Hi Adam,

We've been proceeding in negotiations with the other partners on the basis
that we won't (and can't - committing that amount of money with no
guarantee that we'll get it would risk us trading insolvent) be able to
contribute anything in the second and third years unless we get the money
from somewhere.  We are seeking to have this (and a few other issues)
written into the relevant paperwork and contracts before we sign so that
everyone knows where we stand and so that WMAU can exit gracefully if need
be.  As Kerry has pointed out, this is likely to be a slow process but that
"get out" clause is an absolute necessity for us.  Both UQ and APC
appreciate and understand our position here and it's something that is
agreed in principle, we just need to get the lawyers on it.  If anyone
reading this is or knows a lawyer who'd be happy to look at this for us pro
bono please contact Kerry! :-)

In terms of deliverables for that project, the plan is to continually have
outputs throughout the entire three years rather than saving everything up
and releasing it all at the end.  It's clear that in the first year there
needs to be enough programmatic work and proven impact of the Linkage Grant
on WMF movement goals to not only justify the initial investment, but also
to justify spending more on it in future years.  Again, we've flagged this
to the partners in the Linkage Grant.

As an aside, it would of course be great if we could get a multiyear
commitment from the Foundation to support this, but we've been told that
multi-year grants and programmes are off the table as far as WMF granting
schemes are concerned for the foreseeable future.

I also agree that the chapter and its volunteers *have* done a lot of great
work over the past few years, and I think you've hit the nail on the head
that we've often failed to effectively communicate our successes.  Part of
any projects going forward will be a need to say "here's how we're going to
measure success" before we actually dive in on any project, so that we can
either use that measurement as justification for further funding, or use
that measurement to figure out what went wrong and make sure we don't make
the same mistake twice.


On 8 October 2013 11:12, Adam Jenkins <adam.jenk...@gmail.com> 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 <whiteghost....@gmail.com> 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 <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> 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:* wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>>> wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *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 <adam.jenk...@gmail.com>
>>> To: Wikimedia-au <wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> 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
>>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to