On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Dalton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com">thomas.dalton@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 21 June 2010 19:54, phoebe ayers <<a href="mailto:phoebe.wiki@gmail.com">phoebe.wiki@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> There have been post-mortems every year (with varying degrees of<br>
> formality and levels of participation); these have resulted in a<br>
> handful of private reports to the Foundation & within the org team<br>
> (and many more sets of informal notes). Basically, every year the<br>
> organizers have sat down, sometimes with other people and sometimes<br>
> not, and talked about the conference afterwards; ideally this gets<br>
> written up. I personally have four sets of these notes tucked away in<br>
> various notebooks, documents, etc....<br>
><br>
> What there has never been is a publicly available report, or summation<br>
> of these meetings, that anyone ever got around to posting for the rest<br>
> of the world to see -- I think that's the part where exhaustion comes<br>
> into play :)<br>
<br>
</div>The idea of a post-mortem is to learn for the future, so it isn't<br>
really worth having one if you don't publish the results for future<br>
teams can learn from them. </blockquote><div><br>It's actually also useful for all the people involved to have a final discussion about what has happened; and the results of these conversations have gotten translated in various ways: to the bid criteria, to the documentation that is being built on meta, to the structures that the WMF has set up for supporting Wikimania, etc. But I am not disagreeing with you -- at all! -- that a formal public post-mortem report after the conference would be very helpful. I'm just explaining what has actually happened in practice :) <br>
<br>-- phoebe <br></div></div><br>