesn't suffuce. Bjoertvedt (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huge salaries[edit]

If I read this right, you're assigning $170,000 to hire two people. According to [4] average Norwegians make $37,000 gross and [5] says those with advanced degrees make $57,000 or $46,000 - so why not cut that salary figure in half, and hire some women? Wnt (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[note: I was emailed about this, so I should clarify: so far as I know it would not be gender-based pay discrimination if we pay low salaries and are willing to hire women, even if they turn out to be the only ones who find the figure to be competitive. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)][reply]
The link you refer to, indicates gross avarage salaries as of the year 2004. That is nine years ago and salaries have risen considerably since that. Br, Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be some miscommunication here about how salary negotiation works in various countries and how gender does or does not apply. I'm coming from a United States perspective, and what you're saying here (specifically linking low salaries with being "willing to hire women" -- of course you'd be willing to hire women, but women should be paid as much as men for doing the same job) does "raise an eyebrow". But in the US, for most jobs, salaries are not publicly advertised ahead of time; after a successful job interview, the candidate and the organization negotiate wages (and thus sometimes women get discriminated against during this negotiation phase). Is this not the case in Norway? Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S.A., for employment opportunities with non-profit organizations such as WMF, academia, or city/state/federal agencies, salaries are typically advertised ahead of time. That does not contradict Sharihareswara's observation, as most jobs in the U.S.A. do not fall under that classification. However, I was surprised that both jobs would have the same salaries, as one is technical and the other is not. I realize that there are differences in levels of compensation, by sector, which Bjoertvedt covered in detail. Given that, I wondered why the more technical proposed new hire wouldn't earn more than the less technical person. That could possibly reduce the total amount of the expense (though the comments that followed below did not make that seem likely). --FeralOink (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gross salaries of 400,000 NOK (70,000 USD) each does sound very high for what the jobs are - they sound like entry level jobs. Perhaps the jobs are more advanced than they sound - could we get a more detailed job description? --Tango (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Avarage salaries in Norway were NOK 38,100 per month back in 2011, or NOK 457.200 per annum, two years ago. Salaries in Oslo are markedly higher than in other counties, due to higher costs of living. To all of you who are living outside of Norway or Switzerland, it might seem wierd to observe the wage-level of Norway. The following overview from Statistics Norway, gives the average monthly salary within the culture sector to be NOK 37.000, i.e. NOK 444.000 per annum. This is a low wage level, while for instance the average monthly wage in membership-based NGOs is NOK 44.000, or NOK 528.000 per annum. If we step to information and communication, the average wage is NOK 50.300 per month, or NOK 603.600 per annum. If we move to the realy low-paid jobs, which are in the retail sector, the average monhtly salary is NOK 35.100, or NOK 421.200 per annum for the various employees at the local supermarket. The unemployment rate in Norway is 3,2 %. With wages as low as NOK 400.000 per year, we believe that we are at a minimum of what we can offer to get anyone except a one-year employment restriction in the most expensive city on the planet. Br, Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.2% unemployment and checkout clerks making $75,000 a year in the world's premier welfare state? I think some high-placed Republicans must deserve considerable credit for keeping this so thoroughly out of the American media. I'd like some more confirmation though - even if, admittedly, it is more for the purposes of future political arguments than having to do with your proposal. Wnt (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research on this and I think it's less impressive if you compare after tax earnings - Norway apparently has one of the highest tax burdens in the world (although, obviously, you benefit from the public spending that is paid for out of that). I think even the after tax earnings are high compared to what I'm used to, though. I think I may be living in the wrong country... --Tango (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Norway does not have particularly high taxes, they are in the medium range of Europe. Corporate tax and capital incomes tax are flat 28%. Labour income tax for someone who ears NOK 400.000 is 28%, minus a bottom extemption for NOk 75.000, i.e. the tax is approximately 22-25% for that person. The VAT is 25%, the same as Sweden and Denmark. So if you earn NOK 400.000, you will typically be left with an after-tax earning of NOK 300.000. Only if your salary is above NOK 900.000, will your income tax start nearing the maximum rate. Normal salaries at NOK 500-600.000 typically see a tax of 35%. Br, Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be possible to hire any well-qualified person in Norway below NOK400k, but I could be wrong. The taxes is a bit variable, they depend on several factors. — Jeblad 09:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a private comment, and not related to salary levels in Norway, which I have not studied thoroughly - I think it would be a bit awkward if Wikimedia movement tried to save money by exploiting the fact that women, or minorities (racial, religious, etc.) are typically paid less. Taking advantage of the disadvantaged is not something we should support, in my view. It is a slippery slope (and, just theoretically: if in some country we could save money by employing children, should we? :) Pundit (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be very surprised if you find many people disagreeing with that sentiment! I didn't comment on Wnt's reference to women because it just seemed totally bizarre to me and not worth discussing. It's also a misunderstanding of where the gender pay gap comes from in developed countries. Women may be paid less on average than men, but that's because they tend to do less well-paid jobs. A man and a woman doing the same job will typically be paid the same and both men and women expect to be paid fair market rates for their time (although they may accept less to work for a non-profit they strongly support - that applies to both men and women, though). --Tango (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're referring to the so-called "occupational ghettos", which result in women earning less on average, but the fact that women are paid less for the same job is also true, also in developed countries - although it is definitely not a good excuse to try to actively exploit the gender gap, I think :) Pundit (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from FDC Staff about programs for all entities[edit]

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, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Microgrants programs:
    • What types of activities will the entity fund through its microgrants program
  • The entity has no specific plans on microgrants, that is to be developed by the next board. But the W-i-R project should be well suited to fund travels to other W-i-R institutions (abroad) and conferences, as a start. Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How will the entity make sure the funds are spent on those activities?
    • How are these activities related to the goal of the microgrants program?
    • How will information about this program be visible to the community?
    • 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)?
  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?
  • Norway is a society with only 5 mio people altogether, about the population size of, say, Berlin or Detroit. It follows that resources, human and institutional, will forever remain limited and partnerships are already a vital part of our strategy. In a country of this size, and with a strategic focus on GLAM in the 2011-15 strategy, partnerships are to be emphasized to draw heavily on the resources and dedication that (external) GLAM institutions demonstrate. The thing is that important institutions, like the Arts Council, the National Library, and the National Antiquarian, have all adopted formal policies to chase the Wikipedia rabbit as one of the ways to fullfill their mandates to reach the public. Most specifically, we have seen how releasing photos, databases, etc, have started to emerge as the de-facto policy of substantial and resourceful institutions. We would deem it a great failure if we declined to include this as a potential resource for the Wikipedia community. The strategy for pursuing partnership is not complicated, we have lately been approach by at least four substantial institutions who clearly wish to realize such partnerships, there is a general maturing of the view on Wikipedia which makes partnership natural now. A good partnership should last for at least 3 years, focuses heavily on participation and recruitment, and gives participants a blend of options for taking part, from the newcomer to training to the more advanced events targeting retention of contributors. Much is still to be developed. Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 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.
  • There has been signpost involvement on target numbers, and in the latest annual report we include a thoruogh evaluation of success and strategic direction based on quantitative targets. Unfortunately in Norwegian, you can get an understanding of the process here. The board of directors also evaluates progress along quantitative results in board meetings. Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Diversity: How does the entity define diversity?
  • We have three language versions, from a 5 mio population. Cultural and liguistic diversity is strong if these are developed, supported, and participation retained. We have taken effort to recruit a more balanced gender proposition of the board and groups, so as the present board has a better gender distribution than ever before. One project draft (not yet realized) is a systematic involvement in the 2013 one hundred year celebration of women's voting rights in Norway. Unfortunately, this project has meager result yet. The Saami project, however, is likely to being renewed in a new and more solid way withj public funding. 84.208.189.220 21:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Continuity: With continual changes in board composition, how does your entity ensure goals are met and organizational focus is steady?
  • The board of directors has been relatively stable since April, 2010. The chairman, vice chairman, treasurer, and several board members have been represented in the board for three years or more. Board members are also extremely experienced in the community, many 'heavy addicts' of the Wikipedia are deputies of the board. The annual assembly will decide in early April, but there are plenty of candidates to represent prolonged continuity. Organizational focus has been steady for some years now - the Five-year strategy contributes to that, and for instance the GLAM focus has been persistent since 2010. We are clearly following up on even diffucult strategies, revising them without abandoning them at the first point of difficulty. The Saami project is an example of that.Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Growth: How is your entity planning for financial sustainability and budget growth over the next several years?
  • I think the application and detailed budgets account very well for the short term. In the longer term, the board has taken considerable effort to seek alternative revenue. Two applications for public funds are presently prepared, one to continue the Saami Project, and one to initiate a Nynorsk project, both of substantial volume (USD 50.000 +). But without any full-time staff the process is hard to finanlize on a purely voluntary basis. Applying for our first staff has a vital aim in establishing a more professional and systematic interaction with public and non-public sources of funding. Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 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?
  • Board discussions and occasional signpost discussions are a cornerstone. Th board has a strong rooting in the community and community input to the board is open and substantial. The admin (sysop) emailing list, the signposts, and direct communication to the board, are important channels of input. The participation of volunteers is of course another important measure, those options that attract partipants obviously has some credit to them. For instance, filings to recruit editing course tutors, and wikipedians-in-residence, have clearly had resonnance. The massive involvement in editing cources for external users is a signal of demand. However, we are increasingly getting input from the community (usually through the board) that more advanced, 'veteran' events and courses. THis is an important signal that the board is taking further for the GLAM and W-i-R programs, and in planned events.Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from FDC Staff about programs for WM NO[edit]

We have some additional questions about WMNO’s programs. Please answer them here and let us know if any of the questions are unclear. Thank you in advance for your responses. Best, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You mentioned that WCA fees were budgeted for; please share the amount included in your budget for this line item here.
  1. The Saami Project has been a success but that it has worn on organizational resources due to substantial travel requirements. How do you intend to continue to support the Saami project given the heavy inputs required?
  • We are in discussion with WMSE to collaborate, and we will change the project in our application for a Phase 2 founding to solve the distress on human resources. The Phase 2 process will be developed in full this summer by the next bboard, and in concordance with what WMSE might wish to support. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WMNO proposes to hire two staff: a Development Program Manager and an Outreach Program Manager to manage different components of GLAM. Why have you chosen to split the management of GLAM instead of dedicating one staff member to oversee the program in its entirety?
  • Because we need to hire two staff with rather diverging skills in order to secure a broad reach as regards staff capabilities and program involvement. Our thinking is definitely to hire one rather technicl expert, because so many program options are now technical (with Arts Council, National Library, Heritage Here, advanced courses, etc). The other staff needs to have strong organizational skills, as far as we can see from experience within WMSE. The staff needs to be heavily utilized to mobilize and involve volunteers and the community, in additiona to pretty advanced technical options with partners (deep linking, API and programming work, etc). We do not believe that any one persons will inhibit both personal skills so we envisage some kind of division of labour along functional lines and not program lines.Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. How will you evaluate the contribution of WMNO to the Heritage Here project?
  • The project currently has substantial institutional backing and funding, and is into a pilot phase covering three geographical areas of Norway. Much of the success will depend on development inside the project as such, irrespective of our effort. The evaluation of the Wikipedia part (supplying, updating and giving community priority to those travel-related articles) is not yet clear, since the involvement in the project will be part of the Year 2 co-operation with Arts Council Norway which is only to be signed in April. We have clear and sufficient indications from Arts Council Norway that the programs we have drafted are in concordance with their planning and assessment of progress. Spesific evaluation points must be developed. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You write that the Arts Council will contribute to cost-funding of the GLAM work, but it is not mentioned in your budget document. What monetary contributions is the Arts Council expected to make?
  • The Arts Council will not donate or transfer anything to us, they will pay the costs of their own participants (GLAM institution professionals) such as travel, acommodation etc, whereas we will pay much of our travel costs, staff costs (for developing, managing and running events), etc. Last year we understand that the Arts Council had a budget of NOK 580.000 (USD ~ 100.000) which was spend on the hundreds of professionals' travels and other course costs. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Editing training is a priority for WMNO, especially for GLAM.
    • What progress has been made on developing the advanced editing courses?
    • Courses will be held in 19 counties in Norway; how many people do you expect to train? What follow-up will you provide?
  • We ran 35 courses last year, in two months. I do not have the exact participants lists but I assess that something like 300 GLAM professionals took part. We should expect to train upto 500 participants (first-time and come-back). The follow-up that we have already agreed, is to invite all the level 1 participants from October-November 2012 courses, to advanced training courses throughout 2013, and at the same time repeat level 1 (first-time) at a volume somewhat below last year's. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please describe how this model is sustainable in the longterm.
  • It is only sustainable in the long term by offering professionals a continous tutorial advancement. The training courses level 1 in October-November made a substantial impact on the number of first-time and low-level editors at the Wikipedia. However, the effect only lasted for about 2-3 months. Continuous training with level 2, 3, etc courses should take the same GLAM professionals through an ever-increasing complexity of skills, such as image uploading, advanced editing, lisencing, etc. At the same time, the number of GLAM institutions and professionals is so high in Norway that levels can be repeated to some degree, if not annually then at least regularly. We have discussed regional courses as alternatives to county-wise courses if that is needed. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You have set a target for the number of social evenings for GLAM professionals and experienced Wikipedians as 4-5, but what do you expect to come out of these evenings?
  1. What is the ‘donation kit’ mentioned in the Commons Outreach program?
  • It is a kit for database owners and image collection owners, and already consists of some elements. The most relevant are:
  • Lisencing manual. ALready developed by the Norsk Folkemuseum in Oslo.
  • Technical manual. Explaining how to upload, mass ulpoad, tag, catagorize, etc.
  • Interoperability manual or program. The museums of Norway use one common software for uploading and tagging photos, and images already in their databases can be transferred to Commons by means of establishing technical interoperability between them. This is not yet in place (and is a potential task of the Technical Group).
  • "Customer support". Museums especially make use of volunteer support already.
  • Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You plan to help two institutions hire Wikipedians-in-Residence. Which two institutions will you prioritize in your support?
  • We already have strong signals from two specific institutions that they are planning, or at least considering, to employ. Those are the National Archives (Riksarkivet) and tthe National Antiquarian (Riksantikvaren). The last of whom is strongly motivated by the National Antiquarian of Sweden, who has Wikipedians- in -residence. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Holiday[edit]

Please note that there is Easter Holiday in Norway during the last week of March. Board members, as far as we can assess, will all have holiday during the whole week. Ski resorts in the mountains are common. This might severely reduce the board's ability to read, and respond to postings here. Hest regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikimedia Norge's strategy[edit]

The FDC is particularly interested in learning about how entities are making strategic decisions around resource allocation. This is a hypothetical question: if Wikimedia Norge were able to hire only one staff person, what would this staff person's activities be focused on? Best, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 22:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they were able to hire only one person, they should just let that person be hired by a chapter that already has some other person hired. Its simply not going to work with one person, you need to be two as to have someone to discuss and develop the various projects with. So the answer is thank you, but no. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to the point made that one individual is less than half as productive as two. Yes, everyone says he is self-motivated, but it is important to be honest about human nature! Working in isolation at a new job is non-optimal. So. To get to the point: It seemed that the two staff would be hired from sources external to WMF. I surmised this because of discussion in Section 2 above, about allocating sufficient time, 6 - 10 weeks, for the new staff to give notice and resign from current jobs, etc.

  1. Will the job descriptions for the two new staff members include prior familiarity with WMF?
  2. Who will train the two new staff members, and is that budgeted? Perhaps training will be done by volunteers. That is acceptable of course! In order to fully realize the benefit of two newly hired full-time staff, even individuals with appropriate education and experience, a variety of pragmatic though important issues of first time introduction, systems support etc. must be anticipated.

If these details were specified clearly, yet I overlooked them due to my ignorance, please accept my apologies for this use of your time. Thank you. --FeralOink (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a member of Wikimedia Norge, but from my point of view prior familiarity with WMF is not important, if at all interesting. What we need two full time staff for is to run courses, lectures etc and that they have knowledge of such is much more important. Regarding training, they walk into uncharted land and basically have to train themselves, if they are successful they will keep their jobs, if not, they are out. So I would say that prior knowledge of Wikipedia is not vital, but proof that they can work independent, organise and deliver results is. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Ulflarsen. I'm not an FDC member either, but the banner to comment appears like a siren call, thus I heeded (my destination was the tool server discussion, but meddling here was more interesting). I have had very positive impressions of Wikimedia Norge editor contributions (the article about Quizling on en Wiki is an example of such), specifically their ability to work collaboratively with a minimum of fuss, i.e. no edit warring, no irrelevant diversions; for being friendly to female editors (such as myself); for being courteous to each other, so I personally hope that Wikimedia Norge will have what it needs to prosper. It would be very bad to make a mistake about who is hired as full time staff, so I merely am suggesting that provisions have been put in place, including supervision, such that the outcome is positive. I agree, familiarity with WMF is not necessary. Again, thank you for replying, especially since it is a holiday weekend for many. --FeralOink (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor inquiry about decision due date[edit]

Is there a typographical error in the schedule at the top of the page, for Wikimedia Norge Proposals/ 2012-2013, round2? This is the text (there were several preceding bullet points):

Staff proposal assessments have not yet been published for this round.
A Board Decision as not yet been delivered for this round. A decision will be due on 1 June 2012.

Should that be "1 June 2013", instead of "1 June 2012"? --FeralOink (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next board, continutity[edit]

There have been questions on continuity, and that is relevant to the proposal in general, and to the situation that we change our board on April 7, in partcular. The next board will only be composed and decided by the Annual Assembly, but the Electoral Committee of Wikimedia Norge have proposed the following candidates to furnish the board of directors:

  • Jon Harald Søby (chairperson). Super-veteran wikipedian, bureaucrat at no-wiki. One of the founders of WMNO.
  • Erlend Bjørtvedt (vice chair). Entering the third consecutive term in this position. Bureaucrat at no-wiki.
  • Jarle Vines (member). The present chriaman of the board. Super-veteran wikipedian, sysop at Bokmål and Nynorsk.
  • Claes Tande (member). Wikipedian of the Year 2012. Super-veteran, bureaucrat at no-wiki. Catholic parish priest.
  • Trond Trosterud (member). Entering his fourth term in the board. Ass'nt professor of language, University of Tromsö.
  • Knut Hjelleset (member). New wikipedian. Present member of the board. NGO professional.
  • Harald Groven (proxy member). Entering his fourth term in the board. IT professional.
  • Dan Mikael O Heggø (proxy member). New wikipedian and new in the board. Phycicist and librarian.
  • Anne C Martens (present member, undecided). Not clarified yet whether she continues.
  • Hogne Neteland (proxy member). Member of electoral committee, new in the board. IT profesional.

In addition, the board is working to attract one more female candidate. The electoral committee has achieved a proposal that counts for substantial continuity, with the needed balance towards renewal. Best regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-descussion postings[edit]

Wikimedia Norway arranged their annual assembly 2013 today, on Sunday April 7, 2013. Therefore, we here post some documentation that could not be posted until today, after the discussion period is passed:

Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Link to the new board updated so that it points to the English presentation. Kjetil_r 12:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this timely update. Pundit (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following through and getting these documents to us. (Sydney Poore) FloNight (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Norge/Proposal_form&oldid=6782227"