Just a brief reminder to Vancouver-area Wikimedians, James Heilman will be
attending an informal meeting at Benny's Bagels in Kitsilano this evening.
- Date : Friday April 29th, 2011
- Hour : 7 pm PDT
- Location : Benny's Bagels, 2505 W. Broadway, Vancouver, BC V6K 2E9
Hope to see people there!
Since this list will no longer be used for Wiki Canada planning, I figure there's no harm in using it for organising community stuff.
I'll be hosting a small group get together at my place in Vancouver April 16th, with the grandiose title "Granville Island microbrews; or Using Wikimedia as an excuse to drink beer." 5 minute talk followed by an hour or so of Original Research and talking.
Contact me off-list or at http://wikimedians.ca/wiki/User_talk:Amgine for more info/invite.
Amgine
Je suis heureux de voir les réponses en français. La liste n'est pas
l'anglais seulement et je ne me souviens pas avoir vu nulle part qu'il était
censé être.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:38:38 +0000
"P Lahiry" <plahiry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's an echo chamber because you keep mailing two lists (both of which you're a subscriber of) at a time?
I was referring to the sense of [[Echo chamber (media)]]; discussion/ideas being reinforced by only a very small number of individuals talking amongst themselves, rather than receiving input from a wider group of peers. Thus my cross-posting to the list with the larger audience of interested readers is an attempt to mitigate the echo chamber.
Amgine
Mr Walker: No one save yourself has raised the need to have a voice meeting. There is no legal requirement or even advisement to do so, and attempting to raise that as an issue is a form of FUD attack.
As someone who has, recently, been on the receiving end of your voice conversations where you attempt to browbeat your audience into accepting your point of view, and being forced to inform you the call had crossed the line from discussion to harassment, I fully understand and agree with some of Ray's argument. If you have forgotten my raising this specific issue with you previously, consider it raised here, specifically and publicly since you failed to accept and address it privately as you said you would do.
As regards in camera sessions, as I have already informed you it is extremely easy to exclude any but specific individuals in IRC. Clearly IRC is not the only free solution, but equally clearly it meets every requirement you have raised except voice. Other free messaging networks offer voice as well, which for small director meetings would avoid the scaling issue for AGMs.
Finally, this list is an echo chamber. You're talking and arguing about irrelevant details and not doing what a chapter is intended to do.
Amgine
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:35:01 -0400
Alan Walker <awalker(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
> I agree that we should try to meet in person at least once per year. Where
> we differ is when it comes to making binding decisions without a real-time
> audio discussion. If a director is not comfortable in a meeting, they need
> to speak up and ask questions. If the issue is too big to be addressed at
> the moment it can be deferred to a future meeting. It is the responsibility
> of the meeting chair to be aware of these types of issues. However, to
> date, I have not heard anyone raise this issue and fear we may be digressing
> to a less efficient form of debate for the sake of a hypothetical problem.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Ray Saintonge <rsaintonge(a)wikimedia.ca>wrote:
>
> > Of course all directors should participate in developing the agenda.
> > That should be the case whatever the format or medium is used for
> > meeting. It's all very nice to be able to meet in person every month
> > or two, but meeting on line by conference call or chat room is not the
> > same as meeting in person. We should try to meet at least once a year
> > in person at an agreed place.
> >
> > If on line meetings were the way to go I don't think that costs or
> > technical issues are where the difficulties would be.
> >
> > I don't share your view about dynamic discussion. I can understand
> > that for some people it creates circumstances where they can more
> > easily drive a point home to their own satisfaction, but the cost of
> > that is resentment when others feel pressured. It would be worse, not
> > better, for those with English as a second language when they can't
> > properly grasp what is being said.
> >
> > The ability of a secretary to keep track of what is going on in our
> > decision making procedures is not lessened by having decisions on
> > wiki. Minutes do provide a concise record, but approving the minutes
> > at a subsequent meeting is not for the purpose of changing anything or
> > rehashing past issues; it's to insure that the record is accurate ...
> > and nothing more.
> >
> > A chair moderates a meeting because there is a meeting; it is not the
> > reason for choosing the form of meeting.
> >
> > In camera can be accommodated in a more private manner. More important
> > here is to predetermine what kind of issues will be considered in
> > camera. This will go a long way to reassuring the general membership
> > that we are not running a cabal. I don't see at all why the approval
> > of legal counsel is relevant to having meetings in camera.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > On 4/3/11, Alan Walker <awalker(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
> > > In my experience, meeting in person for the board works best. On the
> > > CityHousing Hamilton board, we meet 6 to 12 times per year in person.
> > > However, this group has to grapple with a geographically dispersed
> > > membership, which necessitates some kind of online tool. I agree with
> > > Ray's point of view that meeting agendas and proposals should be
> > > presented on the Internet before a meeting wherever possible as it
> > > allows the membership time to comment on ideas. In fact, I think it
> > > would be excellent if we had an online agenda review process where the
> > > directors participated in writing the agenda for the upcoming meeting
> > > and reports where appropriate were attached.
> > >
> > > Whatever we choose, I believe the solutions needs the following
> > > features:
> > >
> > > 1) The ability to connect remotely by telephone and computer.
> > > Enables participation even if the participant is experiencing
> > > technical difficulties.
> > >
> > > 2) The ability to participate with little to no cost to the
> > > participant.
> > >
> > > 3) The ability for discussion to take place by voice.
> > > Improves communication and enables dynamic discussion. Also helpful
> > > for individuals conversing in a language that is not their primary
> > > language.
> > >
> > > 4) The ability to record to give the secretary a reference when
> > > drafting the meeting minutes.
> > > Minutes provide a concise record of the meeting to meet legal
> > > obligations. Further, the participants vote to accept the minutes at
> > > the subsequent meeting giving the opportunity to clarify an
> > > misunderstandings.
> > >
> > > 5) The ability for the chair or his delegate to moderate the meeting
> > > as well as identify which participant is speaking.
> > >
> > > 6) The ability to hold confidential discussion for issues that must
> > > be addressed in camera. This confidentiality should be validated by
> > > agreement with the provider and approved by legal counsel.
> > >
> > >
> >
--
Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
The channel is not very active. There are 3-4 regular lurkers, and occasional flurries of discussions with the Wikimedia-qc folks or chapcomm people, and the semi-regular people looking for Wikimedia Catalan and got lost.
Amgine
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:27:02 -0400
Alan Walker <awalker(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
> Sounds good Wayne. I will speak it over with the other directors and see if
> there is any interest. I don't believe this will serve as a good meeting
> platform for board meetings, but it may be a tool that we should support for
> member usage. How active is the channel?
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca> wrote:
>
> > I cannot give founder status to anyone, I don't have the privs to do that,
> > but I can give channel ops privileges and otherwise act on behalf of the
> > board of directors. On the other hand, I can almost certainly get whichever
> > victi... volunteer you have handy the founder flag, and then I can get it
> > removed from my account.
> >
> > If you want to compare it to Mediawiki, I have 'crat status in the channel,
> > and can make admins (chanops) but I cannot make other 'crats.
> >
> > Amgine
--
Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
I cannot give founder status to anyone, I don't have the privs to do that, but I can give channel ops privileges and otherwise act on behalf of the board of directors. On the other hand, I can almost certainly get whichever victi... volunteer you have handy the founder flag, and then I can get it removed from my account.
If you want to compare it to Mediawiki, I have 'crat status in the channel, and can make admins (chanops) but I cannot make other 'crats.
Amgine
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 13:50:04 -0400
Alan Walker <awalker(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
> Well that's good to learn Wayne. Are you willing to pass management of the
> channel over to the board of directors?
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca> wrote:
>
> > All freenode network channels which include 'wikimedia' in their name are
> > nominally under the Wikimedia Foundation's group contacts. In practice they
> > are 'owned' by volunteers who are given the founder flag. (The group
> > contacts only get involved when a founder disappears and the channel becomes
> > dysfunctional.)
> >
> > I was involuntarily given the founder flag for #Wikimedia-ca when I
> > mentioned there was no founder for the channel. (Lesson: in an all-volunteer
> > group, don't point out problems lest them become *your* problem.) As a
> > member of Wiki Canada, I guess that means control of the channel has already
> > been given to Wiki Canada.
> >
> > Amgine
--
Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 04:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Doc James <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> An issue I have with IRC is that I am unable to use it at work. The IT
> department has blocked access. Some of the conferencing options allow
> connecting via telephone to address the bandwidth problems. Some of
> them also offer one month free trials so we can see how it would work
> for us before we commit money.
>
> James
Regarding the limitation of IRC at work; if you can view web pages using javascript, there are IRC gateways which will let you use IRC as a web page. Here is the url for Wikizine.Org's gateway: http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi It does not yet allow access to irc://irc.freenode.net/Wikimedia-ca, but I can ask to have it added.
--
Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
All freenode network channels which include 'wikimedia' in their name are nominally under the Wikimedia Foundation's group contacts. In practice they are 'owned' by volunteers who are given the founder flag. (The group contacts only get involved when a founder disappears and the channel becomes dysfunctional.)
I was involuntarily given the founder flag for #Wikimedia-ca when I mentioned there was no founder for the channel. (Lesson: in an all-volunteer group, don't point out problems lest them become *your* problem.) As a member of Wiki Canada, I guess that means control of the channel has already been given to Wiki Canada.
Amgine
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 13:20:09 -0400
Alan Walker <awalker(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
> On that subject, who currently owns the Wikimedia-ca channel? Is it
> possible to have ownership transferred to the chapter?
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 04:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
> > Doc James <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > An issue I have with IRC is that I am unable to use it at work. The IT
> > > department has blocked access. Some of the conferencing options allow
> > > connecting via telephone to address the bandwidth problems. Some of
> > > them also offer one month free trials so we can see how it would work
> > > for us before we commit money.
> > >
> > > James
> >
> > Regarding the limitation of IRC at work; if you can view web pages using
> > javascript, there are IRC gateways which will let you use IRC as a web page.
> > Here is the url for Wikizine.Org's gateway:
> > http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi It does not yet
> > allow access to irc://irc.freenode.net/Wikimedia-ca, but I can ask to have
> > it added.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
> >
--
Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
Have you considered IRC? It is free, it is very familiar to most wikimedians, channels can be actively managed to allow only invited and digitally identified participants (including the possibility of wikimedia.ca cloaks given out only by Wiki Canada Inc), allows moderated or open discussion meeting formats, and is readily loggable (which means less work for a secretary.) Most users have an IRC client, or there are a range of web-based gateways which allows almost any user who has internet access to be involved. Of particular benefit is the ability to use URLs to link discussions to relevant internet resources.
As it is a purely text interface it does not allow as rich a communication stream, but at the exact same time this improve decision-making speed by reducing digression tendencies.
IRC is extremely scalable as it is a very low bandwidth protocol. With Skype and similar voice meeting software, unmoderated discussions will be punctuated with periods of dropped sound when multiple people try to speak at once - this is an artifact of the high bandwidth use and will unequally harm users who have lower bandwidth connections. IRC can be too fast when many people are typing rapidly; screens can scroll too rapidly to be fully read and understood.
Amgine
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 16:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Doc James <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey All
>
> Currently we have been using skype for voice meetings. It however is
> somewhat limited in it abilities to handle conferencing between many
> people. As the organization grows we may need to look at other
> options.
>
> WebEx was suggested here
> http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Wikimedia_Canada:Discussions_in_English#Online_mee…
> While it does have some cost we may be able to apply for funding to
> cover it from Wikimedia Inc. Alan Walker has been working on a
> possible grant application http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Budget/2011
>
> Are there any other suggestions on how best we can run meetings / AGMs
> so everyone can be easily involved?
>
> James Heilman
> (Doc James)
--
Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>