Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2014-2015 round1/Amical Wikimedia/Staff proposal assessment

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some questions and clarifications[edit]

Hello. First of al, thank you for your time and for this assessment. It is very useful for us to improve our ways of working and to be aware that we have to improve on some of the mentioned points. That said, we'd like to briefly comment on the concerns you have pointed out:

  • No targets make it difficult to understand and measure success
We think than this statement is not true at all. We do have targets: libraries, unviersities, knowledge areas, territorial coverage, etc. We use different indicators -maybe not in line with the so called global metrics- but our targets are clear, stable, and midterm focused. The problem is probably that you may want numeric (quantitative) targets, while we focus more on qualitative targets.
  • Lack of accessible and systematic documentation on Amical’s work makes it difficult to share learning with the Wikimedia movement
We always publish our monthly reports punctually, month after month, with all the activities performed. Our financial reports are also openly published. It is true we have to improve our good practices sharing with the whole movement and documenting our progress: we will do our best, but our resources are limited. We'd like a more concrete input on this (particularly, where and how should we share our expertise?). We always try to attend international conferences and share our learned lessons, but we find it difficult to do so online.
  • Significant growth in overall budget may be a capacity concern
2014's budget is 86,000€, 2015 proposed budget is 94,100.66€. Where does the figure of 42.94% come from?

Some other things pointed out in the staff assessment narrative:

  • As far as we know, the SMART objectives were not requested during this FDC round, that's why we did not include them this time. If needed, we will happily do it, as used to on previous FDC or Grants.
  • We are aware of the burn-out risk, it is one of our weaknesses; we are aware of it and are working towards "promoting" more Amical members for expanding the "commited core group". It is also a matter of critical mass of volunteers.
  • We are also aware of the risks of having a volunteer treasurer who controls the finances; this was pointed out in the meeting we had some weeks ago with Anasuya & Garfield and we are working towards fixing it. For the record, he used to do it in his professional life, that's why he volunteers on it.
  • You mention at the same time Amical's frugality and underspending. If the underspenting is well justified, we believe it should not be considered a concern but a strenght. For example, we have been able to uenxpectedly secure a office space for free, as you might know. We base our model on the European Accountancy "Prudence" principle : We do our budgets expecting low revenues and big expenses: Not "worst case scenario" but "prudence scenario": we use an austere economy model and that's why usually we try to underspent money. Don't forget it's donor's money. We don't like overspending at all. Best --Kippelboy (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)