Grants talk:PEG/WM ZA/2013 OSF bridging funding

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 9 years ago by AWang (WMF) in topic Budget Changes

Discussion / Comments[edit]

Manuel Schneider's Comments[edit]

Thanks for the putting this together! My first set of comments / questions:

  1. it is not clear what the quantity in the budget table "Human Ressources" refer to. 1.1 obviously means 12 x a monthly fulltime salary but again it is not sure how much fulltime is, 40 hours / week? This should be clarified. Even less clear are 1.2 and 1.3 - weekly / twice monthly payment for what amount of work?
Thanks for reviewing this so soon and thank you for your questions. They are good ones. In "Human Resources" the Administrator/Coordinator will indeed be paid on a fulltime monthly basis salary basis for 40 hours a week based on a standard 8 hour work day. In points 1.2 and 1.3 the weekly payment (1.2) is for one day a week (based on an 8 hour day) for a total of 32 hours a month. The monthly payment (1.3) is based on much the same only it is for a rough total of 16 hours of work a month.--Discott (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  1. the footnotes to 1.1/1.2/1.3 are well-done, just a comment here: Please make sure to publicly announce job-openings and invite people to apply and do a proper evaluation of applicants. Those who are already named in this Grant Request should, if they deserve the job, already have an advantage of having been part of the game since a while to not to have to fear this competition. If you don't do that you risk a heavy conflict of interest, especially as the one asking for this Grant is one of those getting the job. We need to make sure to be fair and transparent.
I could not agree more. Once funding is secured the job opening for the Administrator/Coordinator role will be made public and an evaluation of applicants will be done. We are open to any suggestions/advice on how to go about doing this in the most transparent and effective means possible. I have budgeted for a specialist to assist in the hiring of applicants and have a pretty clear idea of the type of individual for this job: organised, focused, goal orientated, self starter who can self manage and is a quick learner with an undergraduate qualification and a strong interest in open information and open learning. Experience with fundraising, NGO management, and Wikipedia involvement a plus. Expected to learn rapidly while on the job and achieve project orientated goals.--Discott (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  1. the footnotes to 1.1/1.2/1.3 are well-done, just a comment here: Please make sure to publicly announce job-openings and invite people to apply and do a proper evaluation of applicants. Those who are already named in this Grant Request should, if they deserve the job, already have an advantage of having been part of the game since a while to not to have to fear this competition. If you don't do that you risk a heavy conflict of interest, especially as the one asking for this Grant is one of those getting the job. We need to make sure to be fair and transparent.
As for 1.2 and 1.3: you raise a good point and it is something that has been on my mind a lot. I am very open to getting more feedback on how to make this process as transparent and accountable as possible (indeed I would value such feedback) but I must also point out that appointing someone other than an existing Wikimedia ZA director (a preferable outcome as such people are intimately involved in the project goals discussed in the grant) or a Wikimedia Foundation employee (or ex-employee) or a current or former Wikimedia chapter employee with experience in a South African context would defeat the purpose of this role and, I feel, put the program at risk. The role also calls for some one in Cape Town. In that context, if this goes ahead, when job positions made known where should these positions (1.2 & 1.3) be posted and made known to people and who will decide one whom to recruit? Who will be reviewing people for those jobs? There is a risk of a chicken and egg scenario opening up here. If I am applying for 1.2 then I clearly can't be one of those people reviewing people for that position even though I am the one putting this grant application together and I sourced the initial start up money of OSF and therefore to some extent already accountable for this whole endeavour's success. Also OSF wants to move on this quickly so this issue will need to be addressed sooner rather than later. I suppose I and the OSF could take over the responsibility of hiring the person in 1.1 (since that is what OSF is paying for) whilst the 1.2 & 1.3 is being sorted out by a panel here (since that is what WMF would be paying for)? But I feel we would need to complete that process within the first month of the grant being made as OSF is already putting pressure on us to get this thing started.--Discott
  1. I checked a few numbers like the monthly salary, office rent etc. and - assuming fulltime means 40 hours / week and the office space is for three persons - I think they are reasonable.
Thank you, I have tried to keep costs down and as reasonable as possible in a South African context. --Discott (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

--Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 08:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kevin Gorman's Comments[edit]

  • Are you intending to retain the employee for more than one year? If so, how do you intend to fund the employee beyond that point? It might be a good idea to have, as one of the duties of the employee, finding additional funding streams to fund the position past the first year. If you don't intend to try to retain the employee for more than one year, could you explain why? Kevin (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Kevin. Yes we intend to keep the employee beyond this grant. Wikimedia ZA is now legible to apply for the Anual grant and we are already working on our application for the next round. We will include the expenses of keeping the employee. Also the OFS grant has an option of renewal, we will keep in touch with the OFS guys to explore option of renewal at the end of the 12 month period.--Thuvack (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad to hear that the question of a continuing position vs a one off had already been considered - and silly me for forgetting about the FDC. The costs seem reasonable to me from what I've looked in to, WMZA seems to be in a reasonable place to be hiring their first employee, and I'm happy to see outside funding is involved rather than being entirely dependent on Wikimedia movement funds. This looks good to me. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Kevin, I also want to say that finding alternative sources of donor funding will be a focus of the employee in addition to the others mentioned. I also agree that seeking alternative sources of funding is a good focus for us to have and it is one that shaped my initial application to the OSF. If this process goes well then there is a decent chance that OSF will continue with the grant funding in the future. I have also talked to another organisation about possibilities and requirements around raising grant funding from them in the future as well.--Discott (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

NLIGuy's Notes and concerns[edit]

Hi, congratulations for receiving a substantial grant from OSF. Also, apologies for taking so long to answer - I'm currently on vacation :-)

  • My main concern from this grant proposal is that, after reading it, I still feel uneasy about the employee's job description. It seems to me that WMZA is avoiding giving "the employee" a proper title, accompanied with clear(er) goals and that may lead to loss of impact. There are two options arising from the grant: either logistical aid (you can paint it in lovelier colors in the job description) or a multi-project lead, a more managarial post. If I had to choose from the two, I would choose the second because of more impact. I would very much like to see a title (It's more important than you may think - it gives "the employee" an opportunity to explain what he/she does, and you - - WMZA, the opportunity to explain to WMF why he/she is needed). I'm speaking from experience here - both personal but also from WMIL's experience in hiring a CEO - - the WMIL board avoided naming the post because of internal conflicts, and this ended up as hiring the wrong person to the job, with the wrong expectations. Our story has a happy ending because we quickly learned from the mistake and corrected it, and now have a good CEO.

So please: decide what the title should be, decide what REALLY the employee should do (logistical support? or project lead? and if so, is he/she assuming responsibility for the projects, whether they succeed or fail?). Moreover, if you want a more management-savvy employee (rather than just a logistic aid), you should let he/she have some call in what projects he/she is more passionate about - you've clearly marked this as out of scope.

Hi NLIGuy. Thanks for the comment. We have a different understanding of a CEO is South Africa, hence we settled on "ADMINISTRATOR" as the title for our first employee. This position responds to the short comings we have encountered in the past as a chapter in terms of getting our administrative work done (Filing, Financial audits, Banking and general house keeping). Our plan is to strengthen the chapter gradually and we believe that an administrator is the right employee we need first. --Thuvack (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think Thuvack has answered this question well. I just want to reiterate that the administrator will be addressing needs that the South African chapter has self identified as short comings. At our current stage I think I can speak for us all (Wikimedia ZA directors) when I say that there is no feeling, that I am aware of, that what we need is a CEO. Our current leadership structures are currently strong enough. Our self identified shortcomings are in administration. Indeed this grant from OSF came out of a conversation I had with them, initially over support for Cape Town's bid for Wikimania 2015, about what they can do to help us. The only thing I could honstely suggest was assistance/support in addressing logistical and administrative short comings that were tying us down and keeping the chapter back.--Discott (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • My second main concern is also mentioned above. It seems to me that this grant is mainly to supply compensation for loss of salary for the two grant authors. Sorry for putting this plainly and simply, but I feel very uncomfortable about this. This is only my second concern and not the first because it was mentioned above. I understand and *do* really appreciate the success in raising funds and the need for matching, but would very much like to see these matching funds go to other things than salaries for consultants. After reading and re-reading the proposal, I would suggest funding only for the first consultant's time as a full day a week should suffice also for projects, and other mentoring etc. can be done in volunteer time.
This grant is NOT mainly to supply compensation for loss of salary for the two grant author. That portion works out to only 40% of the requested amount. The other 60% is going towards setting up of the office. The OFS were clear in that they can only fund the salary of the employee as their contribution towards our professionalization.--Thuvack (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Only Douglas who is based in Cape Town (Not a member of GAC, last I checked) will be at the office on Fridays. It was agreed at our board meeting that a second level of accountability is needed to by the WMZA board. The second consultant is therefore not rigid to Dumisani. This consultant will thus follow our claim policy, and will rotate on an as and when basis.--Thuvack (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is the case that I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of GAC. --Discott (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
"I would suggest funding only for the first consultant's time as a full day a week should suffice also for projects, and other mentoring etc. can be done in volunteer time." This sounds fair to me but I want to connect with Thuvack and everyone else before amending the grant.--Discott (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
We have seriously looked at cutting off the second "Consultant" (For Lack of better word), however after considering the level of accountability required by both OFS and WMF in terms of regular reporting and feedback (Which cannot be left to the Administrator), we felt that It would be necessary to have a second level of oversight and cross checking. Considering that this "This consultant" would actually have to take a day off monthly to be able to perform this oversight, the compensation for loss of earning is much lower to that which the consultant is currently paid.--Thuvack (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • My third note is technical but important (also for us GAC members - Asaf, please read this!), and is related to the last point. It is unclear from the proposal what the grants are allocated for. Until the end of the proposal I thought that the bridging funds should be for sharing the employee's salary, taking a part from OSF and a part from WMF. I was surprised by a close examining of the tables that the truth was quite different. This also represents a warning sign for me - it means that you are not comfortable with the grant's actual goals, as I am... - please note that I've written dozens of grants and received a few, so I know what's it like to be on the two sides. I would amend the goals of the proposal to be more concrete about the grant bridging funds' target - compensation for WMZA volunteers time, rather than wait for the end of the grant, and note that in a table.
I will revisit this and see if we can make it anymore clearer.--Thuvack (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Apologies if it was written in such a way as to make you feel that way as it does not reflect a lack of comfort with the grant's original goals. At least from my side as the original draftee of this grant. I will also go over it to see if this can be addressed but further feedback on this would also be appreciated.--Discott (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I believe that Discott has already revised the grant to clarify this concern.--Thuvack (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It may seem that I am especially harsh with the applicants, but I think that grant applicants who are A) seeking personal compensation, and B) are GAC members - should get scrutinized more thoroughly, if the GAC is to be effective and impartial.

Given all these, I object to the proposal in its current state, and am waiting for feedback from Asaf and applicants re my notes. Please note that I am in a very secluded area (the White Mountains in NH, US) so I may be slowish in answering. NLIGuy (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply


I'm not in-principle opposed to this, but there are a lot of issues to sort through first. And the payment as compensation to members, mentioned above, makes me feel uncomfortable too. Especially as it's retrospective, is it?


I don't care much what this position is called, but I find NLIGuy's second and third points to be very important. The big one we're in the dark about is the skill-base required of this single employee. You'll need to establish this before even thinking about recruitment, and it would give us a better idea about the role if you could bullet the skills here. (Unsure it needs serious input from a professional employment consultant, and I'm concerned that this seems to be becoming de rigeur among chapters, at considerable expense. If a chapter board can't decide on the basics, which aren't expressed here, there's a problem. And once you do have those basics, recruitment becomes an easier task.) Will it involve both workaday clerical duties and high-level duties? The goals make it seem as though this person will be spearheading the highest-level decision-making and activities ... but your responses here indicate that lower-level duties will be central. The difficulty of getting the one person to fulfil such a big range of duties goes to the heart of my doubts about an affiliated organisation's employment of a single full-time person. I don't mind the idea of members or online community editors or outsiders taking part-time contract work that adds up to a 1.0 FTE position—it means you don't put all your eggs in one basket, and it allows easier matching of skill-base to a less gargantuan range of duties from high to low levels.

Where to begin: 1) Skill base of employee- I was trying to keep this grant somewhat concise and felt that the skill set for this individual was both a) self-evident based on the requirements outlined and b) unnecessary to outline as it would only add clutter to the grant. Clearly I was wrong. There also seems to be a common and consistent misunderstanding about that nature of this individual’s responsibilities. This individual will NOT be doing project lead and WILL be focused on logistics. I feel a bit perplexed that you seem to feel we (Wikimedia ZA) “can't decide on the basics”. The administrator will be doing clerical duties and NOT ‘high level duties’ which will continue to be done by Wikimedia ZA directors. This is partly why we feel we do not need a CEO right now, we just don’t have need of a person to fulfil CEO functions. All of the goals mentioned were mentioned in a context where the administrator was to help achieve them in the position of a clerk or logistical role. I listed them as I did so as to illustrate the clear idea and nature of the projects that Wikimedia ZA would like to/will be/is working on now and in the future. There is a consensus on this amongst the directors; we have discussed this at length. I apologise for any confusion this application might have caused you, it is the first one I have ever written. More feedback on how to avoid this moving forward would be appreciated.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

How will the duties be allocated among the three people? Is it FTE 1.0 employee plus 32 hrs a month plus 16 hours a month? I'm confused.

I am not so sure where you got the "32" hours from but here is how it will work. The administrator/employee will primarily be responsible for logistical and administrative tasks such as: paying bills, writing reports, putting together press statements, booking venues, compiling contact lists (both project specific, for partners, and for media contacts [building off the list of almost 100 contacts I have already collected])--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply


I have a mixture of minor and major niggles.

  • Please give us a binary table that clearly allocates expenditure items among OSF and WMF. My head is spinning. For example, footnote [1] (OSF to pay) is appended to the entirety of "Overheads" in Table 3, is it (they're not numbered), yet in Tables 1 and 2 only a proportion of overhead costs appear to be paid by OSF.
A very good point. I will make it clearer what the OSF is paying for and what it is not. In the meantime let me just say that the OSF is only paying for the bulk of the HR expenses which is the employee’s R15,000 per month x13 and the R450 x12 for Admin costs.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The project is for "one year", but the FTE person is listed as working for 13 months. Can't be both.
The extra month is a built in so as to provide for an end of year bonus. This is standard practice in South Africa and best practice internationally for an employee who performs well. Perhaps we are jumping the gun in assuming that they will perform well but I feel it is best to plan for all eventualities where one can. If we don’t budget for a bonus here, which we can do although I am a bit perplexed as to why the grant committee would have any interest in this because this aspect of the budget is being paid for by the OSF, then we would not be in a position to give a bonus should there be good cause to do so.[1]
  • The background section (nice to start with that, thank you) ascribes "50%" to the WMF. But hang on—R246,800 is significantly more than half of R446,800, isn't it?
You are right 246,800 is slightly over 55.2% of 446,800. I added the additional 5% in at the last moment because I was informed at the last moment by the OSF that we would not be able to use their offices to base ourselves out of (as was originally planned) and so would have to find our own work stations. I guess readjusting that statement was was an oversight on my part when putting this grant together and trying to get it out the door in time for a proper review so that it can go ahead according to the OSF’s desired time frame. Why not simply work from home I hear you ask; great question and I did think about that. The problem there is that a) there is no guarantee that the employee will have a secure work place with internet access, b) on the weekly days when the employee/administrator will be working with the ‘consultant’ (I hate that term) a common work environment is required (this is most probably the main reason – and this person will require coaching and oversight. Without it I strongly feel we would be setting him/her up for failure). On the other hand it would make life easier for me as I would not have to find office space and slightly cheaper for the WMF. I am going to keep the office budget in there and there is a possibility we might be able to get an office space at a reduced rate due to our non-for-profit status but I am open to suggestions (read 'I would like some suggestions'). --Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd like hourly rates for the employee and contractors, too, and talk of the on-costs (taxes, other employment overheads).
It is a for a standard 8 hour working day. Therefore at R15,000 a month for 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month is R93.75 per hour. This is a decent salary for a young professional in South Africa especially after tax. The hourly rate for a ‘consultant’ is R187. Taxes are not included in these figures as is standard practice in South Africa. The amounts after tax are as follows. For the administrator at R15,000 a month after tax comes out to roughly R13,222.[2] --Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • There's talk above of a physical office; I must have missed that in the application. What is the advantage of a physical office? Won't almost all communication be done online (and/or by phone), and information prep on computer, which could be anywhere? Do the financial, environmental, and commuting costs make this advisable? Doesn't an office involve pile-on costs of cleaning, insurance, and office equipment beyond the extras that individuals working from home would invoice for? South Africa's urban locations are far-flung, so one disadvantage is that it ties employment to one city. This physical office idea was dropped from the notion of employment by WM Australia, thank heavens; it serves a similarly far-flung demography.
I hope you don’t mind but I am just going to repeat what I said in your question about half the amount which is: “great question and I did think about that. The problem there is that a) there is no guarantee that the employee will have a secure work place with internet access, b) on the weekly days when the employee/administrator will be working with the ‘consultant’ (I hate that term) a common work environment is required (this is most probably the main reason – and this person will require coaching and oversight. Without it I strongly feel we would be setting him/her up for failure). On the other hand it would make life easier for me as I would not have to find office space and slightly cheaper for the WMF.”--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • There's not enough detail in the budget, for a request of this size.
How much more detail do you want? Is there a template grant proposal for a grant of similar size that I can see to get an idea of how much detail 'should' go into a grant of this size? If so where? Please give feedback, I am happy to give more. On a side note, I was reluctant to give more detail when putting this budget together because I was encouraged to keep it concise and yet comprehensive.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Goals and measures of success

  • They're too vague. No one's going to think poorly if your report shows a disparity with what you wanted to achieve and what you did achieve. At least we can learn from it. But numbers are essential, both for the starting point (now) and the hope after one year. It's also a better motivational factor for all concerned. The statement to the OSF might have done for outsiders who are new to the whole WMF movement thing, but even then I'd have asked for more specific information—I did like the point about "soft", though. Here, we need more solid data. My comments in square brackets:
Thank you for this feedback. I will try to make them less vague. I did start writing out something very detailed but found myself feeling that it was better to be concise and that adding more text would only put people off from reading this grant application.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Hire one full time staff member for a one year period. [Could have been excluded as a bit obvious.]
Perhaps but I am going to keep it in.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Integrate the staff member into Wikimedia ZA activities and Wikimedia Foundation protocols so that they can successfully take over logistical activities related to the successful implement of Wikimedia ZA projects. [Hard to pin down success or failure on this one. Who will assist the integrating, BTW?]
As is outlined in note 2 of Human Resources under Consultant 1 that will be that individual’s responsibility and to a lesser extent Consultant 2’s responsibility.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Produce an annual review similar to the one produced by other established Wikimedia chapters. [OK]
    • Production of an audit of Wikimedia ZA. [This is pretty high level. You mean financial, and project outcomes in terms of value for input?]
That is correct, produce financial and project outcomes and write them up in to a report to satisfy OSF requirements. For an actual audit an independent auditor will be brought in as budgeted in 2.3 under “Overheads”.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Successful implementation of at least five Wikimedia ZA projects for 2013/2014 as listed below as a baseline goal. See Planned projects for 2013/2014 for more information. [10 projects are listed, mostly in very vague terms ... "African chapter support", "Promotion of Wikipedia in education"? [Wikimania prep for 2015, if it happens, would vastly increase the workload, and seems to be outside the timeline of the project. "Promotion of South African languages Wikis (Xhosa, Zulu, etc.)"—I was going to ask even before seeing that, for a listing of the targeted languages; this is a most important matter, and which WMF projects will be likely to benefit should be listed.]
Yes, at least 5 of the 10 listed. I am unaware of how I can make that clearer. Some of the projects are vague because their respective project pages outline them better than I can here (such as JoburgpediA or Wiki Loves Monuments or Wikimania 2015) and others are so because we have not had time to fully explore how to implement them in full detail yet (because we don’t have time as we are bogged down in doing logistical stuff hence we need an administrator). Glad you asked about the languages. By and large Afrikaans Wikipedia has a pretty active and busy community of editors so they are not a top focus in this context. The top focus are South African languages that have a large number of speakers but very low number of editors like Xhosa Wikipedia (over 8 million speakers and 154 articles) or Zulu (around 16 million speakers but just 599 articles) this would be followed by other underrepresented South African languages such as Ndebele, Northern Sotho (688 articles), Sotho (190 articles), Swazi, Tswana (496 articles), Tsonga (251), Venda (203). Both Dumi and I have done some language outreach but we have been limited as we tend to get bogged down in doing clerical or logistical tasks instead. I would certainly like to do a lot more in focusing on building or trying to build a community of editors on Xhosa Wikipedia. For more information on the status of South African languages on Wikipedia I would suggest reading this blog post by one of our members.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "To actively engage with GLAM and educational institutions"—Which GLAM-related institutions are on the hit-list? I'd like to see evidence of planning, even if only a wish-list at this stage.
A ‘hit list’, again I am glad you asked. I know that Dumi has his own ‘hit list’ of Johannesburg based institutions but here are mine: Western Cape Provincial Archives, National Archives, Centre for the Book (National Libraries), and Iziko Museums (an amalgamation of national museums located). There are many others I could list here but that would be too ambitious. I have been working on building relations with Iziko Museums and the Western Cape Provincial Archives for some time now and would like the time to focus on really moving it forward now.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • WikIndaba: this came up for GAC review recently, and I found it way too premature. It's listed in your application for 2013 ... I'd be more comfortable if it was 2014, and not tied to a physical conference, unless there are compelling reasons for running such an expensive event at this stage. I suppose I'm keen to see basic information gathered about the state of affairs, WMF-wise, in each African country ... now that would be a gift to the movement.
How is the WikIndaba grant relevant to this grant? (other than the administrator being used to help organise it if and when it happens)--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Any chance that increasing participation by women will be a focus?
Yes! Wikipedia in South Africa (and other Wikies) are in just as much need of more female editors as any other part of the world. I also would really like to see that become a focus for us but I would also like the time to be able to implement any projects along these lines. I feel it is very important and am inspired by the Ada Initiative.--Discott (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tony (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  1. "SA Labour Guide". Retrieved 27 September 2013. 
  2. "SA Tax Calculator". Retrieved 27 September 2013. 

Mayur Comments[edit]

I endorse the proposal but expense on consultancy can be reduced and required consultancy service's frequency should not be weekly. Consultancy budget should be decreased and manpower within Wikimedia foundation or volunteer maybe used however if required consultancy can be used weekly for initial months but frequency may be reduced later. Also, office rental can also be reduced. --Mayur (talkEmail) 17:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mayur. Thanks for your comments. With regards to this one in particular... Consultancy budget should be decreased and manpower within Wikimedia foundation or volunteer maybe used. The foundation does not to my knowledge have an employee based in South Africa, so I dont see that one being an option. With regards to Volunteers, all Wikimedia ZA board members are volunteers and have dedicated considerable amount of time and personal funds over the past years to advance movement goals. This will continue well into the future as evident in other advanced chapters. This grant request is in response to limitations being imposed to the chapter due to reliance on volunteer time which is hard to come by as all board members are employed full time. It is simply not sustainable to base all work to the mercy of volunteer time, and for this reason we believe that freeing up more time from some of the board members by considering them as "consultants" will enable to embark on the next phase of proffesionalization in order to move the chapter forward. As we have already outlined above, all rates have been researched and negotiated to get the best deals in terms of rental and rates for consultants and the Administrator.--Thuvack (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Additional questions[edit]

1. What is "bridging training for personnel"? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 14:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The first and most important use of this fee would be to hire a professional to help us with one of the most important steps of the whole process, hiring the right person (with hindsight I should have named it "hiring and training costs"). The second purpose of this is to conduct a first quarter assessment of the administrator so as to make them more effective members of the Wikimedia ZA team. I know of a very good industrial psychologist who helps recruit and assess the employees of the nuclear power plant here in Cape Town that I would like us to use for this. I have been assessed by him in the passed so I know from experience just how helpful this process can be for both a) helping to find the best possible candidate and b) personal improvement.--Discott (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

2. Who is the external grant consultant? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 14:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The external consultant is "Mirjam Asmal-Dik" is an Institutional Development Manager at Century City Arts Foundation. She has assisted many NPOs to apply for funding with institutions in South Africa. She was instrumental in preparing our grant application to OSF format and within a very short time frame as it were. We managed to talk her out of getting a percentage of the funding amount as per industry practice, and instead agreed on a fee as shown in our budget. --Thuvack (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
When we were first invited to apply for a grant by the OSF-SA we felt it necessary to take on an external grant consultant so as to both maximise the chances of use getting the grant from the OSF-SA as well as minimise the chances of use making a silly mistake. This is after all our first time in seeking a grant outside of the Wikimedia Foundation. The consultant worked on a pro-bono basis and helped us prepare our grant application to the OSF-SA. Originally we were planning to budget for her fee to be taken out of the OSF-SA funding but we only received around half of the requested amount from them that only really covered the cost of hiring the administrator (provisional on us getting bridging funding to cover all the other important costs such as this one).--Discott (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Notes on Approval[edit]

We applaud WMZA for securing external funding, and commend the recognition, implicit in the budget, of the significant amount of board oversight it would require. We are glad to support WMZA at this milestone in its history and look forward to their sharing their progress with the movement, as they have done in the past. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note on program criteria[edit]

Generally, the Project and Event Grants Program supports the renting of office or shared working space only in very specific circumstances, when there is sufficiently good rationale for it from the team and community seeking it. In this case, WMZA has been presented with a significant opportunity by the conditional availability of the OSF grant. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Post-Evaluation Summary of remaining Comments[edit]

Evaluation by the GAC[edit]

GAC Members who read the grant request without comments[edit]

  1. .

GAC Members who approve this grant request[edit]

  1. --Ilario (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  2. --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 22:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  3. --Mayur (talkEmail) 12:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

GAC Members who oppose this grant request[edit]

  1. NLIGuy (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

GAC Members who abstain from voting/comment[edit]

  1. Thuvack (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC) -- Applicant.Reply
  2. .

Please add start and completion dates[edit]

Congratulations! This grant will need a start date and completion date, each including a day, a month, and a year, before we may move forward with it. Best, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 22:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! Please respond. We will not be able to move forward with the grant until you do. Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Winifred, dates have now been added. Start (1 Nov 2013) and completion (30 Nov 2014).--Thuvack (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Thuvack. The start and completion dates are approved. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 19:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reporting schedule for this grant[edit]

Congratulations on your funded grant. Since the grant term listed here is more than 12 months, we will need you to submit at least one interim report for this grant. We suggest a due date of 30 April 2014 for the interim report. The final report will be due 60 days after the grant is completed, or by 29 January 2015. Best, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 00:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Budget Changes[edit]

Transfer Office Rental to Legal and Auditing[edit]

I request that we be allowed to reallocate R34,800 of grant budget from "Operational costs: office rental" to "Institutional Development: Legal and Auditing fees".

I have managed to make some significant savings in office rental by using a shared office workspace rental one day a week (at TwentyFifty) instead of renting a full office our selves. This has saved us roughly R34,800.

However I have under estimated the costs of "Institutional Development", particularly the costs of "Legal and Auditing fees". We are still awaiting a quote for the audit (a required task and condition of the grant from the Open Society Foundation) but we have been told it will be no less than R20,000. We also need to steup a pay-role, apply for Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax status, register as a Public Benefit Organisation (PBO) with the tax man -we are already registered as a Non-for-profit with the companies register- and we would like to get VAT-free status and section 18A status (that would allow us to give donors a tax deduction).

As such I request to transfer the R34,800 in savings from "office rental" to "Legal and Auditing fees."

Thanks,--Discott (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Discott. This change in budget is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Alex! :-) --Discott (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Request for additional re-allocation[edit]

We would like to request the re-allocation of budget line items (reasons below) as follows :

Bridging Training for Personnel - re-allocation to Administration in the amount of ZAR 2 400.00
Bridging Training for Personnel - re-allocation to Contingencies in the amount of ZAR 2 000.00

Re-allocation to Administration

The original Administration costs applied for in the grant application were going to be covered by the Open Society Foundation. We were not aware at the time of the grant application that WMZA had to pay a 50 % portion of the UIF contribution on behalf of the employee. We therefore did not budget for it.

Re-allocation to Contingencies

We did not make provision in our original grant application for banking charges on the WMZA main bank account.

Many thanks --Humetheresa (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Humetheresa . This budget request is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply