Grants talk:APG/Eligibility/2012-2013 round1/Status

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Eligibility[edit]

Of course the eligibility will be verified/decided by the FDC itself? --Nemo 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nemo. Determining eligibility of fund-seeking entities is a WMF staff responsibility. You can see the roles-and-responsibilities breakdown here. Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that the criteria are designed to be objective and easy to ascertain, without requiring subjective judgments. For example, whether or not an entity has provided a financial report for a given year is a matter of fact and public record, and so gathering the information was assigned to staff. It's a lot of work, but anyone can independently double-check and verify the correctness. Please do point to any mistakes in this table, if you find them! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're so objective that they needed 870 words of notes and definitions as justification.
Anyway, thanks Sue for pointing me to the correct section of the document. I hope the FDC will actually «review and assess materials provided as part of the FDC process, including [...] assessment materials prepared by staff» like this, but – to put it briefly – I've always considered the FDC a fictitious distinction acting as a cover for decisions already taken elsewhere, so this is not really important. --Nemo 18:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FDC makes recommendations to the WMF Board. If the WMF Board will listen to those recommendations or will just do their own thing has yet to be seen, but why don't we wait and see rather than assuming the worst? --Tango (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, may be my fault. I've been a member of the committee who wrote the bylaws of my university (which has a budget ten times the WMF's) and I trust only clear and legally defined responsibilities, not hopes in good behaviour.[1] [2] Nemo 19:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The responsibilities lie clearly and legally with the WMF board. That has never been in question. --Tango (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK[edit]

You can find Wikimedia UK's latest annual report here. The accounts aren't up yet, though, so that may be what you are looking for - if so, I suggest you clarify. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this link. Please add a link to it in Reports, which is where we look for annual and financial reports for all movement entities. And yes, we also need a financial report for another year: the latest on Reports is the 2010 report (January 2011), and presumably there has been a 2011 report in January 2012. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any 2011/12 accounts. Last I heard, the audit was still ongoing. I believe the UK statutory deadline is 9 months (so 31 October), although I've just taken a look at the Chapters Agreement and that has a deadline of 4 months (31 May), so it does look like WMUK is currently non-compliant... --Tango (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the annual report from Reports. The audit is still ongoing, but should be completed very soon... Mike Peel (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, would you update the Eligibility Status table too, so you cross out each 'gap' as you meet it? Thanks --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've updated the table. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, we're currently aiming to sign off the audit on 8 August. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been delayed slightly whilst some last-minute changes are made to the report, but it should be completed very soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay with this; the financial report is now available at wmuk:File:2011-12 Annual Accounts.pdf. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant reports[edit]

What grant reports are you look for from WMDE and WMCH? They both participated in the fundraiser last year, so didn't receive grants (to the best of my knowledge). --Tango (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These:
Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tango for asking. Yes, you are right, Asaf, the Grant Reports are missing, and that is not good. My apologies for that, we will of course submit them asap.
But WMDE has been "participating in two fundraising campaigns as a payment processor" (even so I still don´t like the term "payment processor"), right? So why are we not listed as an EE?--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "compliance with contractual obligations" bit you are failing. --Tango (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Financial reports[edit]

Just checking....

The meta page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/2012_Round_1_Eligibility_Status

outlines that amongst the obligations is the fact of providing financial reports in English 

  "What we have considered as 'financial reports' : financial reports
  in English (per the Chapter Agreement) that offer complete details
  of an entity’s revenue and expenditure over the course of its fiscal
  year."


And errrrr.... yeah. I'd like to ask what is the level of requirement with regards to what is called "Financial reporting" and what do you exactly expect.

Because when we signed the agreement, back in 2005.... Financial Reporting was something quite basic (a paragraph or so in our annual report and a bunch of figures).

Last year, this page was set up http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Financial_reports for reporting. But as discussed during the financial meeting, rather fail to meet a common ground as not all financial systems work the same.

Fundraising Agreement on the other hand does mention Financial reporting. But it absolutely does not mention that these should be in English. The exact wording of the FA is

Providing a copy of accurate and complete audited financial statements and the auditor’s letter to management, compiled by the auditor appointed by the board of the Chapter, for the 2011 fiscal year, by September 1, 2012 and on the same schedule for any Renewal Periods.

But.... I already feel sick in the stomach at the idea of translating our complete Financial Reports. See for example our financial report here: http://www.wikimedia.fr/sites/default/files/Comptes%202011%20certifiés.pdf It certainly does it great to understand better a financial situation.

But we probably need an in-between report systems

This was discussed during the Financial meeting, but I am not quite sure what is the outcome of the work done afterwards on the matter (something such as a common reporting document where we would add figures as much as we can).

What's the status on this ?

Anthere (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthere: Garfield is creating a summary financial template that he will provide by August 1 - so that should make it much easier for translation! --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthere:

Here is the template for use in the FDC process:

Financial Report

Organization__________________________________

Fiscal Year___________________________________

Please indicate if the information is done on a Cash or Accrual basis.

Revenue

Memberships $0

Fundraiser donations $0

Other donations $0

WMF Grants $0

Non-WMF Grants $0

Other Income $0

Total Revenue $0

Expenses

Programs $0

Fundraising $0

Administration $0

Total Expenses $0


Cash, Liabilities and Net Assets

Cash $0

Other Assets $0

Liabilities $0

Net Assets $0

Please note this is only for use with the FDC process and should not be used for any other chapter or entity reporting under other agreements. --Gbyrd (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing non-cash assets. You also need to specify if you want it on a cash or accruals basis. (There are probably other issues too, but those are the big ones - obviously such a simple template will never be perfect.) It might help to split out Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia grants and donations, too. --Tango (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tango: I have made the suggested changes.--Gbyrd (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of making the one change you missed - splitting out donations into those from the fundraiser and those not (obviously only relevant for four chapters, but very relevant for them). --Tango (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tango, Garfield stated during the IRC office hours (09:21am) that the "short form summary financial report" are only for the non-payment processor. KTC (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I end up on the FDC, I'll be asking for it from all applicants - it is useful to have data in the same format from everyone for ease of comparison. There may be an additional requirement to have full audited accounts in English, but the summary serves a purpose too (I guess the FDC staff can fill it out from the full accounts, but it would be easier to get the chapter to do it). --Tango (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KTC: Tango is correct in that it will be helpful to have data in the same format. So this template is going to be for all FDC applicants, in addition to any reporting requirements they have under other agreements.--Gbyrd (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please could we keep the number of times that the same information has to be submitted to a minimum? A lot of this will duplicate what's already being submitted via financial reports elsewhere, and also possibly with some aspects of Template:FDC proposal form v1 (although that form asks the questions from a different approach). I know and appreciate that it's really valuable to report things in a standard format - but perhaps that onus could be on the staff working on the incoming FDC applications, rather than putting the burden on the applicants (particularly thinking about those applicants from organisations that don't have staff [yet])? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is only really duplicate for chapters that submit their financial reports in English. If you don't, then this is the only place your accounts appear in English. The English-language chapters and the fundraising chapters will submit financial reports in English, so the FDC staff could go through and fill out the summary for them, but I think it would be easier for the chapter to do it. They understand their own accounts better than the FDC staff will. --Tango (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the chapters agreement, each chapter should submit financial reports in English. While things might be easier for the chapter to do it, in many cases it might make sense to let the paid staff do it and let the volunteers in the chapter concentrate on more important stuff than tabulating data in novel ways (unless they really enjoy doing that). –Bence (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that this template will suffice as the English-language financial report for most chapters in order to keep it manageable. The FDC staff can't translate all the reports, since they won't speak all the languages. --Tango (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original reports, especially those created before the FDC was established (i.e. probably almost all of them this year) were not created in the template's format, translating just that portion that is included in the template is probably helpful, but might require some extra work (especially as the template wants to separate out fundraising by "date" [or fundraising agreement] and grants by source, which might not be a default feature of those reports created before the FDC; and actually, all the extra data needed for those should be available at the WMF's side). Going forward, chapters are given a choice whether to translate their longer more comprehensive reports and hand them in (after all, those reports are being created for local purposes all the time) and have someone at the WMF collate the data and be merry that there is more details to look at, or whether to create two separate sets of reports one of which will happen to be English.
(The current template is not too complicated, but I am sure it will become more complicated over time, just as we have seen over the last few weeks, since it has been posted - so I would not dismiss the time component of compiling it in the future.)
(In any case, it was my understanding that the FDC would have access to translation services or volunteer translators as needed.)--Bence (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the above is the mandated format for the FDC financial reports, shouldn't that information be linked to from Funds Dissemination Committee/2012 Round 1 Eligibility Status#Definitions?--Pharos (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos: This is not a mandated format. It use is encouraged, as it will provide consistency in the reporting to the FDC; but, any financial report that provides the same or more information in English will be accepted by the FDC.--Gbyrd (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at the Dutch report and been thoroughly confused by it. I've realised there is a key figure missing from the template: cash at start. I couldn't work out how their expenditure was about 10 times their revenue, but it's because most of the fundraiser came just before the beginning of that year, so the income was accrued one year and the expenditure the next and there was a lot of money sitting in the bank at the start of the year (and then they didn't participate in the fundraiser the next year, so there wasn't a corresponding revenue at the end of the year). --Tango (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Nederland[edit]

Please update!

thanks, Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>> Wikimedia Nederland FDC Financial Report 2011 is what is says it is. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting years[edit]

The reporting years should be for the chapter's fiscal year, rather than the calendar year, correct? And should we then take, say, the "Annual report 2011" as the annual report for the fiscal year ending in 2011 (i.e. 2010-2011)?--Pharos (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos: Thank you for this clarification. The reporting should be for the chapters most recently completed fiscal year, which for some chapters will be the calendar year. Please include the fiscal year beginning and ending dates on the report for complete clarity.--Gbyrd (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Grants Report delivered[edit]

Please note that WMDE has issued the missing Grant Report here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_DE/Capacity_Building_2010-2011/Report - Again appologies for the delay.--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Italia[edit]

Reports from Wikimedia Italy are now translated in English and linked in Wikimedia chapters/Reports/Wikimedia Italia. - Laurentius (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia CH[edit]

Hi, the last point, the grant report, has been accepted. --Chandres (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:APG/Eligibility/2012-2013_round1/Status&oldid=9169127"