kickstarter? I think it now does Australian projects...
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Adam Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks for explaining things. I need to say upfront that I'm not trying to > raise doubts about the ARC linkage grant. But from reading the replies, we > are currently in the process of committing $140k over three years based on > existing funds of (at best) $75k. I disagree that we should be tackling > this on the understanding that we can pull out in subsequent years - it > would be very unusual for that to be permitted, as it would leave the > university with insufficient funds to complete the research. If that > happened, the university would have to convince another partner to cover > the remaining funds, reduce the research scope, or cancel the project. If > cancelled, we damage our reputation with partner institutions as well as > losing any money previously invested. If a partner steps up, we damage our > reputation. We need to go into this with the intent of being committed for > the full amount, not with the belief that we are able to pull out if the > funds don't materialise. > > So from what you are saying, we are in trouble. Not as much trouble as we > would be if the $50k payment was still expected in 2014, but not in a nice > place. We have only half the funds needed to meet existing (or at least in > process) commitments over the next three years, (and are short of having > enough funds to meet our commitments in the next two years), have no > additional funds to spend on new projects unless we pull the money from the > linkage grant commitment (which will increase the risk of defaulting) or > pull out of that project (which we certainly do not want to do), and are > being told that we would be unsuccessful in getting funds through the major > funding body (the FDC) that has been providing grants to the Chapters. > > Going on the assumption that we should move forward with the linkage > grant, (which we should do), we need to guarantee at least $10k from the > WMF or the FDC to meet the 2015 commitment, assuming no additional > expenditure, and $50k to meet 2016. This will be difficult, in that I > gather there will not be a deliverable until 2017, so we need to present > this as a three year program instead of focusing on the annual grant model, > or we will need to show metrics which can be applied each year. This is > especially problematic for us as the measuring tools linked to do not seem > to work well for this sort of project. That said, I don't think that any of > this is impossible. > > So back to my initial question, how do we tackle this? At worst, we need > funding through Round 1 of the 2014/2015 FDC grants process, which means we > need to be in a position to successfully request funding by September next > year, or be assured that we can get funds for our needs through an > alternative grants process by the end of 2015. Thus, what projects can we > put in place that either require no funding or very limited funding, will > be fully completed by September 2014, (including all reporting requirements > and metrics), and will be impressive enough as a set to justify a large > grant for an unusual project? And if we do need more funding for these > projects, how much time do we need to factor in so as to go through the > grants process with the WMF, or do we risk pulling funds from those > currently committed? > > I should also add that I think that the committee and members have done > some great work over the last year. I think part of the problem is that we > haven't been informing the WMF of the successes and strength of the current > committee as well as we should. In coming up with new projects, we should > also be looking at how we share the successes beyond the metrics offered. I > believe that if the WMF was better aware of some of the work the committee > has been doing, funding would be much less of an issue. > > Adam. > > > > > On 7 October 2013 23:34, G. White <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Adam, >> >> I went to the initial meeting/workshop/training session of the new >> Program Evaluation and Design (PE&D) Team that is now working closely with >> the Grants Team. In line with what Sue has recently said about measurable >> impact for money spent, the team is developing and disseminating tools to >> help Wikimedians gather data to help measure the inputs/outputs/outcomes >> and longer term impacts of programs and activities. They have produced this >> data prep >> sheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqQxi0BdfXDsdDlsc3RxYXlLaHJ6SUtxZTRZOWM0LUE&usp=drive_web#gid=1>. >> Here is the Evaluation >> Portal.<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal> >> >> Craig is right about getting demonstrable small runs on the board to show >> we can plan AND deliver - that is, BOTH, not just one or the other. When I >> was talking to some of the leaders of the Grants team, they were bewildered >> at the fractiousness and unresponsiveness of the Australian chapter (they >> were referring to the period before the last Chapter election). From a >> distance, the level of general disarray and argument appears comparable to >> the US government's current paralysis, and about as comprehensible. >> >> The Chapter needs good processes because good processes produce good >> outcomes. However, *processes are not the same thing as rules.* We need >> to quietly and competently incorporate any necessary rules into our >> processes. Kerry and Craig are working on this. Then we need to document >> our processes and get on with small, achievable, well planned programs. I >> agree with Craig that our success will not be measured in how much funding >> we get. >> >> Whiteghost.ink >> >> >> On 7 October 2013 19:27, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Before WMAU would need to pay even the first year of money for the >>> linkage grant, we (WMAU, UQ and APC) have to agree a legal contract in >>> relation to project. The UQ-drafted contract we have been given would seek >>> to commit WMAU to all 3 years of funding. Obviously WMAU does not wish to >>> agree to that given the uncertainty in relation to this funding and we will >>> be seeking to have the contract varied to allow us to not make the >>> subsequent payments if we have not been able to obtain those funds from WMF >>> (or elsewhere). There are other issues with the contract in relation to >>> intellectual property, levels of indemnity etc that also need to be >>> resolved. I agree with Craig that this is likely to be a slow process.** >>> ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> If any WMAU member happens to be a lawyer, we would be very happy to >>> have your assistance in this matter.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Kerry**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Craig Franklin >>> *Sent:* Monday, 7 October 2013 3:31 PM >>> *To:* Wikimedia-au >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Funding Query**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Hi Adam,**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Thanks for the question. As you've noted, we haven't put in a funding >>> request to this round's FDC process. This has largely come about because >>> in discussions with members of the FDC and the Foundation staff supporting >>> the FDC, we were 'encouraged' not to apply in this round for a variety of >>> reasons. Chief among those was a desire to see a more substantial record >>> of evaluation, impact, and value for money in the projects that we do. >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> To this end, we need to reposition the chapter from an organisation that >>> attempts large, expensive, and complex projects to an organisation that >>> sets goals that are more modest, measurable, and achievable. This is going >>> to require a cultural shift in the way we administer the chapter, as our >>> previous success in participating in the fundraiser means that we have not >>> developed the evaluation and project management mechanisms that we would >>> have done if we'd continued to evolve without the sudden windfall injection >>> of tens of thousands of dollars.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> In relation to the actual figures and numbers, I'm happy to share those. >>> Please note that the figures I'm quoting here are only approximate, I'm >>> sure that John Vandenberg can come and give more precise figures if they're >>> needed.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> The commitment for the first round of the Paralympic project is in the >>> realm of $25,000. This payment has not yet been made, while we continue to >>> work with UQ and APC to determine how this will work administratively. As >>> you've noted, this money is quarantined and locked in, subject to the >>> necessary paperwork with UQ and APC being agreed to. At the moment, I'm >>> expecting the actual payment will probably not occur until early in >>> calendar year 2014 (but I might be pleasantly surprised). Kerry is >>> handling the direct negotiation with APC and UQ and may be able to provide >>> further context.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Year two and three come to about $50k a pop, but this money is *not* >>> guaranteed. We have been extremely upfront with everyone involved that we >>> will only be able to fund the second and third years if we get the money >>> from the Foundation (or from elsewhere). So at some point we're going to >>> need to ask for this money, but not for quite some time. Obviously, we've >>> been firm that the best way to actually guarantee that we'll get the >>> funding is for the first year's investment to produce those measurable >>> outcomes for the Wikimedia movement so we can make a good argument that >>> it's a project worth investing further in.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> We currently have on the order of $80k in cash reserves, and if you >>> subtract the $25k for the APC project that leaves us with about Subtract >>> another $5k for essential running costs over the next year (financial >>> software, office supplies, etc etc), and that leaves us with about $50k to >>> play with. $50k is a lot of money and it should be possible to achieve a >>> lot of impact with this, especially if we keep in mind that projects should >>> be modest, measurable, and achievable.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> More generally speaking, I am wary of equating success for the chapter >>> purely in terms of how many dollars we can squeeze out of the Foundation. >>> Success needs to be measured in terms of our impact, whether that is the >>> creation of new content, the recruitment of new editors, or encouraging >>> diversity. I believe that by concentrating on smaller and simpler >>> projects, we can have a measurable impact in those spaces within the next >>> twelve months, without exhausting our reserve funds, which will put us in a >>> much better position to request money for the Linkage Grant and other >>> programmes in the future.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Cheers,**** >>> >>> Craig**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 15:18:09 +0000 >>> From: Adam Jenkins <[email protected]> >>> To: Wikimedia-au <[email protected]> >>> Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Funding query >>> Message-ID: >>> < >>> cabrrgoa3eyqtkpilw42asfhw0qsvnns5ri_hrhxa+25icoc...@mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I was surprised to see that WMAU didn't put in an application for funding >>> with the FDC in the October round. As a result, we won't be getting any >>> funds from that route in 2013, especially as we didn't apply in the >>> earlier >>> round. As near as I can figure, we currently have commitments of at least >>> $54k in 2014 as part of the ARC Linkage grant, along with the $29k >>> commitment for 2013 (which was quarantined and covered), but it seems >>> that >>> meeting these commitments will drain us of remaining funds unless >>> something >>> has changed with the Linkage grant or we have an alternative revenue >>> stream >>> in place. >>> >>> In light of comments about the possible changes to FDC funding, where >>> does >>> this leave us? Do we have sufficient funds to see us out until June, >>> 2014, >>> when the next FDC round is due to be decided? >>> >>> It seems that this may be worth discussing, especially if there's >>> anything >>> that we can do to get alternative revenue sources in place. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Adan,**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > -- -- Leigh Blackall <http://about.me/leighblackall> +61(0)404561009
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
