Talk:2013 Activity Plan: Difference between revisions
m (Richard Symonds (WMUK) moved page Talk:2013 Revised activity plan to Talk:2013 Activity Plan: merging plans) |
(→Tango's comments: new section) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Is there a specific reason why WMUK is not seeking sponsorships as part of its income, by offering companies to sponsor conferences etc? I apologize if this was already answered at the original budget, but considering the budget cut it might deserve an extra consideration. [[User:Lodewijk|Lodewijk]] ([[User talk:Lodewijk|talk]]) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | Is there a specific reason why WMUK is not seeking sponsorships as part of its income, by offering companies to sponsor conferences etc? I apologize if this was already answered at the original budget, but considering the budget cut it might deserve an extra consideration. [[User:Lodewijk|Lodewijk]] ([[User talk:Lodewijk|talk]]) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
::This is not an impossibilty. Now we have Katherine Bavage as our fundraiser we have more capacity (remember we are still quite kleine) this is a real possibility.[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | ::This is not an impossibilty. Now we have Katherine Bavage as our fundraiser we have more capacity (remember we are still quite kleine) this is a real possibility.[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Tango's comments == | |||
Thank you for sharing this draft. The greater detail in the overviews of what each budget item is for are great, but it would be good to see more breakdowns of where the numbers come from (similar to that provided for the conference attendance budget). | |||
The risks for each budget item are also good (in future, we'll need to start quantifying risks where possible, but qualitative statements are a good start), but you are missing the other side of the coin - successes. We should have metrics for success in the budget (I think this was on the agenda for the last board meeting, but got skipped due to time constraints). | |||
I also notice that Daria is down as primary contact for a hell of a lot of stuff - I know she works very hard, but it that realistic? The new GLAM person could probably be the primary contact for most of the GLAM stuff. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 14:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:05, 11 December 2012
laptops
I've run or helped at several training events, including both ones where we had bought along the chapter's spare laptops, and ones where we hadn't. When a trainee has forgotten their laptop or the laptop they've borrowed has a dud battery and they've forgotten the charger, it is really really helpful to just be able to lend them a WMUK laptop for the session. So much thanks for buying three last year, I'd reccomend anyone who's running a training session that you have one for every trainee who books a laptop for the event plus at least one spare. But rather than describe the budget as "laptops for volunteers" can I suggest you describe it as "spare laptops for training events"? WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fair point as they get used in many contexts - have amendedJon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
WCA funding
Please remove the sentence "This will come directly from the Foundation." No process for funding has been agreed and so this is speculative. I suggest the sentence "We are no longer being asked to provide financial support to the Wikimedia Chapters Association directly (WCA)" is removed unless there is some clarification as to who has now stopped asking for funding, and with what authority. As it stands, this may be mistakenly read as agreement or direction from the WCA. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC) (Writing as the WCA Chair)
- Noted thanks. Have amended.Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
curiosity: monuments
Just out of curiosity (I'm partially interested because of my own involvement in the project): in the ideas page WSC suggested Wiki Loves Monuments and it seemed there was support for it at the time. Does that still have a place in the revised budget? (Was it actually included in the original?) Under which topic would it fall? Lodewijk (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- First of all I'm really sad that we did not participate this year as a chapter and hope we will do better in 2013! 'WMUK absolutely loves monuments really' can come under Small Grants for volunteers to organise it, or Glam or even outreach. The key is finding some Wikimedians to drive it.Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Sponsorships etc
Is there a specific reason why WMUK is not seeking sponsorships as part of its income, by offering companies to sponsor conferences etc? I apologize if this was already answered at the original budget, but considering the budget cut it might deserve an extra consideration. Lodewijk (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is not an impossibilty. Now we have Katherine Bavage as our fundraiser we have more capacity (remember we are still quite kleine) this is a real possibility.Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Tango's comments
Thank you for sharing this draft. The greater detail in the overviews of what each budget item is for are great, but it would be good to see more breakdowns of where the numbers come from (similar to that provided for the conference attendance budget).
The risks for each budget item are also good (in future, we'll need to start quantifying risks where possible, but qualitative statements are a good start), but you are missing the other side of the coin - successes. We should have metrics for success in the budget (I think this was on the agenda for the last board meeting, but got skipped due to time constraints).
I also notice that Daria is down as primary contact for a hell of a lot of stuff - I know she works very hard, but it that realistic? The new GLAM person could probably be the primary contact for most of the GLAM stuff. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)