Grants talk:Conference/Wikimedia Community Ghana/WikiIndaba Conference 2016

This grant is currently under review. Comments are welcome on this page. Remember the Friendly space expectations!

GAC members' decisions

GAC members who support this request with adjustments

1. frankly speaking, the budget seems too excessive for me. I think, that we should start from a smaller event with shorter schedule and lower budget and evaluate its results. Then we could use this experience for larger future event, for example, as proposed here. rubin16 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. Hello rubin16 I do not know what you mean by a smaller event.What wil you suggest as a smaller event?Cutting down the number of particpants?Because that is the only way you can make it small.There was an experience from Wiki Indaba in South Africa in 2014 and that is what we seek to build on.Let us not forget it is a biannual event and even with this we are targeting only experienced editors and active community members.--Rberchie (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

GAC comments

measures of success

From my point of view, proposed measures of success need to be more measurable:

• what are the common issues you want to solve? What will be treated as a solution found?
• establish a collaboration - what is a measure of success? Number of joint events in next 6 months, for example?
• encourage creation of new user groups - when, how many?
• train active members - how many? What contribution do you expect from them?

I would also like to see number of participants, number of regions involved as a measure of success; number of new active editors is also quite a standard measure for such events rubin16 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks rubin16 for drawing our attention to some of these metrics. We have effected some changes to the measures of success, however we wish to also share that it's not everything that we can put a measure to. For example we can't promise to have participants organize a number of joint events within a specific period of time, as these are voluntary. We can only make sure say 20 - 30 participants are equipped with such skills to be able to do that.--Flixtey (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

budget

in the beginning of the page you claim to have at least 50 attendees and paying 75 ths USD for 50 attendees seems too expensive for me... Could you, please, explain some certain expenses?

• accounting and budget management - how did you calculate this figure? Will you hire an accountant?

• We may not necessarily hire an accountant if we have someone who can give off that service from the community. However that role is a very important role that will require a dedicated person to disburse cash for purchases (procurements) and (or) expenses even before the start of the conference, monitor expenditure, keep records and receipts, reimburse participants where necessary and gather all financial data for reporting after the conference.--Flixtey (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• do you really need to have 3 days for the event? Do you have timetable of sessions? Probably, it will be better to concentrate on a short list of questions but with particular results at the end.

• We only put three days up because we know it is necessary for the conference. Our choice was informed by a survey we conducted before putting together this grant application. The level of activities submitted and expectations of participants are overwhelming plus most topics are perfectly inline with our goals for having this conference. We are currently working on streamlining the topics under specific tracks that will create the level of impact we expect.--Flixtey (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• flights and accomodation: what do you think about webex/skype and other ways of communication? This will enable you to invite more participants without need to personally fly and live in other place during the event rubin16 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• We are very much aware of the platforms you have mentioned and i know you aware of the limitations of these, which is why i think the movement has conferences such as the Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania and other regional or thematic conferences to serve a class/category of people at any point in time. For the very reason why such conferences are held are the very same reasons why we are hosting Wiki Indaba, but to further ease your understanding, impact is richly created through physical experience. The synergy and collaborative efforts that breed from such events can never be accomplished over an internet interaction which is why our movement spends millions to convene as many contributors as they can at a location.--Flixtey (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • rubin16the internet connectivity in most African countries is not the best and as a matter of fact doing such a program entirely using webex/skype may not be the best way. What we can however do is to do a live streaming which other participants who could not make it could join in but then again even with that we cannot assure stable and consistent feed.Meeting in person is one great thing you cannot belittle and that is why there is the need to all gather at one place with a common goal.--Rberchie (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Community comments

• US$74 thousand for an estimated 50 people? That would require elaborate justification on the basis of impact. Tony (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Tony, Thanks for your question and the opportunity to explain this vividly. I will first like to explain that prices of things in this part of the world are quite on the high and these are attributed to many factors that are somewhat due to overreliance on international products or markets (over dependence on imported products, lack of regulated pricing systems, high duty on imported products, volatility in exchange rates, etc.) and (or) mainly because almost everything we use are imported. Other factors such as hikes in utility tariffs, unstable inflation rates, etc. are also very common issues that affect prices hence translating prices that seem to be exorbitant as compared to europe, U.S.A or other parts of the global north.

Secondly if you have read through the grant and tried to compare this to the last Indaba that happened in 2014, you will note that the increase in budget is quite reasonable or appreciable, considering the changes, current economic developments or trends and even the fact that this years' budget has been enhanced to accommodate relatively more people.

Lastly i like to tackle your question on impact. I beg to differ here as i don't believe that an amount of money (seen as big) necessarily translates into impact. As explained above a budget could reflect more than just a quoted amount, explaining this will mostly require, understanding what is composed of such an amount. Lets assume that, an amount of $1,000 is given for a project in 2016, which is expected to repeat in the year 2017. I think it will only be plausible that whoever is writing that proposal will forecast to cover price changes for the following year (2017), as this is a real situation that will most likely affect the funding of the project in that year. This change in prices/budget of the two years may not necessarily translate in different impact levels, as impact is not only yielded by funds or just input but by conditions of the environment and general circumstances at the time. The point i am driving here is that because the budget is quite unusual or unexpected (to you) doesn't necessarily mean/warrant that we should be expectant of high impact levels, but rather, we should try and validate or find out what is resulting in such an amount.--Flixtey (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WMF comments

Hi Flixtey and Rberchie. We are so grateful for all of the work you have put into the proposal over the last few months, especially your quick responses to our requests for additional information and phone calls. We were really interested to see the table you filled out and how it maps to both the provisional program and the survey results. We are not sure how the list of the provisional conference program was developed, although all of the topics could be very useful, it is too much for one weekend. We were hoping that the survey would provide more information about the needs and interests of potential participants so that we could prioritize based on the provisional topic list. Unfortunately, there were fewer survey responses than we had hoped, and the responses were general. It is hard to build a large conference without getting significant input from communities. We understand that it is important to your communities to have an offline meeting to learn from eachother and discuss shared goals so we would like to offer you support to develop a program for a smaller, more focused gathering.

Below are some of our reflections on the survey responses and ideas for ways to help you develop a program for WikiIndaba focused on a limited set of the highest priorities in your communities:

1. Based on the # of survey responses and folks who have commented on when they would be available, we recommend using this opportunity to have a smaller gathering of active wikimedians, and representatives from emerging user groups gather for a weekend of intensive training and hands on workshops. We understand the appeal of working with diaspora communities, but we recommend keeping the weekend focused on capacity development and developing strategies to foster growth on the African continent. The survey included responses from 15 people living in African countries and 17 different people commented on which dates would work for them. With these numbers in mind, it seems reasonable to limit the number of international scholarships to ~20 currently active Wikimedians.
2. Based on the survey, notes from discussions and feedback we have seen in grant reports from potential participants, we recommend that the weekend include intensive workshops on: outreach, communications and partnerships. A few hours of technical workshops on Wikidata, Wikisource and using bots. 1 strategy session around what a continental collaborative looks like and 1 session on problem solving and shared solutions. We also recommend shortening the weekend to a 2 day program - 3rd day can be group activities and folks fly out in the afternoon or evening. We recommend this because we have gotten feedback from other conferences (and experienced it ourselves) that by the 3rd day of intensive learning and sessions people begin to get burned out and lose focus. We have also seen that it is important to have unstructured time for people to socialize outside of sessions.
3. If we push the date back a few months to January I will be able to give your team more focused support to develop program sessions - including coordinating with participants to develop workshops that highlight their expertise and include practical exercises and training support from WMF staff. Delaying the event will also ensure that WMF staff have enough time to prepare effective workshops tailored to participants.

As a next step, Alex Wang and I would like to set up a phone call to talk through the changes we have proposed and get your feedback. On this call we hope to come to agreement on the focus, tentative timing and topics for the event - and outline changes to the proposal so that we can move forward with a funding decision in the next few weeks. Again, thank you both for all of your hard work, patience and leadership on this grant. Cheers, --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from a rep of Wikimedia Ghana Usergroup

(1) Measures of success should be looked into some more, should be more convincing. $50K is no joke. Straightforward/direct organisation of funded well-publicised editathons in various countries can give countries participating better results at recruiting and training editors than a $50K Indaba in my opinion. So if WMF is going to spend that much on us, I strongly believe what indicates success should be really clear.

(2) The grant information and activities planned are a lot for three days, with some vague details here and there. If this Indaba would just focus on just an affiliation workshop, that clear simple focus can achieve more in my opinion than a long list of to dos.

(3) An AffCom that stays in close contact with usergroups and requires usergroups to be in regular communications (mandatorily) will help groups better than one Indaba.

(4) How much did the previous Indaba achieve? Was it fantastic or ordinary? We can learn something from this to help determine if this year's should follow same, or be restructured, or not held at all.

Sandiooses (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandister, I find this comment now on this proposal rather strange. The application has been submitted from within an organisation that you co-founded and of which you are a member. So, your concerns should have been sorted out internally, and should not be reflected here. Also, this grant application has been in discussion since 30th June, after a lot of discussion on the African Wikimedians mailing list and at Wikimania; you have had more than enough time to sort out your concerns internally. However, you have clear worries, so let's go:

1. The WMF team has done this a few times before ;-), and is more than aware of what indications of success are required for an event of this size and capacity. They and the Wiki Indaba team have a clear understanding of what is required. If you wish to host editathons across Ghana, then there are funding mechanisms for that to happen too. So please go ahead. I am sure Kacie and the Grants team are eager to hear your plans and thoughts.
2. There has been a lot of discussion as to the programme. Perhaps put your concerns on the relevant pages - however, in my experience, it is good for people to learn from other's projects, and a lot has gone on since the last Wiki Indaba. People should know what can be done and learn from what hasn't worked so well.
3. The Indaba is a chance for people to share experiences and not just be instructed in a silo by someone from AffCom. Although, of course, it would help to have some from AffCom there.
4. You can find the report for the previous Indaba here. In it you will see that there were a lot of very positive elements came from Wiki Indaba. Since this report has been written, Wiki Indaba had a direct impact on the strength of your own community in Ghana (including Rexford, Rberchie, and Flixtey), it had a massive activation impact on Wikimedia Usergroup Nigeria and Wikimedia Planning Usergroup Cameroon, it seeded the enormously successful WikiArabia, and it has also been of benefit to other communities (in many untangible ways). It is expected that this Wiki Indaba will have just as an effective impact, if not more so ... especially as these communities are now more experienced in Wikimedia ways. That is why there is a lot of enthusiasm by the continental community to see this conference happen again. Islahaddow (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Conference/Wikimedia Community Ghana/WikiIndaba Conference 2016

Hi Isla I was only invited about three days ago to comment on this by Kacie. And there's nothing private about discussing an Indaba. And if you must emphasize who I am in the group to make a point, let me also make you aware that I was not told we were bidding for an Indaba. When I was told, it was made to seem plans were set and far advanced beyond the bidding process. I am not the only one who has asked for clear measures of success. I think I saw a similar GAC comment. Besides I have been a grantee before, I have seen other grantees at work before, and clear measures of success is something I think we can demand more of. My understanding of what chapters, thematics orgs, groups (affiliates of all forms) are supposed to do is promote Wikimedia projects. And so, if grants can meet goals through editathons better than an Indaba, in my opinion, I am entitled to express it, and I have just done so. Yes there are funding mechanisms for editathons. I know that. But does that mean since budgets are allocated to Indabas and other meetings, WMF should fund them w/o hearing opinions on which pathway is better to meet the initial goals? No one is saying the Indaba team isn't clear on what they are doing. I am just saying, measures of success should be clearer. And where relevant pages are? Discussion page of a grant is not a relevant page? Well, I think I said the same thing with regards to learning. And I think a prospective event which has learnt from a previous one should not be still struggling with measures of success among other things. I am constantly being reminded by Felix and co that had it not being for Indaba, there'd be no user group. But you see "user group" is just a word that doesn't go to work on its own. Wikimedia in my experience reaches out to groups of all forms and even individuals have access to grants. The monumental work that asserted the presence of a group in Ghana was not via an Indaba. So let's not get that twisted. My biggest wish is that whatever an Indaba wishes to achieve, should be pointed at clear impact that oils teams which will increase numbers of editors and edits from our continent, and work tirelessly to sustain interest of the editors. That's why I said, “… this year's should follow same, or be restructured, or not held at all" Sandiooses (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Hi Sandister thanks for your comments and I welcome them but let me state here and emphatically that you are free to do so as a volunteer within the community but in no particular capacity as a Representative of the Wikimedia Foundation in Ghana or even for the Usergroup as no such role exists within the entire movement and I find that quite problematic. Yes it is a high cost event but you can refer to the itemized budget and see how each allocation will be spent. Since you are also resident in Ghana we will be more than happy to receive suggestions as to how we can get hotels or airlines that can give us good rates since that is where a chunk of the budget would be spent. You don't necessarily need a Usergroup to bid to host a Wikimedia event but as a rule of thumb the community should be involved and in this instance almost everyone within our Usergroup was informed or involved in one way or the otheras well as people outside our local community. I don't want to overemphasize the contribution of Indaba in my development as a Wikipedian but it has done tremendous things and I believe that others should experience it to turn things around as Wikipedians.But trust me even the idea to opt for a Usergroup was conceived at Indaba 2014. Most of the monumental projects we have hosted in the country were done after we returned from Indaba as the results of the training we had from conference. Conferences have their agenda and are in no way the same as Edit-a-thons.You can always apply for grants to have a national or continental edit-a-thons as Isla suggested but conferences stand to address different goals and needs of communities. You can read more on what is intended to be achieved with this conference under the goals section of the grant.Rberchie (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Rberchie, my preference to add my role is so readers will understand where I'm coming from. Mind you I'm not the grant seeker, neither am I on the GAC. I didn't even participate in the previous Indaba. So if I am going to show up here suddenly (and late) to comment, I might as well indicate somehow why I am here. Plus I came on invitation. And please your inability to understand what a rep is after I have shared the user group contract with you is what you should be finding problematic. And you who can’t understand a simple agreement document want to host an event to train others on user group management? Then what did you learn at the previous Indaba then? You have obviously underestimated the power of your own event. And I think if you can be clear on what success means for you, you will see the bigger picture. Africa is ripe – the internet penetration and all – we don’t need ‘ok’ $50K events. We need exceptional $50K events. I don't remember questioning budget. My opinion is, be clear in your measures of success. Once again, as rep, I have learnt and I am still learning that we can be clearer in what we expect to achieve when we ask for money. Of course. Events impact editors/members. My first Wikimania did that for me. But like I told Isla, I will tell you too – the word "usergroup" doesn't engage members by itself. Wikimedia reaches out to all even individuals. With or without a usergroup or a chapter, people can still make change because that's how the movement is set up. Is it enough to organize an Indaba for usergoups to get formed? No. What about an Indaba that will make sure that the group formed are sustainable too? Yes. Once again I will tell you the same thing I told Isla. The fact that there is money meant for Indabas and some set aside for editathons doesn't mean we should just go spending. Apply what works, where it works and be clear on what you want to gain (otherwise we are better off spending on editathons and investing in local groups maintaining a regular contact with AffCom). Please, that’s why I said “… this year's should follow same, or be restructured, or not held at all.” You have chosen the restructure option, right? That's all. Sandiooses (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Sandister, as Rberchie has rightly pointed you to the goals section of the grant, I am also very keen to know how in your opinion an edit-a-thon can address such goals. --Flixtey (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Flixtey, beef up your grant. That's all. Sandiooses (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Sandiooses, please refrain from insulting fellow Wikipedians like Rberchie. The impact of conferences like Wikimanias or more regional conferences like WikiCon has been proven. Islahaddow pointed out the impact that WikiIndaba 1 had. Money for a WikiIndaba in Accra would not take away any money from edit-a-thons and other projects in the region or elsewhere. Improving content and impact of a meeting is what we all are working on. Your input at a content and thematical level is very welcome, but you sound like you are completely opposed to having an international conference in Ghana. Please don't underestimate the improvement potential that a continental conference can have on all those participants that do not have an active community in their own countries. --Gereon K. (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Gereon K., the context of this exchange happening here is as a former grantee, I think we grant seekers should put out more rigorous measures of success. That's what I initially came here to say. Because without an awareness of what success means, $50K (which could have gone to other things) will not make its maximum impact. I have been to two Wikimanias. And what I learnt there is the reason why I am able to support my community sometimes with my own personal funds because conferences helped me see the bigger picture of what Wikimedia is about – an opportunity that every serious member should have in their lifetime as a Wikimedian. I am not downplaying conferences. I think I have repeatedly explained that I am not saying editathons are more important than conferences or should replace them. Berchie and co are members of a community I represent. And even up to this point in Berchie's answer to my comment, he does not understand what a usergroup agreement means for a rep/agent and is constantly undermining what this is. And so if he and his colleague are making an argument for a $50K event to strengthen user groups yet struggle with their own local user groups agreement, what then did they as individuals learn from the previous Indaba? How can they also help those coming in from other countries wanting to build user groups at the upcoming Indaba? I think my questions are fair. We are to practice what we preach. Sandiooses (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Gereon K., In addition initially I didn't think the Indaba is necessary at this time because the issues my local group has, I felt strongly that we should invest in more local meetups (which usually are like editathons) and a strong relationship with AffCom instead. But I didn't even express that view here because I saw that the grant could evolve for the better so I simply suggested for clearer measures of success. The changes Kacie suggested addresses my concerns. I will join the list of prospective people attending to prove I am not against the conference. Sandiooses (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Comment - I think there is need to clarify the fundamental principle by which Indaba operates rather than unrealistic assumption. My understanding is that Indaba is a conference for African Wikimedians and not simply a conference for user groups, which means that it follows the principle in which Wikimanian operate. If on the other hand, it follows a principle similar to our annual Wikimedia Conference in Berlin, it should be clarified. I can see that some people already assumed that Indaba is a conference for usergroup or something like that. I believe it follows a principle similar to Wikimanian and on this note, I have suggested a scholarship committee for Indaba 2016 on African mailing list. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Comment - Hi Sandiooses, it's good to have a cogent debate, but I certainly don't think it's prudent to make personal attacks. Especially when you go to as far as insulting Rberchie's intelligence! It then sends the message that although you are raising pertinent points there, but perhaps there are underlying issues which we are not privy to and which does not have to do with organising this conference at all, this then discredit your whole invaluable contribution on this discussion. I think it's possible to make your point without insulting people really. Bobbyshabangu (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Bobbyshabangu, I think I will put this as a direct question to Rberchie. Hopefully this will not insult him this time. There's a proposed session for Indaba that seeks to strengthen user groups and also help activate them. On the grant page, this is stated as a goal benefitting: User Group Reps, Reps from emerging or new communities and Individuals leading projects that could scale up. Rberchie, Two people signed as representatives/agents for the usergroup in Ghana, I am one of them. You have stated above there in your statement that I cannot speak here in 'in no particular capacity as a Representative of the Wikimedia Foundation in Ghana or even for the Usergroup as no such role exists within the entire movement Rberchie, you also stated that you find this problematic. If you do not recognise the role, hence the agreement AffCom made us sign, then how do you plan on helping those attending to learn more about user group management and formation (which you have stated in your goals)? What can people like myself (and Michaelphoya of Malawi who says he's struggling) learn about affiliations when you an organiser does not recognise one of the basic units of the foundation which is a user group? As a prospective Indaba participant, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you. Sandiooses I think you can go ahead with your questions without sarcasm. I think you just wanted to undermine the conference and its organizers and everyone has seen it.As a two time participant of Wikimania who really learnt a lot and a former grantee the only way you could help with a conference being organized on your was to point out the lapses you see and not proffer any solutions? Asking for clearer measures of success does not undermine the conference. I am told I insulted your intelligence with a statement. So to refrain, I have put it as a question, so don't see it as sarcasm. For the solutions revisit the issues I raised, if they are of use to you. Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) You said you were informed about the conference,you are on the African Mailing List, the grant has been up since June 30th and as very good a Rep you had to be asked to comment here before you did? You and Felix should work on how you communicate things to the Wikimedia Ghana User Group, don't make it about me. A few days ago KHarold (WMF) gave recommendations that you get communities involved. Up till now I have not seen an email in the Ghana list as WMF directed. (See for September and October archive. I've seen one in the Africa list. I have asked that people join the list to get involved but this may not be enough for the new members who are still trying to make sense of things in the movement. Sandiooses when KHarold (WMF) suggested we get communities involved the grant page was updated with Resources which included the 5 core members of the planning team who are all members of the Usergroup. I didn't see sending a message necessary because I understand you had been invited to be part of the team and you didn't really show any interest.Rexford I understand opted to be an Advisor and even helped design the logo.I think these were all done ostensibly to engage the community.I am yet to know of a member within the Usergroup who is not aware of this conference. In that case I do not see why you claim the community was not engaged SAgbley (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC) As a 'good rep' I am requesting that you come and pull/encourage your younger editors in the home community along so they can participate in an Indaba being hosted in their own backyard. I am sure with the new proposals made, locals who may not need expensive scholarships can easily participate too. It will also enrich the needs page. It will go a long way to help. So please write to the Ghana list on the new direction taken Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Sandiooses if you look at the resources on the grant page it has Felix,Rberchie and Enock4seth who are fairly old and experienced editors.Myself and Zita are very new in the community but we are part of the Organizing Team.With this I think your assertion that new members were not included is flawed since the two of us are fairly new.We surely hope to attend since it is happening at our backyard.Beyond this the team has also already asked WMF to get more representation from Ghana so we hope it will enrich the needs page since already we have three new editors from Ghana who have signed to participate.Going forward I think the Organizing Team is clearly focused to host a successful Indaba please if you have any inputs to advance this cause please bring them otherwise please hold your peace.--SAgbley (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Inadaba 2014 was not about AffCom and if you want to know what I learnt you can always refer to the report and the testimonies from other participants here suffice it all.Even if members from Ghana who attended did not learn anything(as you posit), others did and I am happy to know that because Indaba does not belong to the Organizers. I didn't say you didn't learn anything. But when you and Felix tell me Indaba gave rise to a Ghana user group (which is where AffCom comes in), yet you claim you don't know a role like user group reps exist ... I am baffled and that's why I questioned what you learned about usergroup formation at Indaba. Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Felix asked for your constructive inputs and all you could only tell him was to beef up the grant. When I say beef up a grant, I meant that you strengthen it to make it more effective. I don't need to repeat the suggestions I made, the talk page is long already, he should just go and read my previous submission.Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Well we will be glad to have an expert on Affcom matters like you to attend and share your experiences and expertise with others who don't know much like you do.But we have created a needs and assessment tab on the programs page and there is a section for questions.I believe it will be very prudent if you put it there because it is there that it can form part of the agenda.This page is meant for grant discussion. Hosting a conference doesn't mean the Organizers are going to be trainers and we are yet to even come out with the final program. Also this will be done by a collaborative work by all participants (yourself included) and with consultation from the WMF and if the need be WMF can always provide the needed personnel and resources.Rberchie (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC) I have seen the needs page. I will fill it out because that's what is eventually going to set the tone for the event. However the discussion here is still active. If someone mentions me in a comment, I think it is polite to reply. However, I think you have work to do on your grant, don't let me distract you. Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Bobbyshabangu, I hope I have gotten my point across politely this time. Sandiooses (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC) While I would not consider Sandiooses a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation in any official capacity, she is indeed a representative of Wikimedia community Ghana user group as she claimed to be one of those who signed the confidentiality agreement with AffCom that led to the establishment of the Ghana community user group. Wikicology (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Wikicology, I have never considered myself a rep of the foundation. The usergroup agreement clearly states that we are not to do that and I take that very seriously because it's a legal contract. When I came to comment on the grant, I did not even say I was a WFM rep. All I said was Comments from a rep of Wikimedia Ghana Usergroup. However this idea of 'reps' is problematic for Berchie it seems yet he wants an Indaba that will engage reps in one of the sessions. I really wish he'll clarify this. Sandiooses (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Sandiooses a session for reps did not mean agents who signed Usergroup contracts,Rep here means anyone who attends from a particular country and will add to the diversity of the conference.Rberchie (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC) If you claim so, thanks for clarifying then. Please note that there are some categories of people who are also called usergroup reps and that term is refers to agents who have signed usergroup agreements. Maybe you might want to establish a distinction if necessary.Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) And of course you never claimed to be a representative of the foundation and that's exactly what I tried to clarify above. Wikicology (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC) I agree Sandiooses (talk) Comment - Hi Sandiooses, it is concerning to hear that you felt sidelined in the whole process of this Ghana Bid to host the indaba. However, you have raised some pertinent questions that need to be corrected. As the project lead of the previous Indaba, I would like to highlight the following: talk, let me clarify one thing. I don't feel negative about being sidelined because I fully understand that this is an open and meritocratic movement. Individuals can freely embark on projects based on credibility they build before WMF. It's one of the very first things my group tell people when we recruit them. I am sure Felix and co will attest that. Yes, there was sidelining but it's not a problem for me until a colleague in South Africa made it seem so. Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) 1) The second Wiki Indaba, was sopposed to be hosted by Tunisia after they expressed this intention immediately after the end of Wiki Indaba 2014. However the Tumisia Usergroup also submitted a bid to host Wikimania 2015 in Monastir, which was unsuccessful. The Usergroup was understandably exhausted by this bid and no longer showed apitite to bid and host Wiki Indaba. The Ghana User group also notified the Tunisia Usergroup of this intention to host the event, and an agreement was reached that Tunisia would host the third conference in 2018-2019. 2) The discussions for the Ghana Usergroup to host Wiki Indaba were finalised at the Africa Meetup in Wikimania 2015 in Mexico and affirmed again at the Africa Meetup in Wikimania 2016 in Italy. 3) This intention by User Group Ghana to host this event has been followed up by a series of emails on the African Mailing list as well as here on Meta. From the above, I attempted to show the road map that led to Ghana Usergroup being granted permission to host this Event precipitating from a consultative process. As such, I do not believe it to be a fair question of why Ghana is hosting this event in the first place. As to the actual merit of hosting the event and its intrinsic benefits... well this speaks for itself, hence all the regional conferences we see culminating to Wikimania. --Thuvack (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Thuvack, I did not question Ghana as host actually. The event was communicated to me in a way that was faulty. Even so, that was not a problem like I mentioned. This is what I said about this Indaba in my opening submission before it escalated: (1) Measures of success should be looked into some more, should be more convincing. $50K is no joke. Straightforward/direct organisation of funded well-publicised editathons in various countries can give countries participating better results at recruiting and training editors than a $50K Indaba in my opinion. So if WMF is going to spend that much on us, I strongly believe what indicates success should be really clear. (2) The grant information and activities planned are a lot for three days, with some vague details here and there. If this Indaba would just focus on just an affiliation workshop, that clear simple focus can achieve more in my opinion than a long list of to dos. (3) An AffCom that stays in close contact with usergroups and requires usergroups to be in regular communications (mandatorily) will help groups better than one Indaba. (4) How much did the previous Indaba achieve? Was it fantastic or ordinary? We can learn something from this to help determine if this year's should follow same, or be restructured, or not held at all. Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Thuvack, I have stated that, all my concerns for now have been addressed by the proposed recommendations made by WMF. I appreciate the direction the direction in which it'll take the Indaba. Sandiooses (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) You have all brought up valid and interesting points in this discussion and I believe the community appreciate your contributions. It is unfortunate that many comments includes unfriendly accusations and sarcasms in violation of Grants:Friendly space expectations. Please, further comment should focus on questions and concerns about this request. Ghana community issues should be discussed locally on their mailing list or African mailing list. We expect everyone contributing to the Grants namespace, including Wikimedia Foundation staff, grant committee members, prospective grantees, and community members, to follow the friendly space expectations at all times. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from a member of Wikimedia Nigeria Usergroup

Wiki Indaba 2014 was instrumental in kickstarting the Wikimedia Usergroup Nigeria. I therefore support this grant proposal as I am certain that it can serve as a gateway to more Usergroups. It will also activate more editors. Kayusyussuf (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for approval

This is a high-cost event, so it is important to make sure that participants and the communities they represent are committed to investing time and thought in the planning phase so that they take away something valuable from the conference that will be used to improve their projects and local communities.

We have two main concerns about the proposal: (1) we have not seen significant engagement from community members indicating that this conference is important and necessary; and (2) the goals are very broad and there does not seem to be consensus on the most important topics to cover.

Below are some of the challenges that were reported in the lessons learned section of WikiIndaba 2014 report:

• Topics for strategy sessions should be decided in advance, more time should be given to those discussions.
• Presentations on activities happening in different countries are time consuming and not effective. Focus should be on workshops that are prepared and shared in advance.
• Participation should be limited only to active Wikimedians, and should adhere to the list of approved travel scholarship recipients.
• Follow up strategy was overly reliant on conference organizer. Sessions should end with action items and identify people who will be responsible for next steps.

In order to approve funding for this conference, we need to see that there are processes in place to avoid the challenges from the previous conference and ensure broad community engagement. Please read through the four points below. If you agree that they sound reasonable, and that you and your community are willing to use this framework to proceed with planning, please sign at the bottom of this section indicating your approval. You can also leave a comment next to your signature, if you have any concerns or suggestions.

1. To be eligible for a travel scholarship, groups must fill out the questions and needs page [1] similar to the one that is used for the CEE Meeting: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2016/Needs.
2. The program will focus on a limited number of topics identified from the questions and needs page, and will include several substansive capacity building workshops.
3. People who receive scholarships must agree to either host a training when they return to their home community to share something they learned at the conference, or take responsibility for following up one action item from a conference session.
4. The conference should be delayed until at least January 2017 to ensure that communities have time to discuss their needs and prepare effective workshops and programs.

[1] On the questions and needs page, each group (can be user groups, prospective user groups or groups or individuals working on projects) should have a discussion either online or in person to discuss and answer the following questions:

• Valuable learnings: present an overview of a valuable learning you want to share with others.
• Strengths: Your program's (or user group’s) strengths or what you are doing well. You can list here current, ongoing, and planned projects, or areas where your group or project has been successful.
• Weaknesses: Your program's (or user group’s) weaknesses or what you could use help with. List challenges you have faced on projects or as a user group. How would you like to improve in that area?
• What are the 3 most important things you want to learn at this conference?
• How do you want to collaborate with the Indaba community after the conference?
• Who from your organisation/community may be interested in attending the conference.
• Who from your community participated in this discussion?

We think this framework will help communities in Africa work towards a conference that will benefit the region and help plan for the future of Wikimedia programs and activities there. We will not be able to fund future conferences unless this criteria is met. Provided you follow these steps, we can move forward with an approval. We are looking forward to hearing from you. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that one of our concerns was around community participation in conference planning, we ask that members of all of the potential participant communities review the above criteria and leave a comment below if you agree to participate in the conference planning and post-event follow up that we have proposed. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements and comments

WikiIndaba Conference 2016 - Questions and Needs

• Hi Kacie after going through the criteria for approval, I wish to state that as a member of the planning team we are willing to comply with aforementioned conditions. On the issue of community engagement,I bet to differ on that because the whole talk began on the African Mailing list,it was continued at the African meet up at WMConn 2015 & 2016 and at the African Meetup at Wikimania. Apart from engagement within our local community and the African Continent, we contacted external communities like the Wikimania Planning Team in the person of Ellie Young, Daniela Gentner and Nicole Ebber from WMDE. But I wish to reaffirm that we are committed to working with the new modalities of community engagement as have been prescribed by you.Rberchie (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Kacie, i hereby confirm that we are willing to work with the suggested conditions. However i wish to put on record that prices are always not stable and could change as we already mentioned in our early discussion. We hope to make the best out of this conference and hence ready to comply with anything that works. --Flixtey (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• I hereby declare that I am willing to go by the aforementioned conditions for Indaba to be supported.I therefore endorse this grant for funding.Yasield (talk)

• I have gone through the suggested conditions and I hereby confirm that I am willing to work with the suggested conditions. I therefore endorse this grant for funding. Artista Poetica (talk)

• The criteria stated above are exactly what we need to build a solid foundation. More and more capacity building session. I therefore endorse this grant for funding. AminouT (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse this grant. WikiIndaba is more important to improve capacity leadership for Wikimedia in Africa. Papischou (talk)
• I believe that every regional community has the right to meet and discuss new updates and the future of Wikimedia projects. There are other regional conferences organized each year, for example Wiki Arabia for the Arab world. African community has a great and huge impact on the continent. So, I endorse this grant for funding.--لا روسا (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• An opportunity for African Wikipedians to capitalize their potentials. I endorse. Geugeor (talk)
• I definitely endorse this grant. Currently struggling to push Malawi forward in terms of planning and input. Wiki gatherings are always inspiring. One gets recharged. Michaelphoya (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• As a participant of WikiIndaba (in South Africa) I think this event should be supported to continue its impacts on the African continent and to endorse the relations between the African editors. Keep up Guys!(talk) 14:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I believe conferences are a great way for people with a common interest to get together and exchange ideas, so I believe this conference would also meet same expectations of African wikipedians to learn from each other and become abreast with more innovative ways to help themselves become better. I therefore endorse this grant SAgbley (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I endorse the request for funding for Wiki Indaba Kayusyussuf (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• I strongly support a conference like the one being planned here, I feel that it would really benefit the African wikimedia community. GastelEtzwane (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I support this conference if it will comply with Wikimedia's recommendations. Sandiooses (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• I came to WikiIndaba in J'burg South Africa as a newbie. Today, its a different story. Some of the lessons learnt from the event were eye opener that led to the planning of the movement in my country. Therefore, I strongly endorse the funding of the project. However, considering the allocated scholarship by WMF for the event.I believe the figure didn't commensurate with the number of wikipedians in Africa in term of community engagement and other individual activities.Though, the foundation had a very valid point judging by number of people that are willing to come to Ghana for the event via the result of the survey conducted by the local organizer. I stand to be corrected that many of the active Wikipedians in Africa were omitted in the exercise because of the peculiarity of the situation in African which include but not limited to poor internet access, poor online representation by some experience editors, lack of electricity in some countries and also the extent of the circulation of the survey by the Local organizer.I am aware of some active editors in my country(Nigeria) that didn't participate in the exercise because they were not aware of the exercise.If indeed, this project is meant to create a solid network , increase collaboration and create sense of responsibility among editors and community in Africa.Therefore,i am suggesting that WMF should revisit their position as per the allocated scholarship for the event.If the position is not reverse, this would go down on record as a major continental conference with the smallest representation.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• I strongly agree with Kacie's assessment. I am endorsing this per above. Wikicology (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• This is an opportunity for African editors to learn from each other how to promote content of their rich culture on Wikipedia and its sister projects,it is also a step to uniting the African communities hence I strongly support this--Celestinesucess (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• The 2014 conference was a major catalyst towards the creation of the Nigerian UserGroup, which I belong to. The group has organized many projects in its short term of existence. I believe, another WikiIndaba will have even more impact, since there are now more active Wikimedia communities on the continent, since 2014.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dear all WMF and all wikimidia user around the word, Wikiindba is the wikimedia conference that should be supported be every one around the world it is a great opportunity to bring new user and new community around the continent,after the first wikiindaba I know nothing about wikimedia but now I learn a lot of think and I bring a lot of knowledge and new idea of projects to Tunisia I have built a good community that should have a chance to join the next wikiindaba and learn a new kowlage about wikimedia like me --Touzrimounir (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is new exciting activity across the continent, we are beginning to talk and exchange ideas as user groups, Thermorgs and chapters of Africa. This momentum must fostered and supported by the movement. I am also seeing exciting activity from WMF side to reachout to the African Community, this is indeed commendable. There may be a few teething problems with regard to organizational development of the host country, but I am not convinced that these are insurmountable. As a result I fully support this Grant Application. --Thuvack (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Going through the grant request and discussion page I think Ghana is ready to host this conference. My recommendation is based on the changes they've effected on the program and grant request in retrospect to a meeting they've had with WMF grant staff. Suffice to say that the answers they give on the discussion page are concise and satisfactory, they don't seem to duck and dive when asked questions but they handle the questions and themselves professionally. As an African myself and knowing the challenges facing Global South ( some of which are mentioned here), I'm having a keen interest on the contents of discussion on the program and the outcomes of this conference, hence I fully support the Grant Application.Bobbyshabangu (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, it's important to see Indaba with another eyes, different of other conferences. I think Indaba is an oportunity for wikimedians to discuss about the best path to follow to the success of any project focussed around the African content the all we know are "poor" and "not many" compared to other culture or country. If we accept to developping articles in international language liked French and English but I hope that is the place to think to the possibility to explore another local languages. The conference for me is 3 days to have many presentations about African Wikimedians activities and many workshop for participants from Accra universities "for Dummies" who wants to know more about wikipedia and brothers projects. big difference between 2014 and today. between indaba 2014 and today , i Trust on that kind of conference to energize the future activity around the opend knoledge represented by WMF. from Algeria --Mohammed Bachounda (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Participants of WikiIndaba 2014 took part in #OpenAfrica15, where I was trainer. I could notice how those participants had benefited from WikiIndaba 2014 in seeing the Wikimedia World as a global movement, in seeing the challenges and opportunities of a continent rather than only thinking about their own language version and field of interest. WikiIndaba 2016 will strengthen existing ties between African communities and will hopefully provide knowledge to the participants that they can use in building and developing their home communites. I fully endorse the grant proposal. --Gereon K. (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I hear people talking about the first WikiIndaba a lot, so I guess it helped them in a way. I think this is a good opportunity to connect the Egyptian community to the African context as much as it is connected to the Arab one. To the best of my knowledge, the only thing in which Egypt contributes as part of Africa is Wiki Loves Africa. I believe the reason might be that we here do not know what's going on in other parts of Africa and how do we take part in it. I think this conference will be a good opportunity to do that.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• I am late to the party but I endorse this proposal. I am also willing to take up one action item from the conference. Have I missed all the positive commentary on WikiIndaba 2014, not least by the delegates of the WMF? I was certainly not the only participant who felt that on no other WikiOccasion so much has been achieved in so little time with so few people? --Pgallert (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the budget

Hi Flixtey, during out check in call today, we talked about needing to contract a bus for travel between the hotel and the conference venue, which was not included in the original budget which will cost about 2,000 GHC. I approve this change in budget. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)