Jump to content

Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Deutschland e.V./Proposal form

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. received a funds allocation in the amount of 1,790,000 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.

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.

Clarifying questions from FDC staff[edit]

Thank you for your proposal! Please respond to the questions below; do not hesitate to reach out in case you need any clarifications.

Budget and finances[edit]

1.Please confirm the following information:

  • Current year budget: USD 4,316,000
  • Proposed year budget: USD 7,475,000
  • Current year grants received/amount retained from the fundraiser: USD 3,976,288
Not confirmed, This number is not correct; we have retained a total of USD 3.143.000 from all fundraising activities (not only The Fundraiser), plus USD 314.000 for fundraising costs. If you need further details on this, please let us know.
  • Proposed year funds requested (from FDC): USD 1,820,000

2.Please explain your entity’s cash reserve position.

  • How much do you have in your reserves now?
As for October 17, 2012 we had:

WMDE total: USD 1,015,216.45 (780.935,73 €)

WMFG total: USD 1,168,976.26 (899.212,51 €)

WMDE/WMFG total: 2,184,192.71 (1.680.148,24 €)

  • How much do you expect to have by the start of the planning year period?
On January 1, 2013 we are planning to have 950.000 Euro (USD 1.235.000) cash reserve.This includes funds for Wikidata 1 (410.000 Euro), funds for the Community Project Budget that were not disbursed in 2012 (250.000 Euro) and the cash that the association will use in 2013. We have outlined this in our draft Annual Plan 2012 in Item 43 in the Financials part.
Thank you for this information regarding your reserves. Would you please explain here how you define "cash reserve"? Thanks, Wolliff (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

3.Given the explanations in the 2013 draft Annual Plan, please explain your strategy on starting a reserve, using the balance of $65K. What is your long-term policy on operating reserves?

As a non-profit organisation and a charity, Wikimedia Deutschland is bound by very strict rules regarding a reserve, which are outlined in the German law for charities. According to this law, we are allowed to keep a maximum of 10% of our yearly donations as an “operating reserve”, to be used in case of a shortfall in donations, extraordinary events, and so on. Wikimedia Deutschland will build up a reserve that covers three months of operating costs (salaries, rent, etc), and we plan to reach this reserve by the end of 2015.

4.How might WikiData affect your finances in the long term, whether the next phase is independently funded this year or not?

Wikidata is not a long-term obligation for Wikimedia Deutschland which means that we don’t have to have any development resources available. The project will be handed over to Wikimedia Foundation which will also maintain it from that moment on. Nevertheless of course we see the need for the handover process, as well as for the communication process. Also in the future we will feel co-responsible for Wikidata within the scope of our daily work (Community Support and Research & Development) and we will cover within the existing budgets. The development efforts will be however, in our opinion, with Wikimedia Foundation.--Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Dear Mrs. Odrozek. Seems to me the same process than with the toolserver. If they produce cost u handle problems over to WMF. U make the initial round, lauch a project, and if it gets cost intensive u push it to someone else. Is my assumption right? How do u secure, that this wikidata project will be handed over in a state thats free of additional costs, if u first get the funding of the development?--Angel54 5 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The premise of this question is wrong, please see the Wikidata page for further details and conditions of the project: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/FAQ And here you can find the German discussion on the toolserver: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kurier/Edit#Die_Zukunft_des_Toolservers and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Deutschland/2013_annual_plan_draft/de#Toolserver_Zukunft_und_Labs --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Additional question: Why was it not possible to use funds for the Community Project Budget that were not disbursed in 2012 (250.000 Euro) but instead put them in indeferred liabilities for the coming year?--Angel54 5 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply


  1. Can you clarify the new staffing positions? They are listed as 1-year positions; does this mean that they would not stay on in future years? If they would, does WMDE have the capacity to support a 25% staff cost increase in perpetuity?

It seems that we misunderstood the form - we have put “1 year” in the duration column because we are budgeting the positions for the whole year 2013. This says nothing about the long-term future of these positions.

Having said that, as a general rule, Wikimedia Deutschland is filling new positions with fixed-term-contracts only, ranging from 12 to 24 month, to account for possible adjustments in the total number of staff. And some of these positions are dependent of certain projects (see below).

  1. How might staffing change if Wikidata2 and House of the Free Knowledge are not funded?

Wikidata 2: If Wikidata 2 does not happen for any reason, we will not hire 3 FTE positions in HR, Admin and Finance, but only 2 FTE. House of Free Knowledge: The project manager position depends on us getting the external financing that we are referring to in our annual plan (see item 14 here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/2013_annual_plan_draft/en) So if we do not get these funds, we will not fill this position.

  1. What is your policy or guiding principles on ratios of efficiency and effectiveness, for instance, overall expenses:staff expenses or annual expenses:program expenses?

Regarding our administration cost, we adhered to a 70:30 rule (program:annual expenses) for the past years, which I think is justified for a growing organisation. In the future, I aim to lower this ratio to 80:20 or better, for example through large projects like Wikidata, which have a small administration overhead, or by increasing our grant-making, for example through the Community Project Budget.

When it comes to staff expenses:overall expenses, we do not have such a clear rule we try to follow. One reason is that there are projects that are very effective, yet they are very staff intensive (e.g. Wikidata), therefore such a clear rule would discourage us to proceed with such projects. The second reason is that staff costs can be calculated very freely: for example using contractors instead of staff would lower the total staff expenses but on paper only. --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Key Initiatives, Strategies and Impact[edit]

1. What do you consider the key drivers of success for the strategic initiatives? As you move from a 'project-driven' approach to a more outcomes-based approach, what is the weightage you give to online access and content support vs. off-line community engagement?

The base of WMDE strategic initiatives is the “Kompass 2020”, naming WMDE’s goals until 2020. Netted with main visions from the Wikimedia Foundation's strategic planning (women’s participation, editors retention) and the movement in general (i.e. GLAM) along the traditions of WMDE (volunteer support, alteration of attitude on free knowledge in society) a proposal is sketched. This proposal experiences steady redesign including budget planning in an extensive collaborative process throughout some months. Initiated by the WMDE board of trustees, the process is open to members and public online-communities alike until the proposal gets approved by the Members’ Assembly.
The use of a meshwork of perspectives, strengthened by the application of collaborative work on the planning process is unique. It keeps the annual plan grounded and connected to all stakeholders needs though at the same time an agenda is adressed, that helps making a difference on the growth, development and distribution of free knowledge. These factors and their combination are crucial for success.
Having said this, online access and content support vs. off-line community engagement is understood as a component of the same task, working best, when interlocked. Thus we do not decide on the weightage of both, but their fluent integration of one with the other. Best regards and thanks for explaining. Best regards, Denis Barthel (WMDE) (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

2. Please share some more details of your move from a 'project-driven' approach in evaluation to a more outcomes-driven approach, and how your new Evaluation division will be leading this initiative.

Our move to outcome based evaluation is visible in all phases of the planning process, starting with the provided system of goals to project planning and reporting. Once the goals for 2013 are ratified, our next step is to derive promising projects from these goals.
Ideally, for approval, each major project has to provide an evaluation plan including target values for outputs and outcomes as well as a logic model that explains the expected underlying mechanisms (activities -> outputs for target groups -> short-term and long-term outcomes). To provide insights into the quality and quantity of the achieved outputs/outcomes, if possible, every evaluation plan will contain suitable empirical measures and a schedule on when and how the measures are collected and analyzed. This way every project can be advanced based on its logic model and evaluated based on its evaluation plan.
The evaluation unit will lead this change of paradigm by developing the appropriate processes and evaluation designs, by maintaining the technical infrastructure, by instructing the development of measures and evaluation plans, by overseeing the projects’ subsequent self-evaluations, by keeping a roadmap of critical evaluation efforts, and by systematically publishing the lessons learned. We know that it will be a long way from the former project-driven approach to a more outcomes-driven approach. Because of this we plan to move forward step-by-step: While activities and outputs are going to be documented for all 2013 projects, outcomes will be evaluated in a number of high-impact cases only. Our mid-term goal is to evaluate the outcomes of all key projects.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Manuel (WMDE) (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

3. WMCH had an interesting learning to share about their participation in the Third Age Online project, which they are withdrawing from after finding they were not achieving concrete results. Could you share with us your experiences with this initiative, and what might have led to different results in your case? --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The main focus of the project TAO is on two important challenges that pertain to the enhancement of older persons’ participation in online communities: To develop effective methods and measures for motivating older persons to participate in online communities and for fostering the intergenerational integration of these communities. To adapt the design of the user surfaces and the functionalities of online platforms to the specific needs of older persons. In our case this means: We win seniors who will become authors for Wikipedia or seniors who participate in its sister projects. We are part of an excellent EU-network. From our point of view, the cooperation with TAO was important because of the experiences of other partners within the project about form, organization and content of life long learning. Also the connection between Wikimedia chapters was intesified. We had the same experiences with TAO than WMCH, but for us TAO is only one part in our activities with this group. Our program Silberwissen is embedded in a whole range of activities of the sector education. The central focus of our activities next year will be to try out new formats, expand our networks and produce suitable education and information materials.
You can find more:
--Elly Koepf (WMDE) (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Question about volunteer participation[edit]

Hello WMDE, 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) 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your question, it adresses very important points in every outreach Wikimedia Deutschland does in general, wether directed to the general public as potential contributors or the already established communities of the Wikimedia-projects
  1. On short terms Wikimedia Deutschland adresses workshops to train editing and communicating in Wikipedia to a wide range of target groups, from pupils to university students and senior citizens equally. These workshops are conducted and partially post-cared by our speakers network (see below). Being a speaker itself also became a positive way for new and experienced editors to support the movement through offline activities. Furthermore these workshops gave us a much better understanding of obstacles for new editors and we realized that a combination of off- and online-support is very important for most new editors. New models of support can be developed under consideration of these special insights. Coming from these experiences we are working on a strategy to find effective support for these new gained editors.
  2. Mid-term strategies to secure the continuance of activities by newly gained editors only recently demanded or attention. They are an important gateway between the initial interest of target group members on the one hand and the need for support of established community members. It is crucial for all initiatives against editor retention, to establish measures which make the enduring transition into the community as pleasant and easy as possible. Measures like local workgroups as editor contact points are already taking place, further initiatives comprise the start of a Teahouse in the German Wikipedia and there are many further ideas around like installing phone hotlines or social media support. Wikimedia Deutschland is aware of these mid-term needs and will adress them as being of particular importance in 2013.
  3. Wikimedia Deutschland has a long standing tradition of measures to support editors in contributing and will intensify this approach in the coming year. Existing offers range from simple measures like literature grants, community event participation grants and the provision of advanced equipment to volunteers up to advanced programs like the “Community Projekt Budget” to fund larger community-driven projects. In 2013 we focus on retaining motivation by expanding and streamlining existing programs and lowering access barriers to support. We commit to rapid reaction times in communicating and deciding, as it is our outspoken goal to retain volunteer motivation by avoiding to strain on their commitment as much as possible.
An important cross-sectional task to connect short term, midterm and long term strategies is our Diversityconcept. Wikimedia Deutschland will, in cooperation with the communities and experts, develop a concept to bring more diversity into Wikipedia. Problems like diminishing author numbers and the gender gap are among the biggest threats to the future of all Wikimedia projects.Together with partners we will organize events at which our existing approaches are developed further and new ideas elaborated. Previously isolated enquiries into the representation of individual groups in Wikimedia projects will be compiled into an overall concept. Other cross-sectional task are the research and development project RENDER to improve the ways to contribute knowledge, furthermore the speakers network with more than 30 speakers, almost all of them experienced editors of the German Wikipedia and last but not least an initiative to implement the article feedback tool in the German Wikipedia. - Nils Weichert (WMDE) (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Just for the record: a participation there: http://www.photokina.de/de/photokina/home/index.php wasnt allowed. Free work from all members of the organization committee. Not that great and suddenly after a discussion lenght of six month duration...--Angel54 5 (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Short term plan[edit]

  1. I was banned after 12 days (not editing, but discussing the content of an article) finally from admin s1 (A. Savin) in 2009. This article is of the same substance than in that year I made proposals to better the content. How is ur future disposition about such "cases"? Thats not really an invitation to write more? My proposal: Be more accommodating to newcomers. Let me say: at present de.WP is a closed shop - insiders rule.
  2. Do something for "healthy" communication". en.WP is much better than German.
  3. Develop a program to really push the authors. A small sum of money for good written articles or an incentive would do the trick. In the current form the writing contest is dead. The Nobel price is also the win of an amount of money, although at first it honors the substance.
  4. Give the community more rights for "managing their own budget". I proposed to give that money to the four sections existing in de.WP. There have to be some people in each section, who are responsible for using that budget in the meaning of the movement. Make real grants to the community.
  5. Make it clear, what the union does and in which direction. Transparency is not given but wanted.
  6. Do something about the muddling of members of the union, who have also a function in the community (as admins or stewards). Noone knows, which interests are first and foremost driving an execution.
  7. The toolserver - u know that problems.

If u would reserve a sum of money for each of that goals, that would be fine. --Angel54 5 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input. We basically agree: Wikipedia should be much more open to newcomers than it currently is, it should be a pleasant and inspiring environment. Thus we intend to make a difference in the coming year by installing measures to support newbies more than ever and at the same time intend to contribute to a more friendly and helpful community in general. See more above in the reply on Ali Haidar Khan's question.
Wikimedia Deutschland intends to get more involved with community in the coming year than ever. We support community initiatives by any means - if grants are needed, organisational support or equipment, we are open for ideas. We look forward to cooperate with new independently funded organisations beside chapters like thematical organisations or similar. Regards, Denis Barthel (WMDE) (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

appx: I think that some of the contents overleaf have to be rethought, what does "Silberwissen" do more than grabbing a sum of money from EU? Is this really contributing the movement? I dont know what they are doing. As with other projects: What is RENDER? What connection to wp is there? I could ask more questions about projects driven from de.wikimedia which purpose noone knows? How much people bought that "wikipedia-book" - was it a success and there should be a second one?--Angel54 5 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Silberwissen": One of the topics of the project Silberwissen is to develop effective methods and measures for motivating older persons to participate in online communities and for fostering the intergenerational integration of these communities. In our case this means: We win seniors who will become authors for Wikipedia or seniors who participate in its sister projects. In the project “Silberwissen” we have done approximately 50 events (lectures, presentations, workshops) with seniors. Round about 200 participants were going the first steps in wikipedia, supported by experienced Wikipedians. More information on Silberwissen:
  1. about activities in the project [German]: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silberwissen
  2. about some local partners [German]: http://www.wikimedia.de/wiki/Silberwissen
RENDER aims to help authors and readers to locate, understand and improve Wikipedia articles that are not written in an objective and balanced way.The objective of RENDER tools is to support the creation of quality content, provide further information and encourage readers to become active Wikipedians themselves. Here you can find more information on the project http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RENDER [English], http://wikimedia.de/wiki/RENDER [German]
The Book "Alles über Wikipedia – und die Menschen hinter der größten Enzyklopädie der Welt" (All About Wikipedia – and the People Behind the World’s Largest Encyclopedia) was a success for the following reasons: edited by Wikimedia Deutschland, the book was entirely written by volunteers (wikipedians, readers, scientists etc.) and published under a free license by Hoffmann und Campe. This is the first book that a major German publisher has released under a free license. In September 2011, the book was completed on schedule and presented at the Frankfurt Book Fair. At its launch, the book was used to again highlight the key issues associated with the creation of free knowledge. After its initial reading in Berlin, numerous readings, primarily organized by volunteers, were held in various German cities throughout 2011. For the moment we are heavily involved in other projects and we are not planning to release a second one. You can find out more about the book here: http://wikimedia.de/wiki/Wikipedia_Buch [German]
Here you can find more information on our projects [German]:
  1. Community Support: http://wikimedia.de/wiki/Freiwillige
  2. Education & Knowledge: http://wikimedia.de/wiki/Bildung
  3. Politics & Society: http://wikimedia.de/wiki/Politik
  4. Research & Development: http://wikimedia.de/wiki/Forschung
--Elly Koepf (WMDE) (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ok, there are six members of the crew "Bildung und Wissen" - there were about 200 participants in workshops, there is a flyer existing and some loose connections to elderly people. What were the costs then and what the revenue? How did the school project develop? --Angel54 5 (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC) btw: The flyer is from 2008 - did u mean 200 participants a year or since then?--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

WMDE has no opinion to unblock or block people at de:WP. And there will be never a point, they will do it! Not one organisation, nat the WMF, not a chapter, will do such things in any project. This is a thing only the comunity in the projects can decide. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

U r admin at de.wikipedia too and member of the union. So what about ur influence towards collegues...u have none?--Angel54 5 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
While I sympathize with anyone who feels mistreated, I think that banning policy in general, and particular bans in particular do not belong to this discussion of the proposal. I'm not taking sides (I don't know any of you or the case, etc.), just saying. Pundit (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thats exactly not the point. It was because I disturbed the circles of so. who is "considered one of the best article writers" of all time. Then it goes quite quick. I was polite and experienced in that (studied) field - everybody could see out of the contributions. But its easier to throw so out than to argue, u know? There are short circuits used: This guy is unnerving, ban him/her (out of this or that motivation). This happens every day, Im pretty sure. How will u get useful contributors, if that mechanism works in the background?--Angel54 5 (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
You see a much stronger connection between WMDE and de-WP than there really is. WMDE did not, does not, and will not influence user bans on de-WP in any way. At the very least you could be honest enough and not pretend that your experience is typical for new users. Pundit is right: Your particular discussion has nothing to do with the proposal. O.Koslowski (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
So what: If u can read some German, read this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Stepro#BSV. In short: sargoth and stepro (also union), both admins in wikipedia, want to throw a user out. sargoth will write a mail to ten users for an infinite ban of a user so a "user ban process" can be startet. wikimedia surely has nothing to do with this, must be a mere imagination of mine...--Angel54 5 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
JFTR: This was an *un*ban request. The rest is nonsense, too. --Stepro (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
ForTheRecordToo: M. Cyron wanted an example of how the union acts with users - u got it. Whats the final plot is in my opinion secondary, I dont know the content of those emails. But: U define as union or WMDE who is accepted and who is not. Thats the point. --Angel54 5 (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

New employees[edit]

wikimedia is planning - if im counting correctly - to position eight more (rounded up to full-time) employees in the next year. The estimated costs will be 500.000 Euros. Please give a short summary, why they are needed and in which way they will support the whole German community.----Angel54 5 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC) How can u explain the difference here and there: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/2013_annual_plan_draft/de#Personalentwicklung Which one is correct?: 8 or 9 ¼?--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

There has been a typing mistake and it has been corrected (see the explanation below), thank you for ponting that out. Regarding the hiring plans: we are planning to hire a Project Manager for the Volunteer Support team whose main focus will be readers and their interests, in accordance with our Annual Plan draft. The rest of the positions will be allocated througout different departments and you can find the rationale for hiring them in respective sections of the Annual Plan draft.--Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Relating WMDE Strategic plan to WMF strategic plan[edit]

One suggested guidance for evaluation of proposals is to assess them from the point of view of WMF strategic plan. Was there an attempt to relate WMDE strategic plan to WMF strategic plan and if so, can you share the resulting document.? If you do not have that, a bit of explanation on the same from your perspective will be helpful.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the question. Pavel would like to answer it asap but as today and tomorrow he is taking part in a conference, he will be able to get back to you with the answer only on Wendesday morning. Thank you in advance for your patience. --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for update. Look forward to the update from Pavel.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Dear Arjunaraoc, thank you for this questions, it is a tough one, of course. Wikimedia Deutschland has undergone a complex strategic process in 2009 / 2010, resulting in the "Kompass 2020" (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kompass_2020/en for a partial translation into English, more details on the process are available here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kompass_2020/Entstehung/en). The Kompass 2020 asks me as the ED of Wikimedia Deutschland to break these visions and stretgic goals down to operational goals within my yearly planning process.
Now, our Kompass 2020 process ran more or less alongside the WMF strategy process, but these two were independent (and I think they should be, because both organizations are independent and are responsible for their strategy and operations). But I do not find it surprising that both the WMF and our own strategy process came to very much the same conclusions in two main areas: Editor retention and engaging more femal editors in Wikimedia projects. These are two shared goals between WMF and WMDE, because both organizations are deeply rooted in the WikiWorld and therefor have a common understanding on what is needed currently.
I see us also in line with the strategic goals of the WMF when it comes to improving quality, which we do for example through the Wikidata project or through RENDER, as well as many other initatives. Within the Strategic Plan, the Wikimedia Foundations outlines it´s view of the role of chapters (on page 18 & 19), and I am very comfortable that Wikimedia Deutschlands past, current and future acitivities are very much in line with theses priorities.
Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland will continue to set their own goals, based on their own strategy; this is important, because we are adressing a lot of the same problems, yet we do so on different scales: while the WMF is the natural choice for improving the MediWiki software, Wikimedia Deutschland is better suited to support "on the ground" activities in Germany. But of course we are all working in the same enviroment, we are all working within the same Wiki-projects, and we are, most importantly, sharing the same values. That is why I would be surprised to see major friction within the priorities and goals
I hope that answers your questions, I am more than happy to follow-up if you need any clarification.--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Pavel for your response, which helped me understand better. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Progress measures[edit]

Hi, would you be willing to consider adhering to SMART criteria for your goals, measures, and milestones? Currently, the proposed measures are fine in the sense that you promise to track and monitor everything, but not in all cases it is immediately clear how exactly are successes going to be judged. An important purpose of setting milestones is also an external control of progress, so that the community knows what you plan in terms of quantifiable results, and how are you progressing on the scale you yourself prepared. Otherwise, without clear, quantifiable, etc. (SMART) measures, it is very easy to have a mismatch of expectations and outcomes. Considering the fact that your budget is really large, I think it would help a lot in justifying it, as well as in monitoring the progress, to allow spending the resources sparingly and in installments. Please, advise. Pundit (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Yes, we will adhere to SMART criteria for our goals, measures, and milestones: In the current stage of planning we have only set the strategic goals for 2013. Once these goals are ratified, our next step will be to derive promising projects from these goals (Nov/Dec 2012). Each project will have its own SMART set of goals that will include measures and milestones. The process will be guided by our controlling and evaluation staff. It will be an important objective to make the process and its results open and transparent to the community. Please see my statement above for more details about the planned process. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Manuel (WMDE) (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Pundit (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Correction in the proposed new staff section[edit]

We have noticed that there was a typo in our proposal's section "proposed new staff" resulting in a difference between the number of planned staff in our Annual Plan draft and the proposal. The difference was to be found in the planned position for the Volunteer Support team and it amounted to 0,5 FTE: before the correction in the FDC-proposal there was a total of 8,75 FTE and in the Annual Plan draft there has been a total of 9,25 FTE planned. This difference was unintended and is a result of a typing mistake. The mistake has been corected by striking through the "50%" and inserting "100%": We are planning to hire a full time (100%) and not a half-time (50%) Project Manager with focus on readers for the Volunteer Support team. Hence the final number of planned positions is 9,25 FTE. The correction in the proposal has been made in agreement with the FDC staff.--Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Dear Wolliff, thank you for your question. I believe we have answered the one with the cash reserve in a section above (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Proposal_form#Budget_and_finances), do you need anything more? Please note that this number above ( 2,184,192.71 USD as of 13. OCtober 2012) is all cash we have, we do not have any other positions not reported in this number.
The average spending per month of Wikimedia Deutschland (that is both Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. and the Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft) is currently 374.000 USD / 288.000 EUR. I would like to point out that we have spending "peaks" (Wikimania, Wikimedia Conference, Community Project Budget, and so on), so that the real costs per month do vary.
Hope that answers your questions, if not, let me know :-) --Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Pavel! Apologies for what might feel like repetition; we've asked all entities this question for clarity and confirmation, as it appeared that there were differences in how these terms were understood.--ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Late Questions[edit]

I understand that these questions are coming in after the expected deadline, and as such they may not receive an answer, or alternately any answers may not be considered in the analysis of this request. My apologies for the tardiness.

  • According to Budget of Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft 2013, after disbursements there will be €1,620,000 remaining. That is more than the amount that WMDE is asking for from the FDC, and that is the remainder after allocating €1,400,000 as FDC funds being transferred to WMDE directly from Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft. Why is the €1,620,000 not allocated? Can you please break out how much is being raised by WMDE alone, and how much is expected to be raised through the WMF fundraiser?
  • FDC funds are non-restricted funds, with the exception that they may not be used for any form of political or legislative activities. How will you ensure that no FDC funds are spent on the anticipated political and legislative activities you have identified in your annual plan? As funds for political or legislative activities are only to be issued by the WMF via the grants program, and not the FDC program, will you be seeking a grant to cover these activities in addition to the FDC request?

Again, apologies for the lateness of these questions. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Risker: Thank you for your questions and for your engagement with the FDC proposal review process. Since the period for Community Review of these proposals closed several days ago and we have now posted Staff Assessments, FDC Staff is requesting that questions from anyone other than FDC members or FDC Staff are no longer addressed by the entities on this discussion page. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
What is the right place to ask such questions after the assessment period has ended? SJ talk  22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The annual plan can be discussed here. --Stepro (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply