Grants talk:PEG/WM EE/2013

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 10 years ago by AWang (WMF) in topic Request for time extension for reporting

Not soon enough[edit]

Withdrawing due to inactivity, but happy to restore draft status if it's being worked on in the future. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 23:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Happy to have it restored. Cheers. --Oop (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, I forgot to change its status from "Draft" to "Open". --Oop (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK. Thanks for reopening it, Oop! We look forward to reading it. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 15:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Up-to-date form[edit]

Hello, Oop!

Thank you for your submission.

We've moved your submission to an up-to-date version of the grant submission form. It looks like when you created this draft back in January that you may have copy-and-pasted an older version of the submission form. To save you some time, I've moved the information from your finished submission over to the current form, but there are still a few fields (hopefully simple ones) that you will need to complete:

  • Information about your organization and staff in the "Grantee details" section here: Grants:WM_EE/2013#Grantee_details
  • Information about the project's benefits here: Grants:WM_EE/2013#Benefits
  • Some information about the project's budget, in case there are other revenue sources funding the project.

These are relatively simple additions, and so the GAC can go forward with reviewing your request in the mean time.

In the process of the move, I did leave your descriptions of activities as they were but also consolidated what you listed for Measures of success, Goals, and Fit to strategy in those sections of the submission form so that they could also be understood that way. Especially with respect to "Measures of success," this will be helpful when you are reporting on your project.

In the future, please do follow the instructions here for creating a new submission: Grants:Index/Submit request. This is a better practice than using the copy and past method, as we sometimes do need to make changes to the submission forms. We know that the process has changed significantly since WM EE first started receiving grants, and so we thank you for your patience as we learn and grow together.

Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 16:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, having to list the benefits of having a chapter or its fit to strategy looks like pressing a cube into a round hole - not much different from answering questions like "male or female?" or "level of education?", which would both be nice elsewhere, but not here. Benefits, strategy etc are different for each activity. This form is evidently designed for projects focused on one area, not running an organization. If you do not expect for all affiliated organizations transferring to the FDC system in a year, it might make sense to provide a separate form for them. --Oop (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your feedback about the form. What would you suggest we include or leave out in a separate form like the one you describe? Thanks again, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
If there is going to be separate form for yearly (or otherwise regular) grants by chapters, thematic orgs etc, it might be best to: 1) let them answer such questions separately for each activity or group of activities; 2) mention in the rules the cases where it might not be necessary to answer some questions (is it really necessary to say what are the strategic fit for and benefits from participating in the Wikimedia conference or having a general assembly? these kinds of things are what a chapter is expected to do). --Oop (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, even "providing local proof of nonprofit status within your country" makes no sense in Estonian legal system. Here, a registered organization either is a nonprofit or it is not, its status is shown in its legal name and confirmed in its bylaws; an unregistered organization is legally nonexistent. "Providing proof" is not unlike providing proof I'm not a dog - it's possible, but deeply puzzling (how? why? why me?). While it's understandable that some questions have to be asked to comply with some strange American law no one outside U.S. knows about, it might be sometimes useful to find a phrasing that would be more generally applicable. --Oop (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's useful feedback. What wording would you suggest to improve this question? Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not sure yet. First, I dobn't know what are the legal requirements set for you by U.S. laws; second, I'd have to study this question in the law systems of all the countries where Wikimedia chapters reside. This is not a big problem, but current wording might confuse someone (normally, people don't know the difference between NCOs, NPOs and organizations that get a tax deduction). --Oop (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some comments[edit]

  1. Lessig's "Free Culture" - I am not quite sure if the translating and publishing this book is within our goals. There is a paradox with this book - as it advocates for free culture, but it is released by Lessig under un-free licence (CC-BY-NC). Therefore the translation cannot be put to Wikisources or any other Wikimedia project... Moreover, as this books was written over 8 years ago it is a bit outdated. As a promotional material for advocating for free culture it is rather poor tool for that purpose. I also don't believe that relatively long book given for free will be really read by VIPs. They rather may put it on shelve or just in a dustbin... I don't know how much stuff to read are given to the typical Estonian MP, but I know how much to Polish - they are generally overwhelmed by promotional free books and other free stuff and they don't read them usually. I'd suggest rather to create your own book or brochure, which you can more precisely focus on free culture issues in your country. That would be cheaper and possibly more effective.
  2. Budget vs list of activities - your budget is actually hard to follow - because you mix-up the budget for specific activities and general costs of maintenance. Would be good to clarify it and provide some more details to program costs. For example - I am courious how you calcualted international travel costs with so much precisions - although you have written that it is hard to plan :-)
  3. Wikimania - as the time for registration for Wikimania is almost over - does the costs shown in budget is already spent money? I guess this is just a cost of airlplane ticket for one person? Polimerek (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
1. Well, FC is relatively well known in Estonia, partly thanks to our president being a fan. So, he would probably agree to help in promotion, as would the Estonian chapter of The Internet Society, which has relatively high profile in our media. The chances of a book being read are strongly correlated with the amount of fuss around it. Yes, FC is somewhat outdated, but all books in this area are either ageing quickly or philosophically abstract almost up to uselessness. So, it's really a tool to raise the issues, a common ground we can refer to when talking about concrete initiatives and problems. A classic everyone recognizes is better for that than something fresh, more specific and having less attraction for the general public. Actually, one problem we face is Lessig's Amerocentrism, as Estonian copyright law is quite different; to solve that, we can use legal advice and translator's preface. Writing our own book is not cheaper than translating, because few people are good enough on both the technical and legal side, they're all already overworked and not willing to write a book for free; on the other hand, we don't have to pay to Lessig (while we always have printing, layout and possibly editing costs) .
2. We thought we restructured our budget for clarity, to separate activities and general costs. As can be seen from your question, we haven't succeeded. :( Oh well. Behind most of the numbers, there are calculations based on our experience, known or supposed amount of activities, and sometimes a little bit leeway for inflation (it's hard to know how much a railway ticket or posting a package will cost next year). E.g. for the international travel, we calculated the costs of our previous 1-, 2- and 3-day trips inside Europe, counted the known and suggested events in the year and used these for our estimate ("x 1-day events plus y 2-day events plus..."). Also, due to our unfortunate delay in delivering the application, some of the costs have been calculated epimethically (retrognosis is an exact science).
3. Wikimania costs should include one person's plane ticket, accommodation, participation fee and a little reserve for other possible costs (local transport etc). I can already say we underestimated the accommodation costs because we looked for the prices too early; more likely, the sum will be about 2082. A good example of why we could use a professional to run things like this. --Oop (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

No comments[edit]

I don't have specific comments and, considering the costs, nothing to say about the budget of all projects. I had at the start some concerns about the book's translation but I consider that Estonian is not one of the most used language, so the support for this translation makes sense in my opinion, and in addition the goals of the chapters is always the widespread of the free culture, a book may be good. --Ilario (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

No comments beyond recommending care with issues raised on this talk page. --Solstag (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comments and questions[edit]

Hi, just some observations about the application—but am I talking to the applicants or to the GAC/grantmaking staff? Probably the latter:

  • Measures of success. down to "digitisation" is much more like it—numbers, solid expressions of what pertains now, and what you hope to achieve. But beyond that, it's too vague, and I'd rather see your time go into useful planning than that. For example, the measures of success for the education program are woolly: "joyful atmosphere" is a good thing, but it's not measurable. I'd be more inclined to say nothing, unless you're running a quick questionnaire of participants, asking for evaluations and comments. And the same for promotional materials: "It will be a success if people will like our stuff, both Wikipedians and sane persons." Right. "Motivational events: People come eagerly and leave happily"—too internalised. "Professionalization: Everything in order by the right time."—not helpful—too obvious.

I notice that measures of success are cut and pasted word for word for the individual projects. Oh. I've read them already. ...

I think the WMF/GAC needs to convey to applicants that "Measures of success" doesn't have to be filled in for every single activity—only those where something solid can be said. There needs to be some way of determining degree of success—not necessarily a binary succeeded or failed, but are you going to say in the report that "some people weren't eager and left unhappily"?

Why not? Estonians are notoriously bad at saying "I'm fine, how are you?". But yes, it would be good to use quantified measures where possible. I've seen too many projects in much larger organizations that have criteria so vague they could not fail unless a nuclear weapon was used in their office. When it's hard to set a quantified measure, I'd rather say some things are just obviously useful and that's it. If GAC decided it would be okay, I'd happily agree. --Oop (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's not your fault; it's a systemic issue to do with instructions and examples for applicants. I'm mainly addressing the GAC here in terms of how we can create a more specific environment for applicants. Suffice it to say that much of this information isn't helpful, but more of the procedural grit of the projects would be nice. Who, how many, where, how long and roughly when? Talk in terms of what you know, or if you don't know, what you can reasonably expect. The plans look very unformed at the moment, and our job is to help you to fill out those plans at this pre-approval stage. Tony (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Fit to strategy. Take a look at how hard it is for applicants to write anything useful for judgement and for auditing/reporting, please, WMF and GAC. Unlike measures of success, fit to strategy isn't repeated—oh, sorry, it is repeated, down the bottom <sigh>. There's a brief statement for each project:
    • Fit to strategy: outreach and increase of participation. In 2012 we are working hard to cover Estonian science (e.g. creating articles about all notable Estonian scientists). [could there be link or two?]
    • Fit to strategy: International cooperation is a good thing, right?
    • Fit to strategy: outreach and participation, definitely.
    • Fit to strategy: outreach.
    • Fit to strategy: More useful content on the regions that should have better coverage.
    • Fit to strategy: quality (more content).
    • Fit to strategy: An influential rise in quality in a large field. [sounds more like a "goal"]
    • Fit to strategy: Quality (a lot of new content), possibly financial sustainability.
    • Fit to strategy: Participation, cooperation, quality.
    • Fit to strategy: Exchange of ideas should count towards "organizational maturity and effectiveness". [that's a WMF strategy? Could it be linked? Or better, let's get rid of this requirement, because it's not helping.]
    • Fit to strategy: Exchange of ideas should count towards "organizational maturity and effectiveness".
    • Fit to strategy: Organizational benefits.
    • Fit to strategy: strengthening our organizational brand.
    • Fit to strategy: A motivated Wikipedian works more and harder, therefore, organizational maturity and effectiveness.
    • Fit to strategy: Organizational maturity and effectiveness.
"Fit to strategy" etc come from the form (as the previous form, as it was changed after we had started writing this application). FTS shows the connection to WMF's strategic goals (if you have never read it, maybe you should; it can be found via Google). Personally, I think having these in the end for the application as a whole is nonsense, as each activity has different goals, benefits, measures etc. In theory, yes, it is important to think about these aspects when planning your work; in practice, answers tend to repeat if you have a long list, and in some cases they're kind of obvious. Does anyone really need a proof that chapters should cooperate, or that members of a community should meet sometimes? --Oop (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've finished reading that none the wiser.

The Benefits section at the bottom doesn't help me to understand or appreciate or judge this program ... not one bit. It's full of obvious statements. Take a look. I think it's overcompartmentalised. A better way might be to ask for a single benefits statement (one paragraph, probably), with one instruction that lists the types of things that could be included.

I pity applicants having to do this, because it wastes their time. What they haven't given us is the critical details on the projects, so we can judge whether there's a proper plan that is likely to succeed. "Team members: TBD" ... and then it talks about sending them to Milan ... hasn't that already happened? The collaboration with the Estonian Association for History and Philosophy of Science: I'd be more comfortable if a few people there could be named? That's what normally happens in an application for project funding, so we have a bit of reality to grip onto. Even the head of a department there? No link to the Estonian WP article on the association?

1. I could give names for each of our partners, but they're mostly people who you have never heard about and who might feel a bit uncomfortable just because they haven't thought anyone would take interest in them personally. I think it would just clutter this page, while adding nothing important about our activities. After all, this page is meant to provide information for financial decisions, not for satisfying endless curiosity. 2. Under Milan, it says "Team members: Pseudacorus, Oop." I'm not sure answering questions like this is a sensible use of my time by any criteria. --Oop (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
A few names of partners would be very good (or if they're shy, their generic position and org.): it's partly a matter of verification when asking for money. And partly that it gives us a sense of who, what organisation, what rank and job these people have. It fills in the picture. Milan ... again, didn't that happen months ago? Tony (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
1. In Estonian Association for History and Philosophy of Science (et:Teadusajaloo ja Teadusfilosoofia Eesti Ühendus), I've mostly dealt with Tarmo Kiik and et:Erki Tammiksaar. 2. About Milan, etc: indeed, we seem to be little bit late. We'd very much like to do everything in time, we've just passed the border of burnout months ago. That's why we think we can't continue by volunteers alone. --Oop (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Motivational events: this is just too vague. ... and snacks for "Bonding, conflict resolution, idea exchange". I don't know, don't you all interact on the WMF's Estonian-language sites? I'd be pleased if there were a solid agenda for the meet-up, goals, presentations. How long? A half day?

1. A Wikimedia chapter is not the same as the local Wikipedia community. Some people in the chapter are not Wikipedians, and most of the Wikipedians are not chapter members. Not everything concerning the organization is or should be discussed on Wikipedia. 2. You can't run an organization with people who never meet. It's important to get them together physically, time to time. People tend to get in conflicts over the Internet that could be easily solved if they just met and talked. 3. Most of these things are small and set up ad hoc, not a year before. In general, they range from strategy meetings where the organizational strategy is discussed to purely motivational things like a Christmas party (we've had too few of these, should do more), including something in-between where people discuss the daily matters (who will transport an exhibition, who will go and speak in a school, whether a certain competition would be a good idea, how to solve a problem on Wikipedia, could we build a bot for this or that, should we write about some current events, do we need an article about mint tea, do I have a good camera, what are the others doing right now...). How long? Usually, two to five hours. --Oop (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
"You can't run an organization with people who never meet."—I don't entirely agree. I'm not seeing evidence of who, how many, whereabouts in Estonia. Just a little bit of information about the target and potential community would be good. Do you have a chapter site, or a page on Meta that could be an anchor? I'm not much in favour of paying for people to meet up when they haven't even established online contact. And I can see what looks like being a very unfocused event. Motivated in what ways? Will there be an agenda? How many people do you expect to attend? The WMF is quintessentially an online organisation, and supporting its websites is presumably the aim of the chapter.
1. Most of our people are living in or around two towns, [[:et:Tallinn] and et:Tartu. Do you want a list of all the places we've met in? For the next ones, we haven't set the dates yet, as it is summer and everyone's away from towns. Most of the meeting are discussed on WMEE's list (if they concern WMEE mostly; sorry, the archive is not public) or on Estonian Wikipedia et:Vikipeedia:Üldine_arutelu (if they're of more general interest). Some local meetings happen just by people calling each other; for the records, ask NSA. 2. Most of our people have met on Wikimedia sites, but not everyone. Like I said, not all our chapter members are Wikipedians, some are just helping to advance the movement in the other ways. Anyway, everybody is on our e-mail list, it's just not enough. Why do you think we have Wikimania, if online contact is the universal cure? 3. Nobody pays anyone for coming to a meeting. But if necessary, we have paid compensation for the tickets so they don't have to pay for participation - for some one us, this can be a relevant expenditure. If you don't see the difference, I can't help either. 4. If you want our chapter sites and Meta pages, why do you write in length here, instead of writing "Wikimedia Eesti" in the search box on Meta or in your browser? Google does not bite. --Oop (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's quite a lot of money. More details are needed. Perhaps the grantmaking staff could advise and be more encouraging than I'm being.

Tony (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS I haven't even got to the budget. Office fairy? €700 each ... so is it one, or more than one? And what does a fairy do? And what EFT would she/he/it be (equivalent full-time) ... 0.2? Tony (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Citing: "the house fairy will take care of both the secretarial tasks and communication (internal and external)". Amongst other things, this includes: 1) keeping track of and organizing the timely updates of our channels - blog, newsletter, English news, three Facebook pages; 2) keeping track of and organizing timely answers to comment and interview requests from media; 3) keeping track of and organizing timely answers to all kinds of requests we receive, from "please come to speak at X" to "i demand that you change Y at once"; 4) booking all necessary things timely for trips both locally and abroad; 5) organizing our travelling exhibitions (who, where and how will set up advertising in different places, where shall these travel, buying all the necessary commodities, mailing the exhibitions from each place to the next one); 6) setting up meetings (scheduling, finding rooms etc) with our partners and members. In short, all the organizatory stuff for which one doesn't have to be a Wikipedian or a member of the board, and which could be done more efficiently by a professional. There is plenty of work left for the board members who are volunteers and don't have unlimited time for everything. --Oop (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's too much detail ... ok ok. But one or more than one? Singular and plural used in the same budget line. How much per hour (with on-costs), please, and how many hours in total? You must have an idea, surely, otherwise how do you know that this is sufficient funding for the labour? Tony (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
We need: 1) one person who'd deal with all the applications and reports (part-time, probably about 0.5); 2) one person who'd deal with the communications and organizational stuff (part-time, probably 0.75, but it's hard to estimate). We compared the levels of pay with the levels in the town where our (currently rather virtual) office resides. --Oop (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oppose unless significantly changed[edit]

The application and the project plans contain far too little of the functional detail, and far too much pap. There's fuzz and inconsistency, too. It is impossible to judge the practicability and impact of most activities, and whether there are sufficient and the right type of volunteers to do them.

Just to take the latest example, immediately above: staffing. You have now declared, after questioning about the ambiguous budget item for this:

"We need: 1) one person who'd deal with all the applications and reports (part-time, probably about 0.5); 2) one person who'd deal with the communications and organizational stuff (part-time, probably 0.75, but it's hard to estimate). We compared the levels of pay with the levels in the town where our (currently rather virtual) office resides."

So, which one is the so-called fairy?

I've reproduced the relevant part of the budget, modifying it so it's clear (in any language). :

  • Office fairy: €5,586 – 6 months, €700 monthly.
  • Executive director: €5,586 – 6 months, €700 monthly. Running also the financial side and reporting.
  • Recruitment costs: €1,000 – We got a very friendly price from a professional.

Please note that in informal English, fairy is an offensive term for a male homosexual, and also carries a certain sense of triviality—I suggest a standard employment term next time, like assistant. Executive director is a rather grand term for a part-time person doing low- to medium-level work. ED is what a major company has, or the WMF. Next time, let's just go with "manager"?

  1. Nothing less than the hourly rate for the employees' pay, and the associated on-costs (payroll tax, insurance, etc) will do. These will be casual positions, one presumes. You mention a "town" as the benchmark for pay. This would be unusual. I presume your (two) employees would work online from anywhere in Estonia. And why would prevailing pay rates in a single town be relevant?
  2. Please don't say "probably" for the input of staff – you're thus saying that you haven't decided what the rate of pay will be, nor how many hours the duties will require. You say "probably" 0.5 FTE for the executive director, and "probably" 0.75 FTE for the assistant. Does this mean that the hourly rate of the assistant will "probably" be 2/3 of that of the executive director?
  3. Why is a professional recruiter necessary for these jobs? If you need assistance in the process, please ask the WMF staff, who will be only too pleased to assist you by phone, skype, or email.
  4. The request appears to be for up to 50 hours a week (1.25 FTE total). I can see no justification for this, even with the number of activities planned. Will no volunteers be providing any organisational assistance? My feeling is that a single 0.5 FTE at the higher rate is more like what should be considered.

It's all a jumble. Tony (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A bit more about hiring[edit]

Evidently, some points in this application still need clarification.

First, let's leave the question how to call the positions aside - we can call them Hireling1 and Hireling2, because no one is going to call them anything in English anyway - and focus on their job descriptions. These lists are not comprehensive, some items may be added or rearranged according to people's abilities and other circumstances.


  1. writes yearly grant applications for WMF;
  2. writes grant reports for WMF;
  3. writes activity reports once a year and once a month;
  4. writes applications for base financing;
  5. writes other financial applications if necessary, or helps project managers in writing those;
  6. writes the according reports or helps the project managers;
  7. writes reports to major donators;
  8. looks for sponsors for particular activities and WMEE in general.


  1. manages the letter exchange of WMEE: a) registrers the letters; b) either writes the answers or organizes the answers by others; c) observes and ensures the timeliness of the answers;
  2. manages the blog and Facebook pages of WMEE: a) observes and ensures the regular posts; b) either writes the posts or order them from community members or guests;
  3. observes and registers media coverage of WMEE;
  4. pokes the community members, providing articles for media about both WMEE's particular projects and the themes concerning Wikimedia movement in general;
  5. orders the translations of reports and other documents;
  6. arranges meetings with the partners of WMEE, presentations and trainings by the members of WMEE, etc;
  7. composes WMEE's newsletter;
  8. writes the protocols of WMEE board meetings;
  9. writes the protocols of WMEE general assemblies;
  10. publishes the meeting protocols;
  11. arranges the documents' movement between WMEE and official registers;
  12. arranges the postal exchange of WMEE (sending and receiving the packages);
  13. manages WMEE's travelling exhibitions;
  14. organizes public events;
  15. organizes the insider events for WMEE and community members;
  16. books the tickets and hotels etc for longer trips;
  17. keeps account of the incoming bills and forwards them to the bookkeeper;
  18. orders stuff from T-shirts to visit cards;
  19. organizes the publishing of WMEE's publications, unless there is a project manager to do it.

Obviously, it would be too much for one person to do all of this, as we'd like to avoid killing anyone. While Hireling2 has much more daily chores than the other, Hireling1 also has large financial responsibilities. As you see, it is hard to say which one is more important, hence calling one a "manager" and the other an "assistant" would be inappropriate.

Theoretically, it would not matter where our Hirelings live if we do not have an office. Practically, we are going to need an office soon, when our digitization program will receive state financing. In time, we shall acquire more professional equipment which can't be dragged around the world. Also, a living chapter acquires all kind of stuff which is currently piling up in our homes and workplaces. And last but not least, we could have created our own library long ago if we had but a single shelf. So, raising a good hireling whom we're going to sack because they won't move to a different town is not a good strategy in the long run. Hence, the comparison with the pay levels of local large employers.

Concerning the number of hours and pay rate per hour: nobody cares. The only important question is if the job gets done well and in time.

Concerning "please ask the WMF staff": if someone truly believes that an international phone call to the other side of the planet is going to replace a professional sifting through the CVs and sitting in on the job interviews, they're probably very naive. I'd also be quite surprising if they have a HR professional who speaks Estonian or has ever read the legal acts concerning employment and NGOs in Estonia. Anyway, thanks for the useful advice.

Geography aside, there's another interesting question: what shall the volunteer board members do when it seems that all the work will be done by the Hirelings? Surprisingly, plenty. Following list is not comprehensive.

  1. Strategy work;
  2. planning;
  3. running decisions;
  4. all kinds of negotiations;
  5. cooperation agreements;
  6. legal initiatives;
  7. most of the programmatic activities;
  8. international cooperation;
  9. running large programs that do not have a separate manager;
  10. public performances.

Currently, three voluntary board members do all and everything on the two lists above in their free time. I can assure it's a lot. And concerning the question "Will no volunteers be providing any organisational assistance?" - no. Most Wikipedians are content to do whatever they like on Wikipedia. On every meeting people say "Please continue, you're doing a good job" and "No, I don't have time to: 1) write an article; 2) put up the posters; 3) come to a workshop; 4) run a project; 5) ...". There are some who have their own activities concerning the content of Wikimedia projects, like running a photo contest or writing bots. But nobody wants to be the bureaucrats.

In the end, a little bit about namecalling. In Estonian, "fairy" has only positive connotations. I'm sure it might be different in English, Cantonese, Suahili and Sumerian. And this is relevant because...? Not everybody lives in America (see also the passage about WMF help). Actually, the name of a position in a small NGO is completely irrelevant regardless of the language; the important thing is what people do.

Still, opposing the application in full because a position has a name that might be unpleasant if translated into a language in which no one is ever going to address that person, looks like a quite disproportional reaction. There might exist some people who would have thought that a proposal to change the name would have been enough. There might also be some who'd suggest dropping the hiring part and proceeding with the rest of the application. After all, there have been no serious arguments against the programmatic activities or international cooperation, so why should all activities of the whole chapter be cancelled? Yet if making financial decisions based on this level of analysis and argumentation should spread, I'm afraid it would have dire consequences for the whole movement. --Oop (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Current expenditures[edit]

I'm afraid we have to make a couple of payments before we get the answer for the grant application. Namely, we should pay for the transport (103.50 EUR) and accommodation (165 EUR) on Estonian Wikipedians' summer days. Transport costs were relatively high because the community decided to hold the summer days this year on a small island (en:Aegna) on Estonia's north coast, and boats are more expensive than buses or trains. Still, we can add a better coverage of the area in Estonian Wikipedia on the plus side. This whole thing is a little bit urgent. --Oop (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

These two specific expenses are approved, and may be spent out of the previous grant's underspend. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 04:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply


Thank you for the additional detail provided on this talk page. I apologize for the lack of wider participation from our advisory committee. Expect a decision this week. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 04:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Terms for approval[edit]

We are ready to approve the programmatic activity in this grant proposal.

We are also willing to fund the temporary staff positions, conditional upon the following steps being taken:

  1. WMEE adopts clear, written policies regarding hiring, firing, travel, and expenses. Depending on your bylaws, this may require the calling of a general assembly. Feel free to borrow from and adopt existing policies of this kind from others in the movement.
  2. WMEE publicizes the plan, this grant proposal, and the intent to hire (with rough job descriptions), on-wiki on the EEWP and any relevant community mailing lists. We will want to see that no serious concern is brought and backed by a significant portion of the community. (It is understandable and fine that there will be some dissent.)
  3. A sketch of the oversight plan -- i.e. the way(s) in which the board will train, on-board, and oversee the staff -- for the first few months is written and shared in public with the general membership. (in Estonian is fine.)

Please let us know if these terms are acceptable to WMEE. If they are, we shall proceed: we are willing to disburse the programmatic funds immediately upon the signing of a grant agreement, even if it would take WMEE some time to meet the requirements above, and to disburse the funds for staff when WMEE is ready. If the terms are not acceptable, please express your concerns and we can discuss further. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the quick and timely answer. All the terms are deemed acceptable by our board. We shall also discuss these matters on our current general meeting. --Oop (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
...and it was approved by the general meeting. So, let's proceed to the grant agreement. --Oop (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Publicized on our mailing list and on EEWP:Üldine_arutelu#Wikimedia_Eesti_palkab_inimesi --Oop (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Concerning policies: they're going to be structured somewhat differently, according to the local tradition and labor laws, but addressing all these issues (and some more). Also, in some areas where British or American organizations have there own policies, we have all rules set in the laws so we won't have much room for our own policy except stating we'll run everything by the law. Anyway, we're going to set the policies quite soon. --Oop (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Oop, congratulations on your proceeding this far. I wish your project the best; I think the terms stipulated above will be very helpful to WM EE in the implementation of the proposal. Please feel free to ask the WMF grantmaking staff for advice at any stage: they're experts. Tony (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Completion date[edit]

Hi, Oop! We hope you don't mind, but we've changed the official completion date for this project to 30 April 2014, which actually exists ;) Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply


I am writing You on behalf of Wikimedia Eesti (WMEE).

As a result of controlling the 2013 grant application data, we have discovered a mistake in preliminary data concerning underspend of 2012 grant. The numbers presented in 2012 grant report are correct.

There is regrettably a mistake concerning the amount of money to be deducted from the sum of 2013 grant. This error is twofold. On the one hand there is a mistake made during application writing by Wikimedia Eesti, as we have not counted the sum of underspend, but instead the money spent in 2012 (see 2012 grant report). It would be actually correct to deduce from 2013 grant application the real underspend of 2012: Total project budget 10 383 EUR - Money spent 5124 EUR = Underspend of 2012 grant 5259 EUR.

On the other hand, the Fenno-Ugric seminar, which was planned to take place in 2012 has been postponed to 2014 grant and, as this seminar does not figure in the 2013 grant budget, but will find its place in the 2014 budget, the money allocated for this seminar has to be deduced from the underspend mentioned. As the result, the real amount to be deduced from the total of grant is: Underspend of 2012 grant 5259 EUR - Budget of Fenno-Ugric seminar 2700 EUR = 2559 EUR.

Our fault is, that on the budget line "From 2012 grant" in our grant application form: 1) the sum to be transferred from 2012 is miscalculated (as it counts the amount of money spent in 2012 and not underspend), 2) the line has not been provided with minus ahead of it to underline the fact that transferring of 2012 grant funds has already been made.

In our grant application we had made a mistake by including and deducing the underspend of 2012 in the grant application, which needs to be changed.

Therefore, we would like to delete the line "From "2012" Grant" and also the comment "2700 € will be transferred to 2014, as the Fenno-Ugric seminar has been postponed."

As a result also the total of the grant application needs to be increased from 29 503,21 to 31 927,21, as well as the line Total amount requested from the WMF Grants Program needs to present the same number, i.e. 31 927,21.

As a consequent also the number of Amount requested in currency requested in financial details has to be changed to 31 927,21 and subsequently the number of Equivalent amount in US$ on the date of submission needs to be increased to 41 723,44.

We thank You for Your kind attention and especially for Your useful comments and remarks!

--Misosoof (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please confirm grant amount[edit]

Dear Misosoof:

Thank you for that information.

1. Your budget for 2013 should include your grant expenses in 2013, both past and future, and should not include any adjustments or deductions related to previous grants.

2. Also include the amount for the Fenno-Ugric seminar in your 2013 grant's budget if that event actually happened in 2013 and if it is not included in your 2012 grant report or covered by those funds.

2. We understand now that the Fenno-Ugric seminar will not take place during the term of your 2013 grant. Thank you for that clarification. We therefore recommend that you remove this item from your grant and budget for it in a future grant submission.

Please confirm the total amount of your 2013 grant's budget as defined above now, or let us know if you have any questions about the above definitions.

Thank you, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Changes approved[edit]

The Nov 6th changes by Misosoof (being an adjustment to compensate for a miscalculation and a misunderstanding) are approved. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Budget changes approved[edit]

This discussion has been moved here from Grants:PEG/WM_EE/2013/Reallocation since it is not a reallocation request, but a request for changes to the project's budget. Normally, these requests are made and reviewed here on the grant request discussion page, and so I have created a redirect to this page from the subpage and included the discussion here so that it is easy to find. These changes were requested and approved on 24 December 2013. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 20:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply


We'd like to reallocate certain sums within our budget.

1. A detailed budget outlining how funds will be used[edit]

We'd like to:

  1. ...join the budget items "Tartupeedia" (900€) and "Photo competition about city of Tartu" (400€). After all, one of these is a subset of the other.
  2. ...reallocate 15€ from "Small and unforeseen projects" to "Translation bee".
  3. ...reallocate 70€ from "Trainings" to "Office costs".
  4. ...reallocate 20€ from "Trainings" to "Bank fees".
  5. ...reallocate 30€ from "Trainings" to "IT costs".
  6. ...reallocate 20€ from "Wikipedia summer days and WMEE general assemblies" to "Recruitment costs".
  7. ...reallocate 250€ from "Wikipedia summer days and WMEE general assemblies" to "Motivational events and strategy meetings".

2. A description of the activities to be executed[edit]

The activities to be executed are exactly the same that have been described in our grant application.

There are two reasons for the reallocation. First, some things seem to be a bit more and some a bit less costly than we supposed a year ago. Second, it seems we have repeated (although to a lesser extent) our earlier mistake from previous grants and made the budget too detailed - this way, one doesn't have enough flexibility to react to the actual situation.

Evidently, there is a healthy balance between detailed description (so you know where each penny is going) and flexibility (so you can react to the rising prices, changing wished of the community, unexpected proposals for cooperation, etc). It is hard to hit but we think we have improved in this. Well, let's consider this as an educational experience and hope we now can make a better budget for the next year.

3. An explanation of how these activities are aligned with Wikimedia's mission, and how the activities will contribute to Wikimedia's strategic priorities[edit]

We're happy to assure that as the particular activities for the remaining part of the grant period will be the same as they were supposed to be, their alignment with Wikimedia's mission and contribution to its strategic priorities will be quite as described in our grant application. Essentially, nothing has changed.

4. A date for the start and completion of the proposed activities[edit]

We'd like to start as soon as possible (preferrably tomorrow) and continue until the end of the grant period.

Thanks, and happy holidays.


The above reallocation request is approved. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Report on professionalization[edit]

WMEE has published a report on professionalization here. This is not quite a grant report, but it is related to these funded activities, and so we are linking to it from this discussion page: Wikimedia Eesti/First interim report on professionalization. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Request for changes in project start and end date[edit]

Dear representatives of Wikimedia Foundation,

Hereby I present to you, on behalf of Wikimedia Eesti, a request for changes in the start and end date of our annual plan 2013.

1) We do understand that approving projects wholly or partly retrospectively is not a good practice and we completely understand that late presentation of this grant request is a shortcoming of Wikimedia Eesti, nevertheless we would like to change the project start date to the 1st of January 2013, as many of the actions described in the project were completed before the current start date, i.e. the 1st of September 2013 (e.g. participation on international conferences and Wikimania, some competitions, wikiexpedition) and thus keeping the start date of the project unchanged would require: a) an extensive reformation of the present approved grant request, b) finding retrospectively an alternative funding source to cover the costs of Wikimedia Eesti in the period from the 1st of January to the 1st of September 2013 (the 2012 grant ending on the 31st of December). As the activities and costs from this period are closely related to the grant request, we find that changing the start date of the project is well justified.

2) Following the discussion in Wikimedia Eesti and also with the representatives of Wikimedia Foundation, it was decided that the start date of our 2014 grant will be the 1st of March 2014 with an additional clause that there will be no overlapping between the 2013 and 2014 grants (for further details see 2014 grant discussion page). As all but one of the programmatic activities of the present grant request were performed before that date and relevant human resources costs will be covered by our 2014 grant, we would like to change the project end date to the 28th of February 2014. We feel that such change is in accordance with the agreement made with Wikimedia Foundation (regarding 2014 grant start date), as well as inner dynamic of the project itself.

We will be available for any further questions or comments regarding the change of project start and end date, if needed.

--Misosoof (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this explanation. The request to change the start and end date of the grant is approved. We will make the appropriate changes on the request page of the grant. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Request for changes in project budget[edit]

Dear representatives of Wikimedia Foundation,

Hereby I present to you, on behalf of Wikimedia Eesti, the requests for changes in the project budget of our annual plan 2013.

We do acknowledge the necessity of a precise monitoring of grant expenses and making the requests for changes in the project budget in advance, but as the board of Wikimedia Eesti was overwhelmed with other obligations for the most of the year 2013 and the staff was hired as late as October and needed some time for getting into the swing, the questions related to the project budget were left mostly unattended (the change requests made in December were rather minor ones). As a result we have found some issues in the grant budget during the process of concluding the grant and therefore we would like to make a request for retrospective changes to the grant budget.

1) One of the budget change request is related to the hiring of the first employees. The hiring process started after the approval of the grant application and the project budget. Nevertheless Wikimedia Eesti went through a negotiation process with the employees and as a result the salary of the project writer was slightly increased and the salary of the board assistant significantly decreased. Unfortunately such a change was never discussed with the Wikimedia Foundation and a request for the budget change has not been made.

We would like to request an increase of 613 euros, totaling 6199 euros for the salary of project writer (Person 1) and a decrease of 1853 euros, totaling 3733 euros for the salary of board assistant (Person 2). Although the total amount of money to be spent on salaries was decreased by 1240 euros, changes of such capacity need to be most certainly negotiated with Wikimedia Foundation in advance. Wikimedia Eesti is learning its lessons and hopefully it will be possible to be more efficient in communication and more thoughtful in the future.

Actual costs for salaries
Item Unit cost Amount Unit Total cost From WMF % of WMF Other sources
Board assistant €564.97 6.6087 months €3,733.72 €3,733.72 100% €0.00
Gross salary €421.62 6.6087 months €2,786.36 €2,786.36 100% €0.00
Social taxes €143.35 6.6087 months €947,36 €947,36 100% €0.00
Project manager €938.00 6.6087 months €6,198.96 €6,198.96 100% €0.00
Gross salary €700.00 6.6087 months €4,626.09 €4,626.09 100% €0.00
Social taxes €238.00 6.6087 months €1,572.87 €1,572.87 100% €0.00
Total €9,932.68 €9,932.68 100% €0.00

2) The second request is related to an uncompleted activity - publication of Free culture. The cooperation with Estonian Internet Community (Internet Society (ISOC) Estonian chapter) broke down due to significant changes in the board of that organization and, as a result, a collaborative fundraising did not take place. Wikimedia Eesti took the decision to reduce the number of copies to be made and queried publishers for possible costs. We got a good offer from University of Tartu Press and made a grant application to involve external funding. We have also made efforts to secure funding from other sponsors. Unfortunately the grant application was rejected and we have not been able to introduce additional funding on our own.

As Wikimedia Eesti wants to ensure a high quality of the translation and edition, but at the same time to continue with the plan of free distribution of the printed books, we would like to request an increase of 3000 euros, totaling 4900 euros to the project budget, as to ensure the necessary funding for all the project related costs (fees for language editor, juridical counseling, preparation of printing and printing itself).

Provisional project budget for the publishing of Free Culture
Item Unit cost Amount Unit Total cost From WMF % of WMF Other sources
Publishing of Free Culture €9.80 500 copies €4,900.00 €4,900.00 100% €0.00
Language editing €530.00 1 person €530.00 €530.00 100% €0.00
Juridical commentary €620.00 1 person €620.00 €620.00 100% €0.00
Actual printing costs €7.50 500 exhibitions €3,750.00 €3,750.00 100% €0.00
Total €4,900.00 €4,900.00 100% €0.00

We would like to cover the additional costs from the underspending of the project:

a) Use 500 euros of underspending from general transportation costs (most of our transportation is project-related, which has resulted in this underspending),

b) Use 1240 euros of underspending from the professionalization (see point 1 above),

c) Transfer 550 euros of underspending from the small projects to the "Free Culture" project,

d) Use 350 euros of underspending from the traveling exhibitions line item,

e) Use 300 euros from the cancelled Ida-Viru article competition,

f) Use 100 euros from the taxes line item.

This results in "a total of 3040 euros" to be transferred from the underspending of the 2013 project budget line items to the realization of publication of "Free Culture".

3) Other change requests are related to the inaccuracies in the planning and are rather minor ones:

a) We would like to request a change related to the international travel: cover 300 euros of the overspending of Wikimania participation from the underspending of participation on Wikimedia Conference; add 60 euros from Wikimedia Conference line item, 115 euros from small projects line item and 25 euros from project related international travel to the participation on WMCEE Conference budget line.

b) Distribute 190 euros of underspending from the wikiexpeditions line item in the following way: add 95 euros to the illustration project costs, 35 euros to the motivational events costs, 30 euros to the IT costs, 30 euros to the translation bee costs.

c) Distribute 120 euros of underspending from the prizes line item in the following way: add 60 euros to summer days and assemblies and 60 euros to the science photo competition line item.

d) Move 60 euros from training costs to the office costs.

e) Move 45 euros from general project costs to the recruitment costs.

f) Distribute 35 euros of underpsending from WLM costs in the following way: add 20 euros to the university wiki course line item and 15 euros to the bookkeeping.

g) Move 25 euros from the translation costs to the memorabilia costs.

Grant budget with changes
Item Original budget Changes 24.12.2013 Changes 19.05.2014 Comments
Memorabilia €1,208.00 €1,208.00 €1,233.00 €25 transferred from the general translation costs.
Trainings €950.00 €830.00 €770.00 €60 transferred to the office costs.
Transport €600.00 €600.00 €100.00 €500 transferred to the Free Culture project.
Translation costs €400.00 €400.00 €375.00 €25 transferred to the memorabilia.
Bookkeeper’s fee €334.00 €334.00 €349.00 €15 transferred from WLM.
Taxes €200.00 €200.00 €100.00 Not spent: €100 transferred to the Free Culture project and €100 will be reallocated to the 2014 grant.
Office costs €130.00 €200.00 €260.00 €60 transferred from the trainings costs.
IT costs €100.00 €130.00 €160.00 €30 transferred from the wikiexpeditions costs.
Bank fees €40.00 €60.00 €60.00 Left unchanged with the present request.
General costs subtotal €3,962.00 €3,962.00 €3,407.00
Person 1 (project writer) €5,586.00 €5,586.00 €6,199.00 €613 transferred from the salaries of board assistant (person 2).
Person 2 (board assistant) €5,586.00 €5,586.00 €3,733.00 €613 transferred to the salaries of project writer (person 1) and €1240 to the Free Culture project.
Recruitment costs €1,000.00 €1,020.00 €1,065.00 €45 transferred from the projects general costs.
HR costs subtotal €12,172.00 €12,192.00 €10,997.00
Wikipedia summer days and WMEE general assemblies €650.00 €380.00 €440.00 €60 transferred from prizes.
Motivational events and strategy meetings €200.00 €450.00 €485.00 €35 transferred from wikiexpeditions.
General events subtotal €850.00 €830.00 €925.00
International travel for projects €2,529.81 €2,529.81 €2,504.81 €25 transferred to participation on WMCEE conference.
Free Culture €1,900.00 €1,900.00 €4,940.00 See the description of the changes above.
Small projects €950.00 €935.00 €270.00 €115 transferred to participation on WMCEE conference and €550 to the Free Culture project.
Tartupeedia and Tartu photo competition €1,300.00 €1,300.00 €1,300.00 No changes made with the present request.
Traveling exhibitions €700.00 €700.00 €350.00 €350 transferred to the Free Culture project.
Wikiexpeditions €600.00 €600.00 €410.00 €190 distributed between ilustration project, motivational events, IT costs and translation bee.
Prizes €500.00 €500.00 €380.00 €60 transferred to the summer days and general assemblies and €60 to Science photo competition.
Wikipedia course in UT €300.00 €300.00 €320.00 €20 transferred from the WLM costs.
Wiki Loves Monuments €300.00 €300.00 €265.00 €20 transferred to the Wikipedia course in UT and €15 to bookkeeper’s fee.
Ida-Viru competition €300.00 €300.00 €0.00 Competition was cancelled. Funds transferred to the Free Culture project.
General costs €300.00 €300.00 €255.00 €45 transferred to the recruitment costs.
Illustration project €250.00 €250.00 €345.00 €95 transferred from wikiexpeditions.
Translation bee €200.00 €215.00 €245.00 €30 transferred from wikiexpeditions.
Science photo competition €150.00 €150.00 €210.00 €60 transferred from prizes.
Projects subtotal €10,279.81 €10,279.81 €11,794.81
Wikimedia conference 2013 €1,836.25 €1,836.25 €1,476.25 €300 transferred to the Wikimania 2013 and €60 to the participation on WMCEE conference.
Wikimania 2013 €1,483.70 €1,483.70 €1,783.70 €300 transferred from the Wikimedia conference 2013.
WMCEE 2013 €1,343.45 €1,343.45 €1,543.45 €115 transferred from small projects, €60 from the Wikimedia conference 2013 and €25 from project related international travel.
International travel subtotal €4,663.40 €4,663.40 €4,803.40
Total €31,927.21 €31,927.21 €31,927.21

We understand the complexity of the present request and will be available for any further questions or comments regarding the changes requested in the project budget.

--Misosoof (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your clear explanation. The budget changes are approved. We understand managing an annual grant can be complex and appreciate that you are taking learnings from this experience forward. For future reference, please see more information on requesting changes to your grant budget. Grants equal to or over US$15,000 only need to request permission in advance for changes to line items greater than +/- 10% of that line item. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Request for time extension for reporting[edit]

Dear representatives of Wikimedia Foundation,

Hereby I present to you, on behalf of Wikimedia Eesti, the request for an extension for presenting the project report of our annual plan 2013.

We have requested for a change in the end date of the project (as it seems more coherent and is in accordance with the agreements made with Wikimedia Foundation), but if the new end date of the project will be approved, the due date of the report will become 29th of April 2014, which has already passed. Therefore, if the change request regarding project end date will be approved, we would like to request an extension of 30 days for the reporting as to provide time to Wikimedia Foundation to answer to our requests and to Wikimedia Eesti for making relevant corrections in the project report. This would make the new report due date 30th of May 2014.

We thank you for your kind attention and will be available for further questions or comments.

--Misosoof (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Moving “Free Culture” project to our 2014 annual plan[edit]

Dear representatives of Wikimedia Foundation,

Hereby I present to you, on behalf of Wikimedia Eesti, the request to move the publishing of “Free Culture” project from our annual plan 2013 to the annual plan 2014.

Due to several reasons (some of them already described above), Wikimedia Eesti was not able to complete the project during the project period. Nevertheless we are confident that the publication of an Estonian translation of the book is important in increasing the public awareness about free culture and free knowledge in Estonia and will be a solid base in our future outreach attempts. Therefore we would like to request a transfer of the project and the related funds to our 2014 annual plan.

We will be available for further questions and comments!

--Misosoof (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

We approve moving the publishing of "Free Culture" and it's allocated budget of €4,900 to the 2014 Annual Plan Grant.