Talk:2013 Activity Plan

General discussion

I just want to thank Jon for putting this together. It's great to get all the (hopefully) uncontroversial stuff down at the beginning so we can make the discussion as productive as possible.

A lot of the budget items so far are continuations of 2012 budget items (which is the obvious place to start), so it would be useful to have some projections of spending against budget for those items in 2012. Do such projections exist? (I see Jon has already adjusted some of the items to reflect lessons learned this year, but is that just based on his personal knowledge of what has been spent or is it written down somewhere?) --Tango (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

All based on what is deliverable (well mostly wouldn't want to kill too many babies) Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We are of course doing end of year projections and they are useful but only one factor. The variables are for instance, 'are things underspending because they need more input but are still valid aims' or 'are they overspending because of poor financial management or unexpected demand/success. During this very first year of operation in the real world we need to avoid jumping to conclusions based simply on sums. Bottom line 'what do we want to do - what do we think would be good?'. This is a vibrant community not a sausage machine.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said we should jump to conclusions. Please have enough respect for the community not to assume we would misuse data. This is supposed to be an open planning process, so all the data it is based on needs to be open. --Tango (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We worked through budget projections taking into account our current spending rates in an evening session of the last board meeting - Richard holds the spreadsheet that we worked on then. The problem is that it's very difficult at this point to project what the end-state of this year's spending will be, since most of the project budget lines are still ramping up (e.g. the mass upload tool budget line hasn't seen any spending yet, and the WWI budget line hasn't really gotten started yet), and there's still issues with setting up Sage so that it records the expenses against the appropriate budget lines. So the data isn't really in a good enough state to be made open yet (it could lead to GIGO), but I (personally) hope it can be made public in a few months time... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Income

NB last year's fundraiser income total was £1M including Gift Aid. If our target is £1.4M this year then that will already include the Gift Aid. £280k is likely to be an overestimate of the amount we get from direct debits (though not a drastic overestimate). However, the Foundation are talking about a standstill target overall, which would suggest our own target should remain the same or increase in a more modest way. The Land (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The WMF target is definitely increasing, but at a much lower rate than previously (20-25%, I think - the annual plan will be published in a few days). --Tango (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be, in my opinion, a big mistake to choose a fundraising figure and struggle to spend the cash even if we reached that target. Sensibly we need a plan that staff and the community can support and deliver at a sustainable rate. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

2. International

Toolserver

Have we discussed with WMDE and any other parties what is happening with the toolserver this year and next - is there a plan for its development? The Land (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to have that discussion at some point. It may be worth investing this money into supporting community tools in a different way from the toolserver. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Europeana

If this project runs throughout the year (as would be expected based on the nominal plan), then the full £80k yearly contribution needs to be included here. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a clear view on this? Fae?Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Staff

Separate section?

I don't think staff should be a separate section. I would pay for the fundraiser out of the fundraising budget, the education person out of the education budget, etc.. The staff costs of an activity are no different to any other costs, they are still money being spent to achieve something, so why should they be budgeted differently? Some staff may need to be split between multiple budgets, with an estimate of how much of their time they will spend on each. The office rent can also be shared across the projects in proportion to staff time - the cost of the bit of office that someone is sitting in while they work on a particular project is as much a cost of that project as anything else is.

One of the things a non-profit is judged on is how much of its money goes on its programmes. Therefore, we should make sure that all programme spending is correctly allocated to programmes, otherwise we just make ourselves look bad. --Tango (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

One the things we need to develop is the type of grid SORP recommend, with types of expense (salary, travel) on one axis and purpose of expense (projects, governance, overheads) on the other, giving a far richer and clearer analysis, as well as making full cost absorbtion clearer. We are working on this, both conceptually and in terms of the accounting software. I would hope the final version is able to be presented in this way. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Such a grid is useful in an appendix. I don't think it works as the actual plan, though - it's too hard to get the right about of detail into little boxes and the plan ends up being written to fit the layout, rather than the other way around. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We could cut it up in any number of ways - please concentrate on what we want to do as a chapter. We are not doing full cost recovery accounting or allocating staff time to individual projects because we would spend, I would say WASTE, time om internal managing 'So far this morning I have spent twenty minutes on Wales, Twenty minutes on governance, thirty minutes managing staff, three minutes making coffee etc..." I want to deliver a programme not be a slavish bureaucrat; In a small organisation like this there is a clear balance to get right.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How are you supposed to judge if a project is a success if you don't know what it cost? Filling out timesheets doesn't take long. I do it every day. If I've kept track during the day, it takes hardly any time at all. If I don't, then I have to spend about 10 minutes at the end of the day remembering what I did. I can recommend the software we use, Carpe Diem, which lets you set up a bunch of timers and you just click the relevant timer when you start a job, and then click a different timer when you move onto something else, and it keeps track of how long you are spending on what. It's very simple and quick to use.

Anyway, I wasn't about timesheets, I was just talking about how budgets are set up. The budget for a project should include all the costs of that project, including staff time. Exactly how we measure how we're doing against that budget is a separate issue. --Tango (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pay rises

A 2% cost of living increase sounds a bit low. Year-on-year RPI for May was 3.1% (although it is forecasted to drop a little). I don't know quite how cost of living in London relates to RPI, but it's probably slightly higher (I believe the housing market in London is more buoyant than the rest of the country). And, of course, staff should be getting additional pay rises to reflect them having a year's more experience and to reward a job well done (assuming they have done well!). There is always a desire to keep costs down, but staff isn't somewhere we should be cutting corners - we need to attract good people and we need to keep the good people we already have well motivated.

A problem with having a small number of staff and an open budgeting process, is that you end up discussing individuals' pay rises in public, which doesn't feel right... Perhaps that would be an advantage of my suggestion above - merge the staff budgets into the programme budgets and then there isn't a need to separate out individual salaries. (The total spend for each programme and the total spend on salaries should be published, but the splits could be kept confidential, probably with the exception of Jon's salary.) --Tango (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think all the staff realise that pay levels are public. They were in my last charity as well and I have always believed in this wherever I worked. Of course 3% would be nice...Jon Davies WMUK (talk)

I think staff pay should rise in proportion to the cost of living. I know next to nothing about economics, but if the cost of living is greater than the annual increase in salary, isn't that a pay cut in what they call "real terms"? While we need to exercise restraint, considering that we're a charity and we rely on voluntary donations, I don't think we need to be cutting salaries. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect us to decide on pay rises here - that's something that should be discussed in camera. Broadly, though, I'd agree with rises according to the real level of inflation as a minimum each year. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

New posts

Can we have a bit more rationale for the two proposed new posts - what would they deliver? The Land (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Both these posts come as a result of my observations on gaps in capacity over the last nine months. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Education and GLAM Partnership Co-ordinators

We know we have a long queue of institutions interested in working with us, indeed a longer queue than our existing volunteers (including trustees!) are able to deal with in a timely manner. So opportunities are being missed. Has the time come for us to explicitly staff these programmes - not necessarily full-time? The Land (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking the approach of a coordinator person, who works with organisations and volunteers to bring the two together, would be good. There's going to be a fair amount of cross-over there between them and the events organiser, though (complementary, I think). I'm not sure whether this should be a specific person, though, or be included in a more general role (or several-person team?) of 'community support'. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys for saving me work here! Exactly. My hie is that we create a cohort of trainers but we need someone who can bring them together with the institutions that approach us. I feel the institutions and in particular the volunteers deserve someone who will make sure all the arrangements work and build strategies with the community to develop our work. This role would offer this.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer support organiser

Salary + payroll costs

£30,000

A new post to work with the community to support volunteer activities. I think this is fundamental to many of our aims, editor development, diversity and community growth. We want someone who knows the community, has good diplomatic skills and huge enthusiasm. I think this would be a wonderful job.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Developer budget

The dev budget here seems to be a combination of both the staff and the general budget, which is different from elsewhere. The budget is also rather low - I could anticipate us effectively spending far more than the £10k put down here, particularly as we grow this part of our activities - a number like £30k would be more realistic. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then suggest away.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

4.1 General Outreach

Couple of comments...

• Wicipedia Cymraeg - do we have a proposal yet for what this £10k would be spent on? When can we get one?
• Extended reach - in principle, yes. However I am not sure that we will get community-driven proposals that will justify £30k.

Thanks, The Land (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wales - I really don't think there would be ay problems spending this given the level of activity already. I also would like it to act as a spur for engagement i.e. a great task for the local volunteers would be 'how do we spend it?'Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Extended reach. From my experience in the voluntary sector I think there must be a staff vs spending gearing. That is why I think we could benefit from an outreach/volunteer development post and hence a bigger budget. In practice the presence of someone coordinating this stream of funding would mean a budget that would get used. It would give the staff person scope to organise events and activities and support volunteer events and activities that grow out of their work. The target would be of course extending reach, developing editors and improving diversity. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

4.2 Cultural Sector (GLAM)

£50k for "outreach events" seems high. This kind of event is actually pretty cheap - any partner prepared to put their name to an event is also prepared to make space for us, and volunteers are free. What will the money be spent on? The Land (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Given how often we talk about 'the GLAM budget', it might be worth actually having a 'GLAM budget' rather than talking about 'outreach events' etc. I agree with Chris's concern above. Mike Peel (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For smaller events, the main expense from the WMUK end would seem likely to be travel expenses - a smallish outreach event with ten or fifteen attendees can easily burn through several hundred pounds, and a larger one such as the WWI event could potentially be more than a thousand. I don't know if this is currently accounted for under the outreach budget, but it seems logical it should be - "travel grants" isn't quite covering the same thing. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Travel Grants is to the big stuff, Wikimania etc. Travel expenses for generally UK events, meeting, training etc come from here and must be a priority. No point running things if nobody can afford to attend. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is how I guessed the division might work. As a wild estimate, if we run two training workshops a month with four trainers each, and two community events with twenty attendees each, and half our attendees have to take a moderate train journey at £25 to get there... that's £7,000 per year without any travel expenses for the trainees; if we cover their expenses as well, £10,000.

We've also talked about things like the need of a pool of laptops for training purposes - that sort of expense might well come from here. I am still not sure we're going to hit 50k any time soon unless we really ramp up the program, or else hire someone to work as a general outreach person (which might not be the worst idea, but that's a discussion for another day). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Two 20-person events a month sounds like a high-end estimate as well. Chris is right that we should be able to get free venues for most of our events, but we might end up paying for catering. That still won't get us up to £50k, though. Even if we reduce the 50k a bit, we should keep quite a large budget for this kind of thing - events are more likely to happen if there is a budget to support them (especially if there are staff organising them) and these kind of events can be very high impact. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Two 20s is more than we're currently running, but it's picked as a plausible goal - it's a level we could hit by late 2013 if we worked at it. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

5.2 Wikiconference 2013

Is the £40k for Wikimania intended to be for the bid, or for initial work on the actual conference if we win? Or a bit of both? The decision on the bids is currently scheduled to be made 3 months into our financial year, so both do need to be allowed for in this budget. I think the intention is to hold a major conference in 2014 whether we win or not, so we can just allocate some funds to organising that conference and not worry at this point whether it will be called Wikimania or not. I think there should be a separate budget for the bid, which probably shouldn't be as large as £40k (it's only 3 months work, after all). --Tango (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The 40K is specifically for the Wikimania bid. The 5K is for the annual conference. As yet there has been little discussion about this but we are testing the idea of offering financial support for the bid from the Chapter. This would obviously be a great sign of our intentions but more practically support those making the bid. What do people think? Should there be a London bid? Should we support it? Should we support it financially? Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a lengthy discussion with Seddon about a budget for the bid, and I completely agree with you. If we want to put together a professional bid, then we need to be willing to spend money on it. I don't think £40k is necessary, though, especially for just the last 3 months of the bidding process. What do you anticipate that much money being spent on?

The £5k is for the 2013 annual conference. I was talking about the preparation for the 2014 conference that will happen during the 2013 financial year. --Tango (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The point about it being only a quarter of the year building up to the bid is a valid one. In reality it is more likely to be six months based on 2011's process. If we did get the bid though I am sure the remaining funds would be vital to getting things started smoothly. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is involved in the Wikimania bid, I would say it is great to have the financial support, or at least offer of financial support, from the chapter. Obviously, we're far too early into the process to be refining costs down to the penny, and I believe we will certainly be seeking a significant amount of sponsorship. The point is that by setting aside £40k to support the Wikimania bid, as well as offering staff support, WMUK is sending a clear message to the powers that be that it does support the bid, and is willing to put its money where its mouth is. The lukewarm support from the chapter last year (which was understandable, given the sensitivities and given that the bid team was much more ad-hoc and not as well integrated into WMUK compared to the current bid) was cited as a factor in the decision to go with Hong Kong instead of London. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is general agreement on this there is no financial reason why we could not start funding for this in this year's budget out of reserves and move the money back into reserves in the next financial year.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to the agenda for the next planning meeting (here). The organising team can let us know what they actually need. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I could significantly up my time and resource commitment to this bid if there was financial support from the chapter. I second that it would improve the bid - lack of chapter support was stated to be the primary reason behind the failure of our 2013 bid. EdSaperia (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The question is, what funds and general support from the chapter does the bid need, and what would they then be spent on? A budget breakdown, and staff time requirements, would be incredibly useful here. This was the problem last year, where the bid team wasn't asking the chapter for anything until the last minute. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not WMUK member, but I read the activity plan, and I couldn't avoid respond... 40,000 only for support the bid offer?! it's about 62,000$, almost quarter of the total cost of Wikimania. As one who been involved in a bid, and organizing Wikimania, I feel like it too, really too much. I'm not even talking about the power game, the rest of the small Chapters possibly can forget even from participating in next year bid, if WMUK pouring money like that, on a process that until now no one of the chapters over the last 7 years paid such amount of money just for the bid. This amount can do so much. If Britain needs so much money only to bid, I feel like maybe even if the bid would be great, we may not need to host Wikimania there. Until other will be decided, Wikimania is volunteers lead event, and not money lead event. Itzik, WMIL, 17:00, 18, July 2012.

So, $248k (4x62k) is definitely not the total cost of Wikimania - I note that the WMF spent $225k on sending just their own staff to this year's conference (and I'm confident that rest of the conference surely cost far more than $25k - particularly since WMUK provided around $10k of sponsorship)! I'd estimate that the total cost of Wikimania is closer to, or exceeds, $0.5 million. However, I agree that £40k/$62k for the bid alone is rather excessive. I trust that the UK bid committee will require somewhat less than this in order to submit their bid. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant the local cost of Wikimania. To the Haifa team it cost about 350,000$. ~~Itzik Edri, WMIL

The WMF doesn't usually consider the cost of sending its staff to Wikimania as part of the Wikimania budget, and I'm inclined to agree with them. Also, the UK bid committee's proposed bid budget is actually £62.5k (linked to from Wikimania 2014/Meeting 4). I went to their last meeting to try and convince them to be more realistic, but they weren't receptive... --Tango (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the worked out budget most of the budget would go into paying the committee members for 1 or 2 days per week. If you add them up, that would come up to 11 days per week... It is unclear to me though what time this budget spans. Lodewijk (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

6. Administrative costs

Office rent

These costs are based on room for up to eight staff

Since we already have more than 4 staffs with prospals for more, either that sentence or the estimate need to corrected? KTC (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice spot - eight staff/volunteers/visitors Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A per-desk cost here would be very useful. Given that there are 8 positions specified in the plan at the moment, and we keep a few extra desks for volunteers (and then there's the possibly of interns/work experience people/etc), we may want more like 10 desks... Mike Peel (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Once we hit nine desks, it gets difficult to expand in our current set-up. Essentially, we'd need to expand from eight desks, to half a floor, or a full floor. Expanding on a per-desk basis past eight or so is tricky! Richard Symonds (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we probably need to be talking about half a floor during this budget period, then.... Mike Peel (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How large is a floor? Is having two separate small pods an option? It would be inconvenient, but it could be made to work. Daria was saying she wanted to further away from you, anyway. ;) --Tango (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)