Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Australia/Proposal form

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Wikimedia Australia received a funds allocation in the amount of 0 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.

Please note that the proposals are now closed to community response. Thanks to all for your engagement with the Community Review process, and for your questions. FDC members, FDC staff, and entity representatives will still be communicating on these discussion pages over the next few weeks, but entities will not be responding to questions from anyone other than the FDC or FDC Staff.

This page should be used to discuss the entity’s submitted proposal. This includes asking questions about the content of the proposal form, asking for clarifications on this proposal, and discussing any other issues relating to the proposal itself. 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.

Late application justification[edit]

Apologies for the late submission. Please recognise that our board has been wrapping up our 2010–11 audit, preparing for our 2011–12 audit, completing grant reports from grants that were before the time of any member of the current board, and has urgently undertaken to put a conflict of interest policy in place. Our FDC application was placed into step 3 (status= CONFIRMED) on 2 October 2012 at 00:13:24 (UTC), and pushed into step 4 half an hour later. FDC staff then informed us on Thursday, 4 October 2012 16:35:34 (UTC) that they recommend that WMAU submit a complete proposal as soon as possible, and provide a reasonable explanation for the late submission on the talk page of the proposal. WMAU published its Annual Plan and completed the FDC form by 6 October 2012 at 12:31:21 (UTC). WMAU hopes that the FDC will recognise that WMAU lost a little time between 1 and 4 October while we were under the impression that we had obtained eligibility but were not allowed to submit an FDC proposal, but has quickly pushed out our plan and FDC funding request.

We would also like the FDC to take into account that our Annual Plan had two items which were embargoed, and one of those remains embargoed despite our intentions to publicise it. Obviously as this is confidential, we request that the FDC confirms this matter privately. As a result we have redacted parts of the Annual Plan which are still embargoed. Also we have two ARC linkage projects with our partners which are to be submitted in the next month, and we needed to confirm that they are happy for the draft budget of those projects to be published in our Annual Plan ahead of the grant application. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bank balance[edit]

Could you elaborate on how you can have a postive bank balance of around $100000 with almost no income?Anders Wennersten (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sure. The relevant details are in wmau:Meeting:2011_AGM/Financial_Report (see revenue on page seven; also see wmau:File:Fundraising_Report.pdf for a more detailed report).
We participated in the 2010-11 Annual Fundraiser, bringing in a significant amount of revenue to the chapter. While about to embark on professionalising the chapter, this revenue stream dried up unexpectedly, as the WMF wanted to move to the Annual Chapter Grant model, which was superseded by the FDC model. During this period of change in funding model across the movement, Wikimedia Australia has been conservative in expenditure in order to ensure the stability and long term viability of the organisation. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Clarifying questions from the FDC staff[edit]

Hi John and WMAU-- we wanted to ask a few clarifying questions as we do our initial review and assessment of the proposal. If you could, please provide responses here.

First, a few pieces of information that we are trying to collect / confirm from each entity:

  • Please confirm the following amounts (in USD):
    • Current year budget (spending) $41,730
    • Proposed year budget $666,659
    • Current year grants received $0
    • Proposed year funds requested $291,115
  • Please provide your entity’s cash reserve position (I know you provided some detail here already, but please do confirm)
    • How much do you have in your reserves now? AUD$138,738
    • How much do you expect to have by the start of the planning year period? AUD$100,00

Next, a few specific questions about your proposal:

  • Staffing. You mentioned the difficultly WMAU experienced when trying to hire your first staff member this past year. Can you please provide additional detail on how you will overcome similar challenges when making the staff hires outlined in this plan?
In the later half of 2011, the chapter’s plans for the initial hire were well advanced, when the rug was pulled out from under the chapter’s feet by the decision of the WMF Board of Trustees not to proceed with chapter fundraising and backpedal out of our signed fundraising agreement (if I sound bitter about this, it’s because I still am). With the future financial security of the chapter under threat, and concluding an alternative funding arrangement clearly not a priority for the WMF, the management committee essentially had no choice but to abandon the process, resulting in a whole lot of wasted time, effort, and resources. Hopefully getting a year’s worth of salary for the first hire from the FDC will at least allow us to provide certainty for twelve months that we can continue to pay and support a staff member.
The chapter had also secured in-kind support from a like minded non-profit organisation to sublease some office space for a token fee, in which to essentially build the “WMAU Office”. Due to circumstances beyond the control of our partner organisation (the office building being sold and existing tenancies wound up), this also introduced the additional complexity of finding alternative accommodation. It is currently the plan to either hire short term accommodation for the initial hire, or get them to work from home, and let them take care of procuring premises if and when it is necessary. At this stage in our organisational development a fulltime office, while nice to have, is probably not essential.
Finally, the current management committee, while holding a wide variety of skills, does not currently have anyone with expertise in payroll and recruitment matters. Rather than rush into the process and make errors that later prove to be costly, we have chosen to take our time and do things correctly and carefully, rather than quickly. There are two trains of thought on this; we can either talk to a consultant (hopefully on a pro bono basis) to determine what we need to do and hopefully highlight any issues, or train one of the committee members in the relevant issues so that they can advise the management committee.
  • Net income. Your net is "0" yet your revenues are less than your expenses. Can you please clarify? If you are drawing down your reserves, can you specify how much you plan to draw down, and what will remain at the end of the year?
This is contained in the chapter's annual plan, linked on the main page. Briefly, assuming that all money from the FDC and partners is spent, we'd expect to put in $100,000 from reservers, and end up with roughly $20,000 at the end. It should be noted that the budget includes items such as a $30,000 for "high strategic importance programs" based on opportunities that arise throughout the year, which will provide a cash buffer. Also, while the chapter's independent revenue streams are small, on a YTD basis we are ahead of budget so far which will give us a tiny bit more breathing space. Craig Franklin (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC).Reply
  • Key initiatives. Thank you for providing a link to your annual plan. Can you also provide the information requested in Table 4 for the key initiatives outlined in that plan (including objectives, goals addressed, key activities, etc)?
  • Risks / threats. You mention that low participation in physical activities is a key challenge for WMAU, and that you will mitigate this by funding transportation of Wikimedians from inter-state to capital cities. How else will you try to increase participation? Are there lower-cost ways to do so? How do you think about the impact of this investment?
What I hope to see is a movement towards establishing a "critical mass" of volunteers in major centres who can pick up and support chapter initiatives. It's clear to us that the "travel agency" model, where we fly people across the country on a regular basis to make sure we have boots on the ground, is not sustainable in the long term. Ideally, for instance, if there is a partnership opportunity in Adelaide, we'd like to be able to have a community of people in Adelaide who can do the face-to-face work, supported remotely of course by community members elsewhere in the country. At the moment, the communities in most centres are too small to be able to do this reliably, most people would love to help but have work or other commitments that stop them taking part.
With that said, there are also vast swathes of the country that are unlikely to ever have critical mass communities of their own, due to geographical isolation or sparse populations. In this case, funding travel for members of the community in these places to larger centres on occasion so that they can participate in community activities on a face-to-face basis. It would also be necessary fund community travel to these remote places in order to take advantage of opportunities out in the bush and connect with the communities there - in places like Tambo, for instance, where we sent Liam Wyatt and Whiteghost to earlier this year, there is a great deal of interest in the movement, but simply nobody within practical driving distance to help out.
As far as the impact of this investment, I think the benefits for the projects are obvious. Our (meaning Wikipedia, Commons, and the other content projects) coverage of Australia beyond capital city borders is on the whole pretty poor, and building up communities and editors across the country that can fill in these knowledge gaps will benefit us all. Craig Franklin (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC).Reply
  • Past successes. Thank you for mentioning the Camera Equipment project. Is this a project that WMAU will continue to support? Will the equipment previously funded via grants remain within the WMAU community for movement purposes?
    fwiw, these question are answered in our Annual Plan and the Camera equipment program specification.
    Firstly, it is not a project. It is a program, and it is annually reviewed.
    WMAU had discussed other solutions like the 'technology pool' approach of WMFR and WMSE and others, and decided on a different strategy which focuses on a specific Wikimedia cohort (high volume photographers and others who want to be high volume photographers). This WMAU program has attributes which are especially suited to the geographic distribution of Wikimedians in the country of Australia, and the organisational capacity of WMAU at the moment. If these variables change, we will likely look to implement a 'technology pool', but the camera equipment program will continue to be effective for the target cohort if these variables change.
    The program is not limited to 'WMAU community' - it is open to anyone (including non-Australians) who advances the WMAU objectives by the mechanisms detailed in the program specification. The equipment becomes the property of the applicant/recipient, afterwhich WMAU does not attempt to control the equipment - instead we mandate that the equipment must be used for movement purposes in a non-trivial way which is described in the program specification. The premise of this program is that the applicant has already purchased (with their own money) and used equipment for movement purposes (for many years). Assets depreciate, break or become partially broken, and technology moves on. Our contributors need new equipment periodically, and this program provides assistance for them to obtain updated equipment. This program does not cover the entire cost of equipment, as we recognise that the equipment will almost certainly be used for non-movement purposes as well. The recipients of assistance from this program have used the equipment for movement roles, in accordance with the program specification. Please see wmau:Reports.
    Further to your question of whether equipment will 'remain within the .. community for movement purposes', beyond the fact that the equipment must be used for the movement purposes, it is a testament to the design of this program and also the WMAU member ingenuity and dedication to the mission, the people who have obtained new equipment from this program have been giving their old equipment (which they bought themselves at great expense) to other people in the movement in the far corners of the globe. Please see commons:Commons:Equipment_exchange#Donation: 4× Kodak EasyShare Z700 digital cameras and 1× Kodak EasyShare C433.
    Yes, the program is ongoing. No, the equipment is not a 'movement' asset. This program ensures effective equipment utilisation rather than asset tracking. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks in advance for your responses to these questions -- you can comment here on the talk page, and let me know if you have any questions about these questions!

Meerachary TBG (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please confirm WMAU's reserve position[edit]

Please take a moment to confirm here the details requested by Meera above regarding your cash reserves:

  1. How much do you have in your reserves now?
  2. How much do you expect to have by the start of the planning year period?

Also, please explain how WMAU defines "cash reserves". Thanks, Wolliff (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Winifred! I think WMAU's responses to most of these questions are under "net income" above. Meerachary TBG (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Meera! I see that now. Apologies, WMAU. Please do provide us with your definition of "cash reserves" here, however. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The definition as I use it is "cash or cash-like assets in hand, minus any current liabilities". I would also note that we don't have any non-current liabilities, which simplifies the equation somewhat. Craig Franklin (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC).Reply
Thanks, Craig. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Question about volunteer participation[edit]

Hello WMAU, These are some general questions that I am asking to all the EEs regarding volunteer participation. All the entities have stated in their proposals that low turnover of volunteers in both online and offline activities have been a major obstacle for them. Most of them have also expressed concerns that reducing number of volunteers is a threat to their organizational effectiveness and to the movement as a whole. I feel we need to have short term, midterm and long term plans to tackle this problem.

Does your organization have -

  1. Any short term plan to recruit new volunteers for both online and off line activities?
  2. Any midterm plan to train, motivate and convert them into regular contributors?
  3. Any long term plan to retain them and continue the growth?

If you already have any such plans, please mention them and elaborate how your plan/s is (are) going to achieve the goal of recruiting new volunteers, converting them into regular contributors and retain the volunteers as well as maintain the growth? - Ali Haidar Khan (Tonmoy) (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Quick answers only at the moment.
  1. One key initiative has been librarians. This has an included a strategy that covers short,mid and long term editor retention objectives. The w:WP:GLAM/SLQ project last year was training librarians (all brand new Wikipedians) across Queensland. Our FDC proposal includes funding to participate in the librarians conference held in Queensland, keeping contact with these newbies (midterm engagement). As is mentioned in either our FDC proposal or Annual Plan, we are close to an agreement on running that project again in a different state of Australia (New South Wales). Our FDC proposal includes funding to offer small grants to libraries that wish to run intermediary or advanced level workshops.
  2. Another key initiative has been the Paralympic community. The outreach:HOPAU project has so far netted two high volume volunteers, and a 20+ off-wiki community of knowledge experts who are contributing snippets of knowledge to our Wikipedians via a public email group and via occasional edits as they grow more comfortable due to increased exposure to, and interest in, the wiki. Our FDC proposal includes funding to take this informal pilot project to the next level in terms of size, scope and stability. We're finalising a formal partnership with two partners, including one of Australias most respected universities, for a three year research project which includes many community development components. This Australian program is being discussed in other countries with the eye to implement something similar.
John Vandenberg (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
If I can add a little to what John has said above, our focus is also on recruiting "high value" volunteers, that is, those who either have recognised expertise in the field (such as the sports historians in the HOPAU project, or the local studies experts in the regional workshops programme), or who bring something to the community that the community does not already have. Quality over quantity (although a higher quantity of quality is also desirable!). A nice side benefit of this strategy is that the editors being recruited tend to have a different demographic makeup to regular Wikimedia contributors - on average they tend to be older and more female. This is significant in attempts to close the age gap and the gender gap on our projects, to help counter systematic bias, and to broaden the range of people contributing. Craig Franklin (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC).Reply

Staff member salary[edit]

How much would the staff member actually get paid? The $90,000+ seems quite high, but that includes all the follow-on costs. If he or she was making $40,000, I might understand, but $60,000 would seem quite high - so it comes down to, what are the follow-on costs. What skills are required? Why such a high salary? Couldn't a couple of part-time college students accomplish just as much? What is the staff member expected to accomplish for all this? Smallbones (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

While seconding questions above, I'd like to additionally ask if there are tax or other local regulations and circumstances that affect the requested amount? Pundit 06:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm a member of WMAU, but have not had any involvement in this proposal. As a comment, the general assumption in Australia is that on costs (including things like accommodation, computer equipment, travel, etc, as well as taxes and superannuation contributions) are typically about equal to the person's salary. It's also important to note that a theoretical salary of $60,000 isn't "high"; according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the average annual full time earnings in Australia are currently about $70,000 per year, so a salary of $60,000 would actually be well below the national average (and much further below the average for professionals, who I assume it is the intention to hire). The amount on offer here (which I guess will be in the order of a salary of $50,000 a year) is about the minimum needed to attract a competent young professional to work on a full-time basis (as an example, it would be slightly below the salary on offer to graduates engaged by this national government department, which is one of the lowest-paying departments). I imagine that Jon will be able to provide a much better explanation, however. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm an Australian Wikipedian with no involvement in WMAU, and just an interested bystander. However, as a recent immigrant to the US, I have been surprised at how much lower starting salaries are in the US (I'm guessing the US is Smallbones' point of reference) than in Australia. In support of Nick D's assertions, here is a link to recent official statistics on Australian starting salaries for new (typically 3-year) graduates under the age of 25 Ian Page (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'd agree with what Nick and Ian have said above. $60,000 is not an extravagant salary in Australia, especially since we're hoping to snag someone with some experience in the field rather than just a fresh-faced graduate, at least for our first hire. We've developed something of a wish list of what we're after, which might give some additional insight (that document is not final, but reflects our desire for a Jon Davies or Pavel Richter of our very own, rather than someone to fill in forms and do paperwork). To come back to the original question, we don't believe that a couple of part-time university students could do what we're looking to have done.
To answer the IP's question, some of the additional expenses that would need to hire staff in Australia would include state-based payroll tax, compulsory employer superannuation contributions, workers compensation insurance, etc etc. This link is a bit dated but gives some examples of some of the on-costs. Note that to keep costs down we have proposed not recruiting in the high-cost areas of Sydney and Melbourne and hiring in a lower-cost metro area (quite possibly Brisbane, but not necessarily); this figure reflects that. Craig Franklin (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC).Reply
Thanks (and apologies, I was logged off by the browser and haven't checked after posting). I think it is clear that all salaries are well thought-through, but because of the highly cross-cultural nature of the process, the more reasoning, background, comparisons, etc. is given, the better. Even in Europe in some countries it could be a lot, and it could be minimal. What is crucial is giving as much context, as possible. We're all learning here, so even potentially insufficient background (for a foreign reader) by no means is a flaw. Pundit (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
No problems. Do you have any further questions on this point? Craig Franklin (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC).Reply

Lack of focus?[edit]

I see a lot of references to culture this, culture that, cultural, and social, lots of social. I don't see any science, or academia. What's the go with that? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

As John has noted above, there is much research work that is planned to be done in conjunction with academia. Please see his comments above, and also the section of our annual plan, linked in the proposal, research. I'm also not exactly sure what you mean by "science" above, as I think that the bulk of the GLAM and research work clearly deals with the social sciences, for example, the work that has been done with sports history. Craig Franklin (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC).Reply
G'day :P It is good to see questions coming from Australian newbies, and even more so from someone willing to talk to an anti-wikipedia corruption website and put out interesting proposals.
The words 'social', 'culture', and 'cultural' only appear in this FDC application and the Wikimedia Australia (WMAU) wmau:2013 Annual Plan when quoting our wmau:statement of purposes and one item of our three year wmau:Strategic_Plan#Core:_Professionalise_WMAu_operations_and_fundraising. 'w:Free Cultural Works' is the umbrella term for w:free content that Wikimedia Australia uses in our statement of purposes. These documents are full of such jargon, for good or ill. The SOP was written by the community before our organisation even existed; i.e. the community granted the organisation this scope (and no more), and the Strategic Plan was written by a committee consisting of WMAU board, WMAU members and other Australians who were not members of WMAU, and this committee consulted the Australian community at each step of the way for ideas and review.
Anyway, you care about science and academia, which is good. 30% of the funds in the Wikimedia Australia wmau:2013 Annual Plan will be administrated by two sandstone universities (UQ and USyd). In December we will be submitting two w:Australian Research Council linkage grant applications, which combine to be five years of program activity and a combined budget of AUD 475,000. That is 'real' research, with ARC approval and managed by our most respected research institutions. It is not fuzzy editor analysis where we have a hand in the data collection, analysis or publication. Wikimedia Australia isnt in the business of doing science, but we do have many members, friends and partner institutions who do it to world standards, so we provide our experience, knowledge and skills to these people and partners.
We'll also be allocating an additional AUD 12,500 to assist in the establishment of a copy of the Wikipedia databases to be available for collaborative research by academics. This will give Australia greater capacity to do more research in the future, and will help identify gaps in the Wikipedia content that warrant strategic investment from Wikimedia Australia via partnerships. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply


Your cost budget is $ 666 659 but your propsed staff cost is $ 90000. What do you intend to spend the difference ( $ 570 000) on?Anders Wennersten (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have to concur that the budget is very skimpy on details. Perhaps there's a link to a real budget somewhere the we missed? You also need to give details on how you will measure the success of the spending programs. The measures for spending on the employee are almost detailed enough, but there is nothing for the spending on the general categories. Smallbones (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The level of details in many proposals is very low. I consider it to be a very general observation, not related to Australian proposal, that in general the more details are given, the easier is to perceive the budget as clear and justified. Pundit (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

What we intend to spend the remaining money on is described in our wmau:2013 Annual Plan, which is linked to from this FDC application.

The Research component of the annual plan (~30%) refers to two nationally competitive ARC linkage projects which we submit grant applications for in early December (3 December according to the latest notice from the ARC). These grant applications are still being written (due entirely to the ARC being very slow in releasing the rules and guidelines for this round of linkages); while we love open research, and have in the past built tender documents in public (e.g. v:The History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia/Tender), doing that for an ARC grant applications would be foolish.
The 'GLAM' component of the annual plan (~30%) is co-contribution of projects which we have yet to receive applications for, formally, but we have had a few informal proposals. The exact breakdown of budgets within these projects cant be known at this stage.
Conferences and Other programs combined only account for 22% of the annual plan, and there is more than sufficient information about these programs, include detailed sub-programs/project initiation documents and explanation of the processes by which we'll evaluate new proposals.
John Vandenberg (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ihave found the prorgams but my question is not relating to that, but what are the types of cost the money will be sped on, office space, traveletc?Anders Wennersten (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Our Annual Plan does not include any office space, and Craig has already provided an explanation above about office space. Travel for conferences is clearly marked as such in our Annual Plan. Travel for projects will be incorporated within the budgets for those projects. Some of these programs and projects do not have an itemised budget available, and some can not possibly have a detailed budget yet as they are regranting/co-contribution programs and the call for proposals is dependant on FDC approval.
The budget of the two research projects are not yet able to be published - they are due to be submitted to the Australian Research Council (ARC) in early December - however I believe that the FDC should recognise that the ARC competitively provides grants and the ARC are very thorough in ensuring that the project is 'research' and the budget is appropriate for the project proposed.
The budget of the GLAM projects can not be available now. If this FDC application is approved, we will be selecting the best proposals by GLAM institutions for projects of various sizes. Some projects may require lots of travel, like the w:WP:GLAM/SLQ regional workshops. Some projects may require a part-time Wikimedian-in-Residence. We cant know that until we put out a call-for-proposals, which is dependant on us receiving FDC funding. A chicken and egg problem arises if the FDC wants to have a complete breakdown of how the money will be utilised prior to the funding being provided.
I beg you to ask specific questions about aspects of this proposal, so we can understand where you think there is insufficient detail, and then we can provide you with more information or clarification. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Strategy for raising partnership(non movement) funds[edit]

I see from proposal the target of raising USD 269505 from partners. What has been the experience in the preceding year and what are the lessons/best practices from it? --Arjunaraoc (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the past year, the majority of partner support has come in the form of in-kind support. For instance, for the regional workshops programme, our partners provided the training facilities, internet connections, and computer equipment to make it possible. Craig Franklin (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC).Reply
I dont know whether our last year would translate into best practise that other movement organisations could adopt, but we have limited volunteer resources from top to bottom (board level down to Wikipedia readers who have never heard of WMAU) and (IMO) the best way to produce good results from limited organisational resources is to focus. We have focused on a developing a few strong partnerships with key allies in GLAM, Academia and NGO sectors, rather than try to pursue all the wonderful ideas that people have. While our number of partners is few, the strength of these partnerships and the projects conducted has culminated in our ability to seek funding from the Australian Research Council with these partners. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Craig and John for sharing your experience. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

ARC linkage grants[edit]

Is there any information about what the expected benefits of the two ARC linkage grants are? - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately not at this stage. Obviously one is focused on Paralympics. The USyd project is focused on Wikimedia within Australia; beyond that I cant give more details at this stage, at least not in public, but I am sure we can disclose the project at the 25 November AGM, as the linkage external deadline is a few days later and nobody could steal the idea and submit it in a few days (all internal deadlines would be past). John Vandenberg (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The "sports history" linkage project brief has been sent to members and FDC. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Questions about current cash positions and monthly spending patterns[edit]

Please clarify WMAU's cash position and usual monthly expenditures.

  1. What is WMAU's current cash position (as of 30 September 2012)? In other words, what is the total balance in all of WMAU's accounts (including operating reserves and cash for WMAU's programs and operations)?
  2. What are WMAU's typical monthly expenditures? We would like a sense of about how much money WMAU spends in an ordinary month during the current fiscal year.

Let us know if the questions above require any additional clarification. Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Winifred! As above, I think WMAU's responses to the questions around cash position are under "net income" above. But for absolute clarity, can you clarify how you define "cash reserve," so we can make sure we are on the same page?

Do please still respond to Winifred's question on monthly expenditureMeerachary TBG (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Winifred, as Meerachary has pointed out, the first question is already answered above.
On the second question, there is not really a 'typical' month for WMAU with regard to expenditure. I expect that if the FDC grant is approved, recurrent expenses like payroll will smooth out the curve somewhat. This graph explains it better than words would. For October 2012 we're already over the $10,000 expenses mark, as compared to September where we had virtually nothing (although much of that was due to refunds and negative expenses). Does this answer the question? Craig Franklin (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Craig and Meera! Wolliff (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
iirc, the only 'monthly' overhead is our SaaS accounting system, however that is prepaid yearly. All other expenditure is program or project based, with peaks and troughs all over the shop. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply