Grants talk:PEG/User:HstryQT - GLAMWiki US Consortium/Advisory Group Meeting/Report

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Changed status to draft[edit]

I changed the status of this report to "Draft" since it appears you have not yet completed it. Please complete it before the deadline. Best, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for changes to project budget[edit]

The new modified budget total is $2448.83, up from the original $2,122. As this is less than 20% variance for a grant under $15,000, we would like to retroactively request the budget for reimbursement be revised to the new figure, as per Grants:Index/Request changes to project budget. The new figures are represented in the table in the report already. This budget difference was due entirely to the change in travel fares and hotel rates between the time the estimates were made initially and the bookings were done after the grant approval. This was a change in price of the items already approved, not a change in any projects we had planned. All of the revised totals are final prices that have already been paid for, and the receipts have been submitted for those new totals. Dominic (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dominic: please clarify if you are requesting an increase of US$326.83 in the total amount of grant funds. Note that while the 20% variance policy you quote does require you to report changes to WMF when they occur, it does not allow you to increase the total amount of your grant accordingly. I'll take a look at the wording about that policy to make sure it isn't confusing to other grantees. In the mean time, we can consider your request for additional funding here if you confirm that this is what you are requesting. Thank you, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Winifred. I don't know what you mean by "it does not allow you to increase the total amount of your grant accordingly". I don't think I changed anything. I just reported the actual amounts spent and then made this request for the difference (yes, $326.83) to be covered, which is what I thought the instructions said. Dominic (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dominic. By "it does not allow you to increase the total amount of your grant accordingly" I mean that the page you are reading that outlines the 20% variance rule refers to a process for requesting to move funds from one line item to another within the project budget without an increase in the total grant amount; in other words, the policy does not indicate that you may increase your grant amount by up to 120% without written permission in advance. I have already added language to that policy page to make this more clear. That said, we can retroactively consider the request for an increase of US$326.83 in the project budget now and have an answer for you by this Friday. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This change is approved. We will reimburse you for the full US$2448.83 spent on the event. Normally, changes to the project budget are made on the discussion page of the grant request itself; I will include a link there to this conversation so that others can reference the change. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about this report[edit]

Thanks for this report! Apologies for taking a little time to review it; we have a few questions about your report. Best, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Action items[edit]

You mention 6 action items were created, but it is unclear whether or how these were achieved. Please link documentation for all of the following if it was created:

  1. Update the existing one page document providing a summary of GLAM purposes and activities
  2. Create a one-page document providing metrics and hard data for skeptics
  3. Documentation of case studies
  4. Make an audit of current GLAM documents and tutorials to assess needs
  5. Create and maintain annotated bibliography that documents GLAM activities
  6. GLAMout – a monthly live Google Hangout providing GLAM participants opportunities to share their activities; to be recorded and archived
  • The action steps were decisions that were made or responsibilities that were assigned, not things achieved during the meeting. Most of them have nothing more to link to other than the etherpad and meeting page where we took notes during the day. File:GLAM_One-Pager.pdf is the one-pager to be updated from #1, and w:WP:GLAMOUT is the link for #6 (the one action step that has already been definitively put into practice). The others have no possible further links or documentation I can provide. Dominic (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Winifred. Thanks for the questions. These action steps were what were agreed upon for the Consortium Advisory Group to pursue over the course of the next year. Some will best be achieved at upcoming conferences when a few GLAM Consortium members or other Wikipedians will be together to spend time on them. Others will be completed as time is available on a personal or individual basis. The point of the Consortium meeting was not to achieve these things, but to layout the path for the future and to prioritize.
The most agreed upon priority was the maintain an ongoing dialog about our efforts and projects, and the solution to keeping this conversation going was the GLAMout. The GLAMout has been our main focus in the months following this meeting, and they've seen great success. I'm so pleased to see consortium members really take the reigns (which was the goal of the meeting) and, in spite of their excessively busy schedules, pull off two successful GLAMouts that have had valuable discussion and share-outs -- and on time! (We aim for the first Friday of each month.) This has served as a catalyst for GLAM-Wikimedians to continue to work together and be aware of each other's activities. So, while not all of the action steps have been addressed (which wasn't in fact the goal), I feel that the success of the GLAMout illustrates that the consortium is serious about maintaining the momentum from the meeting. w:WP:GLAMOUT LoriLee (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add that, when it comes to #4 (audit GLAM documents and tutorials), Phoebe mentioned in the GLAMout today that she's begun this process for the Library pages on Outreach, and Dominic is encouraging conversation on the use of the Wordpress page for Editathons that he recently created. LoriLee (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project budget and additional funds[edit]

We understand that this section of the report that asks for information about the project budget may have been confusing - we'll look at revising it so it's more clear.

The first question should be answered with the total cost of your event, including portions of the event paid for by other funders or paid out of pocket. In this case it seems that the total budget would be 423.67 + 96.99 + 533.97 + 2448.83 = 3503.46. Please confirm that this amount is correct, or provide the correct amount here.

One further note: the grant request form does ask for information about other sources of revenue and this funding from Wikimedia US-DC was not reported there. You merely mentioned there that you expected to secure the venue from the National Archives and Records Administration. We do expect grantees to disclose the total project budget along with other revenue sources at the time they apply for funds, and to keep us updated about any major changes. Please keep that in mind for future requests!

Thanks, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an impossible, or at least unfair, expectation. Grantees who are requesting funds to attend a meeting are expected to have access the entire event's budget information and complete a report for the entire meeting's expenses, when all that was requested was reimbursement for travel-related expenses? I think this should be handled more like a participation grant—we just couldn't do that because it was a Wikimedia event. Maybe I shouldn't have even opened that can of worms by mentioning the amount WMDC spent. $2448.83 is the amount spent on by WMDC on food and incidental costs. I don't know how much NARA spent. I don't know how much the other attendees spent on their travel expenses, or who funded them (some were employers, some were personally funded). That all seems irrelevant to the grant to me. Dominic (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I guess I can see where there has been some confusion, because we were thinking of this more in terms of participation (just asking for travel and incidentals for those who needed it) and not an entire event. I appreciate the notion that we might be able to be paid back for the discrepancy in travel costs (the difference between those original estimates and the actual flight costs). However, if it's a huge issue and will hold this up, I'm more willing to just eat that cost (as unfortunate as it is.) I fronted this $2000+ to the attendees to ensure their ability to attend, and it has been a significant amount of time (2 months) that I have been sitting on this debt. I'd prefer to just have the original cost repaid to me rather than put this off longer and the stress can be off of my shoulders. If you'd like to consider this note a formal withdrawal of that request, you may. Thank you. LoriLee (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Lori's and Dominic's comments[edit]

Hi, Lori and Dominic:

First, thank you for engaging in discussion around this report.

  1. We would welcome any updates you can provide as these action items become reality, since they will allow us to better understand the impact of the meeting over time. Thanks for explaining them in greater detail here, and providing a few links. We hope this meeting leads to many opportunities for impact.
  2. We disagree that the participation of other co-funders and the total cost of the event is not relevant to us as co-funders. That's why we explicitly ask for this information in the grant submission form. Also, Dominic just provided the total spent by WMUS-DC as US$2448.83, which we understood from the report was the total amount spent by Lori. The report seems to imply that the total amount spent by WMUS-DC was US$1054.63. Would you please clarify the total amount spent by each, since you have that information available?
  3. We can get an answer to you about the additional funds before Friday, if that's fast enough to be helpful.

We would like to emphasize that we are appreciative of the work you are doing. We are sorry that it seems you have found the grants process frustrating. We understand it can be difficult for all-volunteer groups and we are working on improving the process however we can. At the same time, we note this request was processed as a reimbursement because it was submitted just 15 days before the event was scheduled and this report was just submitted on 30 May, which is why the reimbursement has not yet been sent. The process might have been less burdensome with more advance planning around the grant request.

Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 02:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, $2448.83 is the total amount spent by Lori and/or the members of the group for the specific travel and accommodations items which were in the original grant request. $1054.63 is the amount spent by WMDC on some event-related necessities. (Regarding the first part of #2, the grant request was not for any event expenses beyond participation for a few of the attendees—and that is all we are still requesting—and that's all I expected to report on, which is the source of some of my frustration with that demand.) Dominic (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply, Dominic, and for clarifying the amounts listed on the discussion page. It doesn't seem accurate to characterize our request as a "demand;" after all, we did clearly frame the request in the context of learning for the future. Since the communication around this wasn't effective on our part, that's definitely something we will improve upon in the future. We hope to have a final decision on this report by this Friday, so stay tuned for updates. Best, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Report accepted[edit]

This report is accepted. Thanks for engaging in the discussion. We will contact you to confirm the details of the reimbursement. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:PEG/User:HstryQT_-_GLAMWiki_US_Consortium/Advisory_Group_Meeting/Report&oldid=6695766"