Grants talk:Project/Rapid/UG BG/National Conference 2016/Report

Adding details past deadline

Hi, I hope it was not too late for adding several details to the report, despite the "under review" template has already been placed by Janice. Unfortunately, the report itself seems to have come in the very last day, leaving no time for more peer review before submission (or I may have missed where the discussion was held). But I think these additions to the "Learning" section are not only delightful as outcomes, but also informative of all the efforts spent on the organization of the conference and of its spin-off effects. :) →Spiritia 11:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Bank charges

@Лорд Бъмбъри: Could you please add to the "Grant funds spent" table the information about the bank fees charged for the payments made in the project. It is not a big sum (9.04 BGN), but still represents a project expense and is documented in the shared bank account. Thank you in advance, →Spiritia 07:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I cannot do that, because I do not have a document stating this. You can change it and send me the document per email, if you wish. --Nikola (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

All bank fees are traceable from the online banking interface of the bank account, and you should be able to access it. You will see each of the transactions being charged: immediately after the respective payment or cash withdrawal there is a record of the fee, as well.

I am not going to interfere in editing the financial part of the report, as I myself do not have copies the financial documents (apart of scans of those issued to me, which during the conference I handed you in original, and scans). Thank you for your understanding. →Spiritia 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not have access to the online interface of the bank account, because the bank needs you to turn it on for me, as you know at least since the Saturday of the national conference. But with you not speaking with me except on talk pages it is impossible to turn it on. So, you can either add the sum, or leave it, but unfortunately I cannot do it. You do not have to interfere with the rest of the financial part of the report, because it corresponds to the invoices which I have and sent to the grants team. --Nikola (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I presumed this problem has been solved back then, I didn't know it persists! I was actually pretty sure that you have full access to all the bank account's options and that you are independable of me in any way whatsoever concerning the account. No, problems, I will send you and our grant officer Janice the PDF file with the history of payments, with the bank charges highlighted.

Furthermore, I also presumed this independency from the fact that no one of those involved in preparing this new project proposal: Grants talk:Project/Rapid/UG BG/ BGWinterPhotoSafari, obviously on behalf of the user group, obviously you included, has considered it important to inform / contact me in this relation. And not only me, I think. Did we have any (public) discussion about the need / timing / parameters / budget / community involvement of this grant, or any notification that this proposal is already a *fact*? →Spiritia 10:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Vassia! I am sorry you didn't feel informed about the BGWinterPhotoSafari. A discussion was held on the village pump and the interested beyond the people who were working on it was quite small. To be honest, I am struggling to figure out what the procedure is to get a small grant approved by the user-group. There are not formal structures and processes. The creating of a more solid organisation is being continuously blocked. I feel frustrated that people, who actually just want to contribute some valuable content to Wikimedia projects and need very little support with that don't get it. --Dimi z (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dimi z: Dimi, sure, I saw the discussion from 18-19 January on the Village Pump. I am aware of that. It concluded with your wishfully sounding sentence on 19 January, that "Then maybe it will be the best if we prepare a grant proposal", without ever actually mentioning of the development of the topic and the link to the Meta page. I myself discovered that proposal on 1 February only for the reason that it was linked from the bottom of the present report and the report of the scanners, in relation to possible utilization of the remaining sums. But I doubt many people would have been able to make these connection and follow in real time the development. :) (Again, this discussion in the Village Pump was "in principle", it didn't include any details on budget, goals, participant, etc. details).

Apart of that, just like you, I also don't think it has to be a very formal process for (a non-formal) user group to apply for grants. Maybe the hitherto experience with both the Wiki Loves Earth and the National Conference grants exhibited more inclusivity and were a matter of wider community discussions and involvements. However, I do think it is not a "mere formality" to proactively inform both holders of the shared bank account when an actual grant proposal is designed/submitted. In my capacity of one of the two holders, I am also legally and materially accountable for what happens with this bank account, and I humbly consider it important to be informed. I hope you understand this point of view and if you step into my shoes, you will agree with it. :) →Spiritia 12:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I am independent, because I can always go to the bank and take the documents needed, and I do it at regular intervals. I will take a new bank statement next Saturday. Had you not had the possibility to send the document to the grants team, I would have done it in three days from now. --Nikola (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Лорд Бъмбъри: You should have already obtained it. I am happy to cooperate. :) →Spiritia 12:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Then call the bank and tell them to turn it on for me, because only the main account holder can do that. You have all needed personal data and can call me whenever you like about more, if needed. --Nikola (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear -Лорд Бъмбъри, your very polite request above has been fulfilled. Please, kindly check your email for the needful details, and let me know if I can do anything else for you. →Spiritia 10:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, it works now. --Nikola (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments upon approval

Hi Nikola. Thank you for this detailed and informative grant report. It sounds like the conference was a great opportunity for Bulgarian Wikimedians to meet in person, engage in discussions, and to do a number of outreach activities for the general public. We appreciate that you did a pre-conference survey in order to develop the program and prioritize sessions when you needed to adjust for time. It would have been great if more people participated in the post-conference survey -- perhaps you can think about ways to make it more of a priority next time. It would be great to know if any specific ideas or projects came out of the conference that community member(s) are working on the in the coming year. Finally, please return the unspent funds via the instructions here as we understand you will be changing your banking account situation. Thank you again for this report and all your work in organizing a successful conference. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)