Grants talk:PEG/WM ZA/Wiki-Indaba-2014/Archive

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

This is an Archive of comments from previous Application. If you want to comment on current application please leave your comments here. Please do not edit this Archive.

Polimerek Comments[edit]

1) The application lacks of any information regarding the proposed program of the meeting. On the wiki-page of the meeting there is also no information about the planned program and prove of interest of african wiki-community.
We have begun formally engaging African Wiki-communities (and unfortunately there isnt many) on mailing lists. This conference was suggested during an informal meeting amongst african delegates at Wikimania 2012 (DC), however it required exensive research to see if it was feasible to organise in South Africa, or anywhere in Africa. Wiki Africa one of our partners will also be assisting us to tap into already built networks within the African continent. As for the program, please see the Project scope and activities section of the grant application to see the salient anchor theme of the conference. Wikimedia ZA will consult though-roughly with existing african chapters to formulate and finalise the actual program and tracks for each day of the conference. This process has been allowed for in our timeline.--Thuvack (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well OK - Although as far as I know WMF requires some proves of community interest in such a project... Polimerek (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2) Comments regarding budget
2.1 Why do you need money for flights for local team and also simultaneously money for hiring a car for them?
The local team is mostly volunteers and wikimedians involved in local wikis, they are not all based in JHB, thus making it impractical to expect them to drive 10hrs or more up from Cape town for example. Hence the allowance of flights. --Thuvack (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will notice that we have only allowed for two cars that will be used amongst three organisers. JHB based organisers will use their private cars. The final logistics of the week will require organisers to drive up and down to transport items and get best prices on equipments and other necessities. We will however consider the possibility of cutting down to just one hired car.--Thuvack (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well - this sounds resonable. Polimerek (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2.2 Why do you need to buy a laptop and printer ? Why not to use one already belonging to one of the African chapters?
No these are rented equipments are the prices quite reasonable for the whole week each.--Thuvack (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ups... for 5000 Rands you can buy a laptop - therefore I though you are about to buy it... See: [1] - but now I see that the quantity is "1" but you wrote "laptops". So how many are you about to rent for this price? 75? Polimerek (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2.3 Photographer for group photos - do you really need one for  ??? That will be really expensive group photo
-) Even during Wikimania group photo is usually taken by a volunteer photographer...
We will consider this arrangement and revise budget accordingly.--Thuvack (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polimerek (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Polimerek, thank you for the comments, please see my response inline above.--Thuvack (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ilario's Comments[edit]

What is unacceptable for me are the scholarships. 50 people with paid accommodation and travel is like to pay editors to edit.
I fail to see the connection between offering full-scholarship and paid editing (Case in point Wikimania). Editing is not part of direct outcomes of this conference and neither is is cited as a measure of success. Sorry, I can't see the connection.--Thuvack (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to Thuvack's comments I would also like to point out that Wikipedians in Africa have more limited means than Wikimedians in most other parts of the world and travel costs across the continent are more expensive. This means that scholarships are a necessity or very few deserving people from Africa (which is the event's target audience) will be able to attend.--Discott (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that it's a continental conference, but I would invite to have a look in the Iberocoop conferences. The costs are high in relation with the benefits in my opinion and not justified. If you would have 2 persons from each African chapters-to-be, I would count 25 potential chapters and I don't think that Africa have so much number of potential chapters.
I beg to differ. I have had a look at previous Iberocoop grant requests before submitting this one. The Ibero-American countries are more connected interms of transportation and hence less expensive in comparison. It is a fact that flights are more expensive in Africa as they are less frequently used.--Thuvack (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you were indeed to count two people from each chapter/chapter to be in Africa, you would have only 12 delegates. This is precisely why wwe are planning this event, in order to foster and support existing volunteers who are few and far between in the African continent. The problem of proportional representation of Wikimedia in Africa can no longer be left to Wikimania talks, concrete and bold actions need to be implemented, and I firmly believe this is one of those required.--Thuvack (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please consider that this budget is more or less like a budget of a Wikimedia conference. It would be successful in terms of participation because someone pays all costs, but I would know if people are really interested to discuss around Wikimedia projects.
I concede that it does look daunting, but necessary. In as far as the interest of African Wikimedians to discuss Wikimedia projects, I believe that your views are narrow and misplaced. There is interest, yet an average African volunteer has more financial responsibilities in his/her plate compared to an average european volunteer, thus the very fact that they exist is to be commended and supported. These are a little bit more than volunteers, they are in my humble opinion, change agents! Considering that many African wikimedians will not be able to attend Wikimania, it puts many tings into perspective, doesnt it?--Thuvack (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to be rude, but I think that the number of scholarship have to be reduced (50%), you should also define how and what process you will use to assign them considering the high cost per participant (~1,000 $). To participate to Wikimania, people are selected following some parameters.
I also differ here, a reduction by 50% is extreme. I wouAn Indaba without izinduna?ld consider say a 25% reduction for both local and international scholarships--Thuvack (talk)
We intend to use the same selection process followed by wikimania with some exceptions. The selection in my view would be atleast 3 members per formative/existing chapter. Then active users in african regions based on african wikipedia stats. We are discussing this as WMZA and will appreciate any comments.--Thuvack (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering also the budget of WLM, which counts more or less 10,000$ for accommodation and travel costs, I suppose that WM ZA is going to open a travel agency... --Ilario (talk) 14
16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest a more background reading on Africa and current socio-economic trends on travelling and accomodation. WMZA does not intend to open a travel agency, lucrative as that may sound :-). I have mentioned previosly that we are extremely cost concious and would do all we can to co-host the awarding function of WLM with this conference in order cut down on duplicated costs and take advantage of discounts.--Thuvack (talk)

An Indaba without izinduna?[edit]

I would like to focus on this question before all others (and will not be expressing opinions about the costs at all until this one is resolved) -- who is this conference for? Where are these African Wikimedians? Where is their interest in meeting? Where is the energy to work, on- and off-wiki, before, during, and after the Indaba? As I believe I had said back one year ago when we spoke at Wikimania 2012 in DC, I would like to see a clear demonstration of interest among active editors, from at least four or five countries, to begin discussing the value vs. cost of this proposed conference (which I have no doubt it is feasible to organize in South Africa). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, those sad slide shows with their numerical edit breakdown had, IIRC, 8% of edits originating from Africa. Yes, that's few compared to 20% world population, but that's not nothing, and that's probably millions of edits. The point is that due to vast distances, meeting a few fellow Wikimedians in Africa means travelling several hundred kilometers, and that is financially out of reach for a majority. I would guess that at Wikimania there wasn't a single African attendee without full scholarship, and I would guess that no African with a scholarship turned down that opportunity without a very, very good reason. So our interest in meeting is dormant and will be triggered the moment we are given the opportunity. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cart before the horse[edit]

Hi Dumisani and Douglas. I appreciate the enthusiasm that has gone into conceiving this ambitious project, for which a considerable investment of donors' funds is requested. May I say that the WMF's grantmaking staff are friendly and skilled in advising intending applicants during the pre-onwiki preparation stage, and I'm wondering why their early advice is not sought more often. When an application gets this far, it should contain much more information that is relevant to judging its merits.

There are many unanswered questions, as seen in the threads above—not least Asaf's points, which I strongly endorse. This kind of event should be the culmination of 6–12 months' prep on email, skype/phone, to gather a core group of Wikimedians on the African continent who are willing to put in the hard work in building their own communities and projects. This is what we thirst for, given the WMF's priorities for the global south.

The event and its goals—understandably vague—are not explicitly anchored in the needs of the WMF's actual websites, whereas they should be the organisational driver. Instead, the focus is on chapters that are or might be; but this would tie the continent to the unfortunate 19th-century nation-state fragmentation imposed on Africa (and the Middle East) through European incompetence—or worse, passive conspiracy. Everything points to the need to unite Africans across borders, rather than amplifying that fragmentation on the one internet project that can really make a medium-term difference to a lot of people's lives in the continent.

Could I suggest that opportunities that directly involve the major language-Wikipedias in Africa be the organisational driver, rather than nation-states? This is precisely why the WMF Board has created user groups and thematic organisations. Could you outline which Wikipedias (and sister projects) are in your sights? The Arabic, French, and Swahili Wikipedias come to mind, as well as the English. I'd like to get a sense from this application of which UGs, TOs (and perhaps chapters) might be evolving, for this is the immediate task—and maybe that plans are already afoot to apply to AffCom in some cases. Then there would be a solid group of themes for the conference.

You might respond that this is precisely what you want to get out of the conference; but I believe this is groundwork that should be done before the conference. The participants need to be invited on the basis of the affiliates you have already established or plan to establish, with strong goals set for each. Then it becomes a more valuable exercise (= "value for money").

The French chapter has an active Africa-oriented program; can a thematic org. somehow arise from this? We'd love to get a Medicine in Africa TO up and running, and some collaboration with the dozen or so active Wikiproject Meds could be good (don't invite them, just establish good internet ties in the planning stages). And the "measure of success" of "at least 40%" females at the conference leaves me wondering how that will be done—and whether the greater task of increasing women's numbers and roles in the editing communities is just too far down the track.

So could I suggest instead a new plan, quite different, to locate and connect Africans online for the kind of grassroots building we need at this early stage? That might incur a quite different (and more modest) cost structure. At the moment I'd rather get more Wikipedia-Zero-compatible devices into a targeted group of African schools—with logistical, training, and teacher-liaison support from Wikimedians like you—than fund a big and premature conference.

Tony (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support a conference in Africa![edit]

Supporting a Wikimedia conference in Africa is a bad short-term investment and it is exactly for this very reason that you should support it. In Africa:

  1. there is no linguistic homogeneity.
  2. there is a wide and general problem of connectivity (and with connectivity I refer to the actual difficulty of editing Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects in the large majority of the African territory).
  3. it is very expensive to organize a conference.
  4. there are few active Wikimedia volunteers and few active or planned chapters, compared to the number of countries in the continent.

Those are the reasons you are questioning this request and those are the reasons you should support it. There is a claim to support diversity and initiatives promoted by the community. Well, do it: support diversity and support this initiative promoted by the African community. This conference supports that very community you want to be active, you reinforce it, you provide them the chance to be leaders of the movement, and the project contribute to outreach and diversity, which indeed means quality for everybody.

We can NOT promote ONLY offline access to Wikipedia in Africa and (passive) access to Wikipedia on mobile phones. What makes Wikipedia and all the Wikimedia projects what they are is that "anyone can edit them". This is not what is happening in Africa. And focusing on Arab countries is important as well as it is important to take into consideration also the rest, also if it presents challenges.

Those are other opportunities the conference provides:

  1. it is the chance to rise interest among active editors from at least four or five countries. The conference facilitates contacts and it put Wikimedia SA and the conference organizers in the position to contact, invite and interact with people and institutions with an aim, a deadline and a specific role within the movement in Africa.
  2. it posits a new centre of African-related activities in South Africa. This might be also perceived as problematic but the truth is that any centre is problematic; the important thing is to have as many centers (France, South Africa, Ghana, Egypt, Italy, Tunisia…) as possible, because they generate emulation, competition, exchange and active engagement.
  3. it is a conference. As trivial as it might sound, a conference is a spot on the map and a sentence in the Wikipedia chronology. It reinforces the pride of Wikimedia SA and its active contributors and the pride of people engaging with African-related topics. Which is what is really needed right now! Hosting means bringing attention, means that THERE a discussion is taking place. No wonder so many chapters wish to organize conferences! This is something which goes beyond the program and the actual gathering; it is a claim for centrality. In 2007 it was Jimmy Wales to lead the South African Wikipedia Academies in Johannesburg[1]; this conference is different because the leaders are different. And this is not a detail.

You can have a cart before the horse. Things don't have to be linear to work. You don't need a landline to get a phone, now we know that. Wikipedia is the demonstration that things can work also in ways that do not follow step-by-step procedure ("we start by providing sanitation and than we move to the rest"). And this conference can and should be a Ferrari not even a cart.

It is quite clear that it would be cheaper to organize a conference elsewhere, you would get a better community involvement in other continents, you would have a more efficient return if you bridge (large) linguistic communities and people would contribute more easily if they are invited to do so in places where you can actually edit Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. But supporting the easiest thing will always leave the African continent outside and exactly here and for this reason your support is needed. --iopensa (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No, I think it's a bad long-term investment, too. Or at least nothing convinces me that the social event proposed only in the most general terms is going to have any affect on the quality and accessibility of WMF sites for Africans. Just writing "This project will benefit African online communities as a whole." in boldface will convince no one.

    I'd be more inclined to support scaled-down support if we had the slightest inkling of who will attend and what will be discussed. If expected outcomes such as "solid plans for launching X and Y thematic organisations" were specified, we might be talking a little more seriously. Yet the timeline recently added wants the money first before planning these things. You're "Doing" the "prepare invitations and webpages" now, as it says; but why couldn't this have been done, at least in preliminary fashion, before applying for funding: that way, we'd be able to judge whether this is going to be of benefit. Tony (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A conference in Africa is way overdue and in my opinion a very appropriate pump primer for the creation of volunteer communities. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the exact aim of Wikimania? What will be the specific outcome of Wikimania 2014 in London? The truth is, you cannot say. We meet for exchanging information, best practices, documenting ongoing projects, and so on. Now, the Indaba is exactly for that purpose, and just like Wikimania, its value-for-money will, inter alia, be in a better connected community. I wonder if GAC would have approved the 400K US$ Wikimania in Hong Kong. --Pgallert (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pgallert: those are very good questions about Wikimania, which cost the foundation something approaching half a million dollars in Hong Kong. I'd like to see more rigorous cost–benefit analysis. Tony (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some basic questions, some ideas and a plea for courtesy[edit]

The tenor of this discussion is disturbing. As an outsider to the planning of this conference and grant request, I can't fully understand why the comments opposed to it are so harsh - rather than being constructive or even incisive. I do not find the proposal complete in terms of its thinking and planning, but I don't understand why it should mean that the proposers receive the kind of derision and mockery seen in this discussion. Surely the role of the GAC is to do more than congratulate Wikipedians who make perfect proposals and scold those who make imperfect ones?

Asaf's questions make a lot of sense. Meetings like Wikimania are primarily useful to people who are already working together and who can then use face-to-face time to scale their interaction to a higher level. In that sense, to have some history of in-country and cross-country collaboration prior to a meeting such as the one proposed is a very good idea, as is clarifying the goal of the meeting beyond merely the obvious benefits to having a large gathering of African Wikipedians (which, I would argue, is in itself a sound goal, just not a sufficient outcome for the money involved).

Perhaps the proposers can think about this a little. For instance, as a start, would it make sense to create a mailing list for African language and African-resident Wikipedians? (WikiAfrica-l?) And perhaps they may use that list to clarify the point of collecting such people together - what are the common problems and opportunities and benefits of working together? Such a discussion would also be a great opportunity to being in people from other countries and entities who have an interest in continental African Wikipedias - for instance, the Wikipedia-Zero team, the French, German and Israeli and other chapters who have done or supported work here, etc. etc. Simultaneously, it would be great to have a map of who the African Wikipedians are, what they work on, and where they live. Perhaps it might make more sense to concentrate on large and relatively successful community groupings (for e.g. Swahili, Afrikaans, Yoruba, Arabic) than merely bringing in Wikipedians across several countries? (That is, I think you might benefit from narrowing focus and increasing density).

Furthermore, given the unique economic and social advantages of South Africa, and it being the host country (and also the only serious chapter entity in sub-Saharan Africa) might it also make sense to give SA Wikipedians from within the country a slight advantage - in terms of scholarships and arrangements - to have in-country discussions and meetings? (This is the norm at Wikimania - the host country always has the highest number of participants, and often uses the event as a way to hold a lot of in-country discussions that Wikipedians from within do not have the resources to do otherwise. It makes sense because it's cheaper to bring people from the country in, sometimes no cost at all if they live in the same city as the conference, and from what we've seen, Wikipedians from within South Africa do not get the chance to meet often enough).

In my opinion, hosting a continental conference in South Africa has incredibly productive potential to the Wikimedia movement as a whole but I think we (esp the proposers) would benefit from having a greater understanding of exactly what those benefits are. Some of these benefits are known and implied, but need to be spelt out better, others need to come out in discussion between the communities the proposers would like to bring together. To that end, putting more work and thought into the run-up to and aftermath of such a conference would be a fantastic opportunity to do some serious good.

Good luck with this.

aprabhala (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next steps[edit]

I'm so excited about a Wiki-Indaba! And I agree that events are a great way of stimulating interest in a region. What I think needs to happen before I add my name to the supporters list is a little bit of research to know what is the right shape and format of the event. I've had some experience with this and learned a lot of (hard) lessons from organising commons/wikimedia events for people across the continent and within South Africa that I feel like I have some authority about what needs to be in place. The good thing is that these are relatively easy things to fix and I know that with such a passionate group, you guys are going to do a great job at moving this proposal to a stage that it can be supported!

There are still a few questions that a bit of research will fix:

1. Does this event need to be continent-wide or would it make more sense to have more regional events at this stage? (My experience and research would suggest the latter but it's an open question, right? Justifying why you think so would be really important.)

2. Does this event need to consist of a small, core group of people who are the fire-starters, who could propel their own communities forward, or does it need to be more of a 'get everyone who is interested in being a volunteer' kind of conference? (I'd suggest the former and I'd suggest it more of a workshop/open space type event where people can have a more intimate meeting - maybe even just 8 or 10 people - rather than more of a formal 'conference', although you might be able to do both of these. Setting aside and structuring the program around goals like this is really, really important at this stage, though.)

One thing that I am very sure of is that if this is going to be an event beyond South Africa, you need to work out who the ambassadors are from other countries who will stimulate interest from other places. Otherwise this will be a South African event with secondary interest from other countries. You need to form a regional team of people who want to push this forward as a continent otherwise we should support a South African event or events in individual African countries where it makes sense. I personally know of a few people who I would expect to be on the team if this was going to be an Africa-wide event. I would want to see some of those folks on the supporters list before I add my name.

I really want to help you guys to get this to the stage where you need it to be so let me know if you need help! Hopefully Wikimania will enable you to meet other Africans working in the area and that this will provide the working group that you need :)

--Hfordsa (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. If I had to choose it would be a regional conference per language edition. But I am also confident that we need both, and that's why I'm already in the "support" group.
  2. The challenge is that the 8-10 agitators cannot scale their personal involvement much further. We do outreach, we support offline access, and we edit now and then. We already meet annually, at Wikimania, where we typically present our projects to each other, in some obscure Africa Room, with little interest from non-Foundation, "first-World" editors. If it wasn't for WMF scholarships, even this would have never happened. Now the task is to activate a second tier of volunteers, for instance those that I could train to do outreach in their own countries, for their language editions. And here it wouldn't just be a handful of people lucky enough to snap up a scholarship, it would be 50.
--Pgallert (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Support from Wikipedians[edit]

We've got to think this through together + visit to ZA[edit]


Hello everybody, (I'm back! Hope y'all missed me kkk) ;]

Hi Thuvack! I believe you remember me =) Hello, other team members.

I'm really happy to see this grant, and even happier that ZA is willing to devote time to assist the Wikimedia movement elsewhere in Africa. However, like Achal above, I'm not happy at all to see people bashing the proponents! Let's get over that (and I'll be clear, this is not the first grant I see some GAC members doing this).

At the same time, I think the ZA team also partially ignored the purpose of the GAC. We're not here simply to audit accounts, we are here to help you with the deep thinking and strategy that often comes together with effective action, specially for large projects.

For a project the size of yours, that pretty much means we are here to get inside your heads and make sure you thought things through, and rethink them with you so they can get even better. So I ask, have you provided in the grant enough information for us to do that, together?

From looking at the grant, I hope it's not hard to agree that we're missing some things, which could be, for example:

  • What is the strategy?
    • What group methodology will be applied?
    • How will topics and goals be defined?
    • What are the steps towards conclusions and action?
    • Who will ensure the methodology is followed?
  • Who will attend?
    • What evidence do you have of interest?
    • What criteria will be applied in selection?
    • Is one big and general meeting better than a few small and focused?
    • How engaged are they in preparations?
  • What are they interested in?
    • Are the organizers priorities aligned with the attendants?
    • What kind of capacity building are they most in need of?
    • Is there evidence that taking part in a meeting improves their situation?
  • How are you to follow up?
    • Are there alternatives to be presented?
    • What will be the means for continued communication?
    • Can you name a set of minimal concrete outcomes?

The answers to none of those questions can be found in the proposal, though it may seem to you that they can - that's normal when writing a grant. Yet each one calls for explicit evidence and answers. That's why we are here: because we have applicable experience to help you improve your answers, and because requiring you to write down things like those will usually surprise you for how much you still have to plan ahead.

This is not to discourage you at all, quite the opposite, this is to encourage you to draw as much as you can from the experience that's available to you, in order to get it right the first time. Because it's not just a waste of money if things go wrong that could be avoided, it's also and mostly a waste of your, and every participant's, personal effort and faith - which is worth a lot more than the money.

Finally, I will be in South Africa from September 9th until 15th. I'll arrive and depart from Capetown, and I'll be working there from the 10th to the 12th. This means I'll have the 9th, 13th, 14th and 15th free to meet any fellow Wikimedian who'd like to further discuss or work on this grant proposal - and have a beer.


--Solstag (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


After an extraordinary meeting at Wikimania Hong Kong with African delegates from 5 African countries, the following resolutions were taken:

1. Wikimedia South Africa should continue preparations to organize the conference.
2. Extensive consultation with the wider Wikimedia and editor communities across Africa should be conducted in the form of working groups to isolate exactly what the expectations of and goals for the conference are.
3. The date of the conference be moved from the proposed 29 Nov - 01 Dec 2013 to the last week in February 2014 in order to allow time for African communities to discuss details of the conference.
4. Wikimedia South Africa shall provide an online platform for the consolidation of discussions and planning of the conference.

We are pleased to inform you all that the following website has now been set up as a platform for the discussion, planning and endorsement of this conference by the African community.

We as WMZA are confident that the community in Africa will endorse this conference and that in a month and a half from now we will be able to resubmit the grant in a revised format. We thank you for all the comments and interaction you have all had with this grant and look forward to resubmit soonest.--Thuvack (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent! I will participate as well, and Solstag's good advice above can also be used to seed some of the discussion. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating the proposal for 2014 - Check list[edit]

The check list is based on some of the input received (not signed for this very reason)

Project proposal PEG
  • Yes check.svg Done Moving the page to PEG/WM ZA/Wiki-Indaba-2014.
  • Yes check.svg Done Updating logo to 2014.
  • Yes check.svg Done Defining the precise date (currently expected date second half May 2014)
  • Yes check.svg Done Discussion on the program
    • Yes check.svg Done Attendees: Who is the conference for? who do we want to attend? Do we want to concentrate on large and relatively successful community groupings (for e.g. Swahili, Afrikaans, Yoruba, Arabic)? focus on in-country discussions and meetings? Does this event need to be continent-wide or would it make more sense to have more regional events at this stage? Does this event need to consist of a small, core group of people who are the fire-starters, who could propel their own communities forward, or does it need to be more of a 'get everyone who is interested in being a volunteer' kind of conference?
    • Yes check.svg Done Objectives and outcomes: What the conference wants to obtain? set of minimal concrete outcomes.
    • Yes check.svg Done Format: Which is the best conference format to obtain what we want to obtain? workshop, small conference, large conference focussed on South African participants with few participants from other countries, training, editathon, discussions with a facilitator, brainstorming sessions, involvement of experts in specific fields... In which language will be the conference or the different sessions? How languages will be managed?
    • Yes check.svg Done Impact: What will those attendees do before, during and after the conference?
  • Yes check.svg Done Detailed program of the meeting
  • Yes check.svg Done Defining a program on- and off-wiki, before and after the Indaba
Project details
  • Yes check.svg Done Activities: What are the steps towards conclusions and action?
  • Yes check.svg Done Team: Who will ensure the methodology is followed? How are people engaged in the process-program?
  • Yes check.svg Done Scholarships: What criteria will be applied in selection?
  • Yes check.svg Done Justification: Explaining why one big and general meeting is better than a few small and focused?
  • Yes check.svg Done Discussion about the budget (related to the activities)
  • Yes check.svg Done Detailed budget
  • Yes check.svg Done Survey on the conference
  • Yes check.svg Done Demonstration of interest among active editors, from at least four or five countries
  • Yes check.svg Done Collecting endorsements from Wikimedia members. (it is worth to use the change to ask for endorsements to ask also for practical help, task: i.e. collecting information on African projects and Wikimedia members, writing the proposal context analysis, checking potential financial partners...).