A couple of fast thoughts: * I think it's debatable whether it's board-level or not.  It's board-level in the sense that it's "not staff-level" -- meaning it's mainly a community responsibility rather than a staff responsibility.  But to the extent that part of the role of the committee would be to ask the staff for help if Wikimania is floundering, that is probably not a board-level issue. For example, I can't imagine the board making a resolution asking me to intervene to offer more support if one year Wikimania were floundering.   That just doesn't feel like a governance issue. * Which leads me to point two, which is that from my perspective, I actually do want someone to flag to me if Wikimania is floundering, and to ask me officially to have the staff get involved.  Wikimania in Gdansk this year has had some problems, and I have felt awkward about how to best resolve them, given that (again) it's a community-led event, not a staff-led event.  But I don't think the board should need to involve itself in that, because again, I think it's not a governance issue. * Those aren't super-significant issues from my perspective though. Upshot from my perspective: I think that there's lots of good energy and thinking happening on this, and it feels like people are pretty aligned in feeling we want some form of oversight/guidance/something, in place supporting excellent Wikimanias every year.  Which is great.  Does someone want to organize a meeting about this for Gdansk?  I'm hoping Phoebe will attend, and Casey and SJ, and whoever else is interested.  I will be happy to put it in my schedule, and I think James would probably be interested too. (James Owen, not Forrester. I actually don't know if James Forrester is coming this year, although now that I think of it, maybe he is one of the train-travelling people?) Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:28:37 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Wikimania general list \(open subscription\)<wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Floating a notion: permanent Wikimania committee? On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Hello Sue and all, Good timing -- we just had a long conversation about this in the #wikimedia open meeting this afternoon. There were quite a few participants, including several past wikimania organizers. Quick summary of that discussion: * there is definite interest in an ongoing Wikimania (oversight, governance, guidance) (body, committee, group) (we talked for quite a while about those various names and their different connotations) * there are a few potential roles that people see for such a group: ** 1) collecting and writing better documentation about the conference, including best practices for organization and what has happened in the past ** 2) answering questions from Wikimania organizers about past practices, helping coordinate who to ask about various aspects ** 3) providing oversight to the overall wikimania process -- for instance making sure that a bid jury is called and the bids are submitted in time (like elections) ** 4) providing oversight/governance as the conference progresses -- for instance, getting regular reports about the conference. Along with this, the org team would have someone to report to if, say, a venue burns down or some other catastrophe happens. These ideas are roughly in order of how much controversy they generated among discussion participants. I think we all pretty much agreed that we need better conference documentation, and a loose community group of past organizers and interested participants can provide such documentation. Here's a start: Conference handbook: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Handbook -- let's write the big book of Wikimania Conference checklist: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/checklist -- make sure you have everything you need Conference community: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/community -- a start at a community group, w/ interested participants. We discussed however that for any oversight/governance functions we might need a more formalized structure and perhaps a formal mandate. This seemed like a Board-level issue to several people (including me). We also discussed that there's not a good process for proposing and forming community committees that would interact with the Foundation on various issues. What do you all think? best, Phoebe