Hi all,
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your own.
Meanwhile, the charter[2] has seen more edits, but still has some way to go. It's probably worth checking every day or two just to see what's changed, and edit if you feel so compelled.
Cheers,
Austin
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_... [1] http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_meeting [2] http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Hi all,
On 14 March 2011 13:38, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your own.
thinking about topics for working groups I realized that the schedule on Saturday (after the workiing groups) privides a session "Accountability and Legitimacy". The session, which was suggested by Erik, takes place parallel to the GLAM-session and I believe both will be attractive for chapters. GLAM becaus it is GLAM and "Erik's session" because it picks up daily problems of chapters. Many mails on the chapters' or internal mailing list and talks with chapter people show that there are lots of questions about that. And compared to movement roles issues this might be a topic which is very concrete to many chapters. And this might be important because it makes this session much more sexy than any of our working groups.
Accountability and legitimacy is an issue for movement roles as well, maybe more abstract and more global. It would be fatal to step into some kind of competition or even rivalry to this session. I would love to see us getting the best out of both, but I doubt that movement roles really rock the chapters. And therefore it sounds easy to combine both approaches but I am pretty sure it isn't. Asking myself how to realize it I have these ideas:
* ask Erik about the session's composition and estimated outcome * find out overlappings and differences * try to build up working groups considering this ** maybe a chapter related working group as preparation/supplement for the session ** maybe a topic related working group to clarify that this is not ony a chapters' issue ** maybe something completely different
* create the session's composition together with Erik and one of us and organize it with both "speakers" and a facilitator
* attend the session and participate in the discussions; then extract the outcomes into the charter
What do you think? Is this worth thinking about at all? Is there any other way to push the movement roles theme? Maybe I am the only one facing <s>a problem</ s> something to think about in the schedule. So every comment is appreciated, even if you think there is no coherence.
Regards, Alice.
Hi,
FIrst of all,
please - stop calling it "Erik's session" :) Sessions don't belong to people. Erik merely suggested it, he doesn't own the topic or anything, nor does he (imho) have a veto over it. (not because he's Erik, but that is a principle :P )
Last friday we also discussed it, and asked Bence to try and fit the session in a wider context - I believe he would be trying to do that. But thanks for suggesting, it means that I clearly am not the only one to think of it :) I don't see problems with the two sessions being at the same moment btw. They involve different kind of people - GLAM is more practical, this is more discussion-like.
Lodewijk
2011/3/16 Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.com
Hi all,
On 14 March 2011 13:38, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your own.
thinking about topics for working groups I realized that the schedule on Saturday (after the workiing groups) privides a session "Accountability and Legitimacy". The session, which was suggested by Erik, takes place parallel to the GLAM-session and I believe both will be attractive for chapters. GLAM becaus it is GLAM and "Erik's session" because it picks up daily problems of chapters. Many mails on the chapters' or internal mailing list and talks with chapter people show that there are lots of questions about that. And compared to movement roles issues this might be a topic which is very concrete to many chapters. And this might be important because it makes this session much more sexy than any of our working groups.
Accountability and legitimacy is an issue for movement roles as well, maybe more abstract and more global. It would be fatal to step into some kind of competition or even rivalry to this session. I would love to see us getting the best out of both, but I doubt that movement roles really rock the chapters. And therefore it sounds easy to combine both approaches but I am pretty sure it isn't. Asking myself how to realize it I have these ideas:
- ask Erik about the session's composition and estimated outcome
- find out overlappings and differences
- try to build up working groups considering this
** maybe a chapter related working group as preparation/supplement for the session ** maybe a topic related working group to clarify that this is not ony a chapters' issue ** maybe something completely different
- create the session's composition together with Erik and one of us
and organize it with both "speakers" and a facilitator
- attend the session and participate in the discussions; then extract
the outcomes into the charter
What do you think? Is this worth thinking about at all? Is there any other way to push the movement roles theme? Maybe I am the only one facing <s>a problem</ s> something to think about in the schedule. So every comment is appreciated, even if you think there is no coherence.
Regards, Alice.
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi Lodewijk,
On 16 March 2011 22:41, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi, FIrst of all, please - stop calling it "Erik's session" :) Sessions don't belong to people. Erik merely suggested it, he doesn't own the topic or anything, nor does he (imho) have a veto over it. (not because he's Erik, but that is a principle :P )
that was the reason for putting it into quotes. But: It is Erik who is preparig this session and who will make the introduction and setting up the things to discuss, isn't it? There will be nobody else jumping into this (speaking of experience).
Last friday we also discussed it, and asked Bence to try and fit the session in a wider context - I believe he would be trying to do that. But thanks for suggesting, it means that I clearly am not the only one to think of it :)
OK, I have to read the log ;)
I don't see problems with the two sessions being at the same moment btw. They involve different kind of people - GLAM is more practical, this is more discussion-like.
Indeed, but both may get high attraction (and I fear contrary to movemenet roles).
Thanks for your thoughts, Alice.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Lodewijk,
On 16 March 2011 22:41, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi, FIrst of all, please - stop calling it "Erik's session" :) Sessions don't belong to people. Erik merely suggested it, he doesn't own the topic or anything, nor does he (imho) have a veto over it. (not because he's Erik, but that is a principle :P )
that was the reason for putting it into quotes. But: It is Erik who is preparig this session and who will make the introduction and setting up the things to discuss, isn't it? There will be nobody else jumping into this (speaking of experience).
Last friday we also discussed it, and asked Bence to try and fit the session in a wider context - I believe he would be trying to do that. But thanks for suggesting, it means that I clearly am not the only one to think of it :)
OK, I have to read the log ;)
I don't see problems with the two sessions being at the same moment btw. They involve different kind of people - GLAM is more practical, this is more discussion-like.
Indeed, but both may get high attraction (and I fear contrary to movemenet roles).
I wouldn't be too worried about this. Historically, chapters have been sending two representatives to the chapters meeting exactly for that reason, ie. being able to break into two different sessions where the need arises.
This said, I agree with you very much that this session needs to involve MR. Would it be possible, since we do have a topic "Accountability and legitimacy", to simply say that we'd also like to present the outcomes of our thoughts on the matter? I think it would make perfect sense as something we add to Erik's introduction. If nothing else, it might give some direction as to what has already been happening on this front.
Cheers,
Delphine
Dear Alice,
Sorry to top post, but need a quick clarification - Are you suggesting that in addition to the MR slot which is on day one, that there be an MR presentation (for lack of a better word) on the last day's - 27 March Accountability and Legitimacy session?
If so, I agree that it would be a good idea, since on day 1 - 25 March, the MR slot is at the same time as four other sessions (Wiki loves monuments, Chapter revitalization, Professionalization, Outreach to educational instns [1]), so this would help us reach more people.
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session, so it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.
Cheers Bishakha
[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2011/Schedule
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.comwrote:
Hi all,
On 14 March 2011 13:38, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your own.
thinking about topics for working groups I realized that the schedule on Saturday (after the workiing groups) privides a session "Accountability and Legitimacy". The session, which was suggested by Erik, takes place parallel to the GLAM-session and I believe both will be attractive for chapters. GLAM becaus it is GLAM and "Erik's session" because it picks up daily problems of chapters. Many mails on the chapters' or internal mailing list and talks with chapter people show that there are lots of questions about that. And compared to movement roles issues this might be a topic which is very concrete to many chapters. And this might be important because it makes this session much more sexy than any of our working groups.
Accountability and legitimacy is an issue for movement roles as well, maybe more abstract and more global. It would be fatal to step into some kind of competition or even rivalry to this session. I would love to see us getting the best out of both, but I doubt that movement roles really rock the chapters. And therefore it sounds easy to combine both approaches but I am pretty sure it isn't. Asking myself how to realize it I have these ideas:
- ask Erik about the session's composition and estimated outcome
- find out overlappings and differences
- try to build up working groups considering this
** maybe a chapter related working group as preparation/supplement for the session ** maybe a topic related working group to clarify that this is not ony a chapters' issue ** maybe something completely different
- create the session's composition together with Erik and one of us
and organize it with both "speakers" and a facilitator
- attend the session and participate in the discussions; then extract
the outcomes into the charter
What do you think? Is this worth thinking about at all? Is there any other way to push the movement roles theme? Maybe I am the only one facing <s>a problem</ s> something to think about in the schedule. So every comment is appreciated, even if you think there is no coherence.
Regards, Alice.
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi,
I think there is a little confusion going on :)
The slot on day 1 is plenery. Everybody will be there. However, it is only 45 minutes, and that will be merely enough time to make people understand what MR is all about.
Then there will be workshops - if we prepare well, we might be able to hijack some of them - on day 2.
Finally, there is the Accountability slot, which is in a track, where the group is split in two, which is basically part of the Movement Roles discussion, but somehow Erik seemed to have a preference not to have it as part of that process - and several people suggested that it should be.
Since ABBA was going to write a post about accountability, it would make sense to let that group also make a bit of preperation - but I am personally against any presentation longer than 3 minutes.
Lodewijk
2011/3/17 Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
Dear Alice,
Sorry to top post, but need a quick clarification - Are you suggesting that in addition to the MR slot which is on day one, that there be an MR presentation (for lack of a better word) on the last day's - 27 March Accountability and Legitimacy session?
If so, I agree that it would be a good idea, since on day 1 - 25 March, the MR slot is at the same time as four other sessions (Wiki loves monuments, Chapter revitalization, Professionalization, Outreach to educational instns [1]), so this would help us reach more people.
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session, so it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.
Cheers Bishakha
[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2011/Schedule
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.comwrote:
Hi all,
On 14 March 2011 13:38, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your own.
thinking about topics for working groups I realized that the schedule on Saturday (after the workiing groups) privides a session "Accountability and Legitimacy". The session, which was suggested by Erik, takes place parallel to the GLAM-session and I believe both will be attractive for chapters. GLAM becaus it is GLAM and "Erik's session" because it picks up daily problems of chapters. Many mails on the chapters' or internal mailing list and talks with chapter people show that there are lots of questions about that. And compared to movement roles issues this might be a topic which is very concrete to many chapters. And this might be important because it makes this session much more sexy than any of our working groups.
Accountability and legitimacy is an issue for movement roles as well, maybe more abstract and more global. It would be fatal to step into some kind of competition or even rivalry to this session. I would love to see us getting the best out of both, but I doubt that movement roles really rock the chapters. And therefore it sounds easy to combine both approaches but I am pretty sure it isn't. Asking myself how to realize it I have these ideas:
- ask Erik about the session's composition and estimated outcome
- find out overlappings and differences
- try to build up working groups considering this
** maybe a chapter related working group as preparation/supplement for the session ** maybe a topic related working group to clarify that this is not ony a chapters' issue ** maybe something completely different
- create the session's composition together with Erik and one of us
and organize it with both "speakers" and a facilitator
- attend the session and participate in the discussions; then extract
the outcomes into the charter
What do you think? Is this worth thinking about at all? Is there any other way to push the movement roles theme? Maybe I am the only one facing <s>a problem</ s> something to think about in the schedule. So every comment is appreciated, even if you think there is no coherence.
Regards, Alice.
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi, I think there is a little confusion going on :)
Bishakha, you're reading horizontally, when this should be read vertically (it's a per day vertical schedule) ;)
Delphine
Got it now! :)
2011/3/17 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi, I think there is a little confusion going on :)
Bishakha, you're reading horizontally, when this should be read vertically (it's a per day vertical schedule) ;)
Delphine
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
Hi Bishakha,
On 17 March 2011 06:17, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to top post, but need a quick clarification - Are you suggesting that in addition to the MR slot which is on day one, that there be an MR presentation (for lack of a better word) on the last day's - 27 March Accountability and Legitimacy session?
Yes, something like that. Now there is no close up for MR, an if we are interested in peoples input and interest, that could help. We have the first MR session on friday (it is a single session for the whole audience, the other sessions you mentioned are on saturday and sunday and I made the same mistake first), then there are working groups. And that's it. Nothing to summarize, to think about next steps, to make people feel to be part of it. And after all MR seems to be so close to the "Accountability and Legitimacy"-session.
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session, so it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.
Then the first MR-session will be without Arne and you?
*** I started to write this mail 2 hours ago, was interrupted and just stop now after Delphine and Lodewijk answered ;)
Regards, Alice.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Bishakha,
On 17 March 2011 06:17, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to top post, but need a quick clarification - Are you suggesting that in addition to the MR slot which is on day one, that there be an MR presentation (for lack of a better word) on the last day's - 27 March Accountability and Legitimacy session?
Yes, something like that. Now there is no close up for MR, an if we are interested in peoples input and interest, that could help. We have the first MR session on friday (it is a single session for the whole audience, the other sessions you mentioned are on saturday and sunday and I made the same mistake first), then there are working groups. And that's it. Nothing to summarize, to think about next steps, to make people feel to be part of it. And after all MR seems to be so close to the "Accountability and Legitimacy"-session.
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session, so it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.
Then the first MR-session will be without Arne and you?
Yes, I was wondering this as well. This makes no sense whatsoever, if we don't have board members for the MR session :/
Delphine
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.comwrote:
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session,
so
it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.
Then the first MR-session will be without Arne and you?
I hope not, I've asked Ting to consider the timing of the MR session in
building the agenda of the Board Meeting and allow at least Arne, Bishakha and SJ to attend the session.
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.comwrote:
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session,
so
it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.
Then the first MR-session will be without Arne and you?
I hope not, I've asked Ting to consider the timing of the MR session in
building the agenda of the Board Meeting and allow at least Arne, Bishakha and SJ to attend the session.
Sorry for causing unnecessary confusion on multiple fronts! Just checked the board agenda and we are all attending the MR plenary, so that has been built in.
Cheers Bishakha
movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org