Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimédia France/Staff proposal assessment

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Wikimédia France received a funds allocation in the amount of 94,000 in 2012-2013 Round 1. This funds allocation was recommended by the Funds Dissemination Committee on 15 November 2012 and approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on 1 December 2012.

This page should be used to discuss the staff proposal assessment form submitted for this entity's proposal. To discuss other components of this proposal please refer to the discussion links below.
  • This proposal has not yet been created.
  • This proposal form has not yet been created.
  • Staff proposal assessments have not yet been published for this round.
  • FDC recommendation discussion page: discuss the recommendation that the FDC gives to the Board regarding all requests.
  • Board decision discussion page: discuss the board's decision.
  • An impact report has not yet been submitted for this funds allocation.

(G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives[edit]

Hi and thanks for the useful review. Do you see some expenses that are clearly out of scale from your point of view and could be "easily" scale down ? Léna (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC

Thanks very much for the question, Lena. Since the staff proposal assessment is an input to the FDC's recommendations process, the FDC might respond to issues of this kind through its recommendation to the WMF Board, and through its communication with the applying entities. As FDC staff, we cannot make recommendations ourselves at this moment in time, I'm afraid.--ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Léna, yes, having analysed and assessed from their professional stance down to a certain level of fine-grainedness, as it were, the staff probably feel that a boundary of responsibility has to be observed between this assessment and that of the FDC itself, the next step in the pipeline.

May I suggest that you get together with a few senior people in your chapter, examine the costings for each activity, and present on this page a combination of (i) a revised set of estimates (I guess revised downward in one or more cases), and (ii) stronger, more detailed justifications for the costs? It may be, indeed, that stronger justifications for the current requests will convince the committee.

Your supplemental information should be addressed to the committee rather than the staff, and should be cast in a helpful, obliging tone that shows calm control over the management of things (not the slightly distressed tone I've seen on another talk page). Explain how and why some of the costings you think the staff might have objected to are, in fact, reasonable—don't just contradict the staff point-blank. Show flexibility. I'm sure the staff won't mind my saying: give the committee what they need to modify the assessment. Put yourself in their psychological situation. I haven't read your costings, but this much is clear. Hoping this helps. Tony (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tony,
First of our expenses are staff expenditures. The figures we've given are estimated gross salaries. They will be more finaly estimate with probably a human ressource consulting. As our salaries are public, we must be even more accurate in their estimation. But I think it will marginally affect the payroll.
For the programs budget enveloppes, in the past years, we've often spent less than what we had planned even if the planned activity have been done. This have been taken account in our programs.
TCY (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply


I've posted our programs in French and we are translating it here. There are more details and metrics than in the proposal. GuillaumeG (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply