Grants talk:PEG/WM UA/Programs in Ukraine 2015-1

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

GAC members who support this request[edit]

  1. Good program and relation cost/benefits is proportionate in my opinion. --Ilario (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. reasonable and detailed programme rubin16 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

GAC members who oppose this request[edit]

GAC members who abstain from voting/comment[edit]

GAC comments[edit]

Community comments[edit]

Sorry for writing here, but unfortunately the whole project was not discussed in WMUA community, just partially, and at least one question remain unclear.

The main one is about a paid staff (PR manager). Though it is a good idea to have a paid staff and this idea was supported by our community earlier, unfortunately first two months of the "experiment" with the staff (december`14-january`15) show that the idea doesn`t work. The page wmua:Оголошення/Піар-менеджер contains the list of activity that is expected to be done by PR-manager. But what was done by the paid staff in fact?

Most of publications on and are performed by volunteers
Most of publications on Wikimedia blog are prepared by volunteers. (see list of publications. In december`14 we had 14 publications. Only 4 of them were performed by PR manager. In january`15 we had 17 publications, all of them was written by volunteers (none - by PR manager).
Monitoring of new publications is steel done by volunteers (see uk:w:ВП:ППВ)
The news about our organisation in Wikinews and WMUA site are published by volunteers (see news of WMUA, wikinews new pages)

Moreover, some requests to PR-manager remain without answer. Due to this paying money for a person who performs too few work seems questionable. --Jbuket (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jbuket and thanks for your comments.
I would like to remind you that PR-manager is currently on sick leave as she had serious health issues since early January, and she is expected to be back in a few days (thus her sick leave will total one month). This was something we really could not plan in advance and these health issues prevented our PR-manager from completing the work we initally planned. We did not find responsible to penalise an employee for having sick issues and thus we expect to make a full report on her work by the end of February when she is back to work instead of the end of January.
Concerning results, firstly, we would like to focus on December and early January results where impact can be more clearly traced. During this period our PR-manager made a lot of arrangements for the CEE Meeting, from press releases to a post in Wikimedia blog and from making arrangements for venues to ordering souvenirs. Secondly, if we compare periods when our employee was present and when she was on sick leave, we can notice that work was done better and more efficiently with our employee, most notably, we were much more reactive with media monitoring and making orders and bookings (for example, our volunteers did not have enough time to find a more centrally located venue for Wikiflashmob in Kyiv, or we did not have enough volunteers to contact all WLE winners quickly).
To sum up, although most of responsibilities were to a certain extent covered by volunteers while our PR-manager is on sick leave, we are sure that these things were done more efficiently with here and will be done better when she is back to work. We will provide a more detailed report by late February — NickK (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, NickK. I did not know that PR-meneger is in a sick leave since January. No information was available on her page about this issue. In this case of cause we are to wait for a full report on her work. Just some comments to your words.
I can`t agree that "work [with employee] was done better and more efficiently". If talking about WMUA blog it could be noticed that December (when employee was present) looks much less successful than January (when employee was not present). The blog reached 4671 views and 3080 visitors in January, while only 3055 and 1991 consequently in December (see stats). Very interesting posts was coined by volunteers in this period, for example Wiki loves earth international winners and Editing wikipedia brochure by Yuri Bulka, Most edited pages in 2014 and Most viewed pages in 2014 by Andriy Bondarenko or Wikipedia in sounds and galaxies by wikipedia user Anntinomy. Also I`d like to notice Serge Petrov who prepared highly professional press-realises about 11 years Wikipedia birthday, Wikiflashmob anounce or the "freepanorama" campaign started. By the way the most popular posts for this period are Most edited pages in 2014 (495 views) and Editing wikipedia brochure (471 views) as for January`2015. Both are done by volunteers in a period when an employee was absent.
The same result could be seen regarding media monitoring. Publications about Wikipedia page shows that December`2014 was comparatively poor for publications in Media. So it looks like both WMUA blog and media relations works even more effective without employee then with. Maybe a full report could clear the situation. Regards, --Jbuket (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I think she cannot edit Wikimedia projects while on sick leave (at least I see no contributions from her personal or office account), thus I do not think she could have written anything about it. I agree that we could have put a notice there, but keep in mind that this is our first year with staff and our first ever sick leave, and we should be able to manage sick leaves more efficiently as soon as we get more expereince. At least you could have find it on wmua:Гранти/2015-1 page where I specifically mentioned this in the appropriate session (you have cited this page, so I hope you have read the discussion there)
I also do not agree that number of views of posts is an appropriate metrics. Some subjects naturally attract more attention than others, and historically the most popular posts on the blog were those about various rankings (incl. most popular pages) and those about deceased Wikipedians (like Ihor Kostenko), but this does not mean we should focus only on these topics. It is great that volunteers could cover our employee during her absence, but for example, most wieved (sic) ranking was published only on 17 January, while our employee was planning to publish it on 12 January, and delaying year enders to the second half of January could have had a negative impact on its performance. Posts like Wikipedia in sounds and galaxies by Anntinomy are great examples of volunteers writing about projects they find interesting, and Editing Wikipedia brochure is a great example of a volunteer reporting for his work on the blog, and we plan to continue empowering volunteers in this way in the future. However, we have still delays with posts on Wikiflashmob and Gender Gap Inspire campaign that should have been posted this week, but we are sure that our PR manager would have helped volunteers to prepare these posts on time (or would have written them by herself).
It is important to mention that the PR manager is supposed to write not about what he or she likes, but about what the organisation needs at the moment. We cannot always rely on volunteers for this, and volunteers can rarely produce high quality work about what they are not particularly interested in — NickK (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Please also note that some media monitoring for December and early January was made at wmua:Публікації в медіа. This makes that December was not that bad at all: with 27 publications it was above expectations, while January had only 22 — NickK (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would also join questions above about PR manager but not as a GAC member but as a WMRU member interested in your experience: at the moment I am a volunteer non-paid PR-editor of our chapter and I am not excited by my results -wmru:Медиа/Отчет_2014 :) If you would share your results, insights and learning patterns, that would be really useful for all of us rubin16 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, we will share our results and insights, but I am not sure we will have a learning pattern ready by February (with only 2 months of experience), we are more likely to have it ready by June (as we will have 6 months of experience by then) — NickK (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WMF comments[edit]

Thank you for this detailed and comprehensive grant proposal. We appreciate the time and effort put into planning these projects and the natural progression of projects that you have built year-on-year. We are impressed with how you have built your community, both online and offline, and look forward to supporting this chapter in the future. We also thank you for providing us more details on 2014 outcomes since your report is not due until May. Please see our questions on the proposal below:

  1. Education programs: It would be helpful to split out the education work from wikiworkshops. For the education program, the minimum measures of success should include the number of teachers engaged, number of classes, number of students, and number of articles created (or number of overall bytes added to Wikipedia articles). Please see the Education Program Resources page for additional information.
  2. Wikiworkshops: One main risk listed is the poor track record of previous wikiworkshops. The grant lists a couple of ideas to mitigate this risk, including more trainers and collecting usernames. We have found that one-off workshops rarely result in retained editors (see impact report). Instead of focusing on more trainers, we would suggest creating workshops series where participants commit to attending 2-3 workshops over a couple months to learn the basics of editing with online follow-up by the trainers between sessions. This has proven to be more successful in recruiting and retaining new editors. This approach relies on local Wikimedians who can hold workshops in their community over a certain time period. It would mean that traveling for one-off workshops where this is no local Wikimedian should be removed from the budget.
  3. GLAM outreach: Please provide more details on the planned GLAM activities. How many institutions will be involved? Will you be doing content release projects as well as hosting events within the institution? For 8 events, the proposed metrics seem relatively low. Last year's proposal included budget for GLAM work, including equipment. What are the results of last year's GLAM activities?
  4. Library: Is this support for the purchase of physical books? If yes, will they only be accessible to editors who can visit the office or will you be sending them to editors?
  5. Wiki Loves Earth: We're very excited to see you've added an article contest this year!
  6. Wikiconference: What were the main outcomes from the 2014 conference? It would be helpful to have success metrics around concrete expected outcomes from the conference. For example, X # of new project plans developed and implemented after the conference.
  7. International conferences: What do you hope to gain from attending local conferences in foreign countries? We realize there is benefit to sharing experiences/challenges with your broader community, but participation in these events, in addition to the CEE conference, should have specific outcomes. We will expect to see reports on these events and how information gained was shared with the local community.
  8. Wikievents: We are surprised to see the need for a hall rental for an online article writing competition. This type of competition is normally conducted solely online.
  9. Publishing: The cost for publishing the brochure and cheat sheets seems quite high. How much do you plan to publish?
  10. This is a significant increase in budget over 2014. Please let us know why you have decided to apply for a 6-month grant instead of a 12-month grant. Do you plan on applying for another 6-month grant for the remainder of the year?
  11. Thank you for listing the community members involved in organizing all of the projects. It is very helpful to see how responsibility for project management is distributed throughout the community and we would like to commend the chapter/community for building such a strong core of volunteers.

Please let us know if you have questions about the above. Looking forward to your responses. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alex and thanks for your questions.
  1. It is quite hard to split Education Programme and Wikiworkshops at the current stage. We already have an Education Programme running in some universities since the beginning of the academic year (1 September in Ukraine), and it is hard to manage the impact of the part of the year starting from February, although some universities may want us to organise workshops in the middle of the academic year. We think that it would be more reasonable to include such measure in the following period which will include the beginning of the academic year.
  2. Actually the previous poor track record is because 1) it was poorly recorded 2) we had some workshops without adequate measures of success. Having analysed workshops, we have found the following:
    • It is important to ask people to start writing the article themselves. People who have created their first article during the workshop have higher chances of retention than people who have not edited during the workshop. Thus we try to add a practical part to all our workshops
    • It is not always possible to ask the same people to attend two or three events. In case attendees form a coherent group (e.g. students of the same course or librarians) we can easily organise two events in a row, in case attendees come randomly it is easier two organise one long workshop (3-4 hours) where people will start contributing themselves.
    • If we organise a one-off event, we have high chances of having at least a few people who are very interested in contributing. This is especially the case of cities and towns where we had no prior wiki events, and one event with further online support is often enough to motivate them.
    Based on this learnings, we have found two main models:
    1. Long (3-4 hours) one-off workshops where people start editing during a workshop and leave the workshop with adeqaute editing skills. We may need two trainers if we expect a large number of attendees, as one trainer will be typically making a presentation and the other one will be helping the audience in the room. This is followed by online support after the workshop (and it does not matter if trainers are from the same city or not).
    2. Series of two or three short workshops. This format works well for students or librarians who can attend a two or three 1.5-2 hour events. In this case one trainer will be enough (first part will be likely more theoretical and second one will be more practical).
    We do not agree that workshops should be organised only in cities with qualified trainers (we have just 5 such cities so far). If we are unable to organise a workshop in a city without qualified trainers, we will be in a vicious circle: there will be no users who can organise local workshopss to invite new users who later will be able to organise workshops. This will have poor effect on our regional outreach, as we are looking for impoving our regional coverage at the moment (Ukrainian Wikipedia currently has a strong imbalance between the regions). An alternative solution is organising Train the Trainers workshops, but we do not think we are ready for it at the moment (we need to find potential trainers in most regions to make sure that we will make a good investment in training these people), although we are looking forward to doing it in a year or so.
  3. I will split the answer into two parts:
    • This year's GLAM programme will be organised in Kharkiv Oblast and will be organised in partnership with Kharkiv Oblast State Administration (who provide non-financial support, such as promotion of the programme to GLAM institutions). The target institutions will be local museums and libraries in towns of Kharkiv Oblast, and the plan is two make initial events with 8 institutions towards May-June (including workshops with their staff). We do not expect high involvement from all these organisations, but we hope that we will have more active involvement (including content donations or further events like edit-a-thons open to general public) from some of these institutions in the second half of the year. Please also note that those are small institution but they have valuable information about their town or district.
    • Last year's GLAM programme was based on two axis. Firstly, we have organised workshops in libraries. The largest was WikiDay programme in partnership with Bibliomist, report is available here: uk:Вікіпедія:WikiDay (in short: 169 new articles in at least 12 libraries). Secondly, we are currently in process of purchasing a scanner with related equipment ("the GLAM equipment") for scanning public domain books and publishing them on Wikisource. This process took a lot more time than we expected as such scanners are not available in Ukraine and customs regulations are complicated, thus our scanner is currently on the route Latvia-Poland-Ukraine and we have no results so far (although we will be able to start digitising books as soon as it arrives and we will be able to use in different libraries for several years - as long as it will be working). We do expect to digitise some books in February-June 2015, but this will not be a direct result of this grant.
  4. Yes, we want to buy physical books. Usually books are sent to editors who hold them as long as they use them for writing articles, and they can bring them back to the office when they do not need them anymore. The current state of our library is provided here: wmua:Бібліотека.
  5. We are looking forward to organising this contest and making it successful
  6. The main projects generated from WikiConference were Freedom of Panorama (we discussed the draft of the law on Freedom of Panorama during the conference), CEE meeting (we have started preparations from hosting the event), project with Crimean Tatar Wikipedia (we discussed state of the project and had some ideas on making it grow, sadly, some of them are difficult to implement in the current context) and updating our bylaws (we have prepared first amendments to our bylaws that were voted in August). We have also discussed improvement to some projects (like WLM, WLE or Education Programme), some organisational issues (such as conflicts of interest) and some on-wiki issues (like bots, licensing or integration with Wikidata). An additional result is more active volunteer engagement in some regions, most notably in Kherson Oblast where we recently had a successful thematic week.
  7. We do ask users attending the conferences to make reports to share their experience and ideas with local communities, for example, you can look at reports from Armenia, Poland and Russia (all in Ukrainian only, unfortunately). We expect to learn more about successful projects in neighbouring countries that have high chances of succeeding in Ukraine due geographic proximity and similar mentalities, and also meet people who do not necessarily attend conferences abroad but work on projects that will be interesting for us. One of the most interesting results so far was a partnership with Kyivstar within Wikipedia Zero, which was developped following a meeting between Yuri Astrakhan and WMUA members at the Yerevan conference. For this year, we think that at least one successful project idea or improvement after each conference will be a success.
  8. Hall rental is needed for the award ceremony that will be most likely combined with press conference. At the moment we do not have a partner who would be able to provide such hall for CEE Spring, and it is hard to find a partner who would have interest in the entire region and have a hall, although we can find partners related to particular countries.
  9. We plan to publish around 1000 copies of cheatsheets: we heavily distribute them to all people interested in Wikimedia projects, for example, we gave them to all participants of WikiFlashmob or all participants of WLM/WLE events. We also plan to publish about 500 copies of Editing Wikipedia brochures, although we intend to distribute only 300 of them during the period (printing is done using offset technology for over 500 copies, which is cheaper and gives higher quality of printing), usually to participants of workshops, article contests or GLAM events. So far both of them had a huge success, for example, we have sent some copies to local libraries who wanted to join Wikiflashmob but where we could not organise workshops during the event. We may also need smaller quantities (~50-100) of leaflets on more specific aspects of Wikimedia projects for target audiences, for example, about free licenses on Wikimedia Commons or digitising books on Wikisource, depending on our needs.
  10. There are two main reasons for choosing a 6-month grant. Firstly, due to economical instability we have high level of inflation and very volatile exchange rate, thus grants over shorter periods are easier to manage. Secondly, given the ongoing war it is hard to make long-term plans in Ukraine in the moment, and we decided that shorter-term plan will be more realistic. The situation is currently relatively favourable for wiki activities and we have high interest from volunteers after 2014 when we had to reduce a number of projects. We do plan to apply for a grant for the second half of the year, of course unless martial law makes our activities impossible...
  11. (both for 10 and 11). This higher volunteer engagement is partially owing to the new approach to budget management, when we ask volunteers themselves to suggest projects they want to see funded over the following period. Full discussion is here: wmua:Гранти/2015-1, and we are very happy to see a high number of ideas suggested by our volunteers
Please do not hesitate to ask me if you need further details — NickK (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi NickK. Thanks so much for the detailed responses.

  1. Can you give us a sense of how many teachers/classes/students are currently involved in the education program that's been running since September? Is this similar to last year?
  2. Thanks for your rationale for having two types of workshop models. We'll be interested to see which type you think is more productive. We do think having local Wikimedians is a key success criteria. However, if there are no local volunteers, the trainers should have a follow-up plan to provide online mentorship and support to new editors who participated in the workshops.
  3. In terms of an award ceremony for CEE Spring, we would encourage you to consider if this is necessary. For just 20 expected participants of an online writing competition, we expect this project to be able to be completed entirely online.
  4. Your strategy for collecting ideas around potential projects and how that process informs your annual planning is great. I'd like to collect best practices on how to do this from a number of affiliates and create a learning pattern. It would be great to get your input on this in the future.

Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alex and thanks for the quick feedback.
  1. Concerning education programme, it is easy to track the courses that are already using the Education Programme extension: we have 5 universities with 7 courses and 78 registered students at the moment. It is harder to track universities that are not using this extension, thus we are working with them to switch to this new extension. In total we estimate that around 10 courses are involved in the education programme. It is difficult to provide 2013/14 figures as we did not have any tracking in place.
  2. Our main problem in the workshop model is that we want to know the model that works the best way in cities without qualified trainers. We are lacking qualified trainers in more than a half of regions of Ukraine, and we would be glad to know if there are any successful models for increasing number of active Wikipedians in these regions (the current regional distribution is given at uk:Вікіпедія:Атлас вікіпедистів, which is far from satisfactory)
  3. As I have confirmed you by email, 20 participants is a measure of success for a contest without SiteNotice active during the entire contest. In case contest will have an active SiteNotice for all 3 months (requires ukwiki community approval), we think that the number of participants and articles will be at least double, and in case we will have successful partnerships with interested institutions (for example, we will get promotion from Polish Institute in Kyiv) we can even triple them (40-60 participants and 200-300 articles). We do hope we will have both of these, but these are non-financial requirements, so we did not add them as measures of success.
  4. Yes, I will be happy to contribute to the learning pattern — NickK (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Extension request[edit]

Hi Alex,

We would like to request the extension of this grant until 31 August 2015. There are two main reasons for this:

  1. We postponed our Wikiconference till August in order to have more time for preparation (and also share experience from Wikimania during the conference, as a lot of WMUA members will attend Wikimania this year). Having this conference in June would have made organise it in a hurry and with less prepared programme
  2. We need more time to organise award ceremonies of CEE Spring, Wiki Loves Earth photo contest and Wiki Loves Earth article contests. We received a high volume of submissions for all these contests and we need more time for evaluation of photos and articles. We expect to organise these ceremonies after Wikimania, in late July or early August 2015.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

WMUA Treasurer — NickK (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NickK. Thanks for the update. The request is approved. The new end date will be 31 August 2015 and the final report will be due 30 October 2015. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the very fast approval, I even did not have time to send you an email :) — NickK (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Extension request - 2[edit]

Hi Alex,

We would like to request further extension of this grant until 30 September 2015. The main reason for this is that we decided to hold our Wikiconference on 19—20 September, in order to share learnings from Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015 with the larger community in the most efficient way.


WMUA Treasurer — NickK (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi NickK. Thanks for the update. The extension is approved. The new end date is 30 September 2015 and the final report will be due 29 November 2015. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Extension request - 3[edit]

Hi Kacie,

We would like to request further extension of this grant until 31 October 2015. Some of our projects are not completed yet, in particular, an award ceremony of the article contest about Crimea (organised with the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine) is scheduled for October.


WMUA Treasurer — NickK (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi NickK, the request for extension is approved. The grant will now end on 31 October 2015, with the report due on 30 December 2015. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@KHarold (WMF): hello and thank you! --アンタナナ 23:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Extension request - 4[edit]

Hi Kacie,

We would like to request further extension of this grant until 31 December 2015. We have looked into the advancement of the projects of this grant and we have found out the following:

  • On most budget lines, we have slight underspending due to favourable exchange rate change: as we have received money in three payments, we did not experience any significant exchange loss, and thus we still have enough money to cover two months of activities.
  • Some projects were cancelled or significantly modified (most notably GLAM outreach in Kharkiv Region: this project relied on cooperation with Kharkiv Regional Administration, but unfortunately Head of Kharkiv Regional Administration changed in February and the new team was not so supportive of this project).
  • Instead, we have planned some new projects (an outreach project in Luhansk region called WikiFest:Луганщина and European Science Photo Competition, inspired by CEE Meeting 2015 in Estonia)
  • For the remaining part, in November in December we plan to continue doing essentially similar activities as in previous months.

Based on this, we decided that the best solution for us would be extending this grant until 31 December and reallocation request that we intend to submit within the next 15 days (we are not able to provide it immediately as we are also working on the FDC request at the moment).


WMUA Treasurer — NickK (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

HiNickK. Can you be more specific about how much funding is still available, a simple budget table showing how you propose to spend remaining funds, which programs were canceled, and measures of success for the new programs? Thanks! --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! We are working on this, and we are going to have the figures by Monday (November 16) --アンタナナ 23:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi NickK, please share an updated budget table showing how much funding will be spent on WikiFest:Луганщина and European Science Photo Competition. Remember, you must have approval before you can spend money on these projects. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi NickK. Thank you for providing and updated budget table and an explanation of what additional activities will be done. The extension is approved. This grant will now end on December 31, 2015, with a report due on February 29, 2016. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kacie and thank you for the approval! — NickK (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Project budget table (modified) in USD[edit]

Number Category Total cost (planned) Total cost (modified) WMF contribution (modified) Other sources (modified) Notes
1 WEP, GLAM and wikiworkshops 470.00 500.00 408.00 92.00 WikiFest:Луганщина (two weeks of wikitraining in Luhansk Oblast, around 250 USD) and a two-day wikitraining in Mykolaiv Oblast (around 100 USD) are included here. Some expenses are to be covered by volunteers themselves and by partners
2 Wikiexpeditions 1807.00 507.00 461.00 46.00 This project remain very important for our community, but it is difficult for us to find the right way to do it. We have had some heated discussions during WikiConference in Lviv about this. One of the ways out is to have cooperation with local lore specialists (as it is done in Poland) and we have already started the negotiations with our specialists about it. Meanwhile the money were not used for this project and we want them reallocated to other budget lines.
3 Wiki events 4027.00 5327.00 4953.00 374.00 This line originally did not include European Science Photo Competition and we also want to include our General Meeting here, we want it to be a two-day event, as we want to have a proper discussion about how to proceed with our work for the next year and we have an ongoing discussion about Community Capacity Development of our community (it is a very important part of our annual plan)
4 Publishing 1640.00 1640.00 1640.00
5 Souvenirs and Wikizghushchivka 1331.00 1331.00 1331.00
6 Library 248.00 248.00 248.00
7 Office and supplies 1925.00 2475.00 2475.00 Originally this grant request was planned to cover expenses for the first 6 months of the year, and we want to cover all 12 months. But due to USD/UAH currency rates some lines were underspent
8 Wiki Loves Earth 6652.00 6102.00 5353.00 750.00 550 USD were underspent due to USD/UAH currency rates
9 WikiConference 3780.00 3780.00 3594.00 186.00
10 Administrative expenses 635.00 635.00 387.00 248.00
Total 22515.00 22545.00 20851.00 1694.00

Hello KHarold (WMF), please find the modified budget for the whole year. The modified lines are green --アンタナナ 00:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Extension request (for reporting)[edit]

Hello Alex. We would like to request extension to the grant report deadline until 4 March 2016. We have completed the main activities, but we need a bit more time to prepare the report itself. Thank you very much for your understanding --Ilya (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ilya. Thank you for the update. This is fine. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)