The communications failure and lack of any public consultation before throwing away the community driven bidding process, was a very good moment to appoint a new Chair of the Wikimania Committee. The suggestion at the time was ignored.[1] How can the community force real changes, if the Committee is in apparent PR lock-down? From my understanding of the history of this committee, it is long overdue to appoint a Chair who is not reliant on keeping the WMF executive happy for their salary.
By the way, 220 Wikimedians took part in the vote that asked for a WMF trustee to be removed (admittedly, a vote that did not result in the WMF board changing its mind in any way about their absolute confidence in their appointment). We probably should expect that level of participation before announcing that is a significant consensus to make major changes to something as fundamental to the global community of Wikimedians as Wikimania.
P.S. The Wikimania Committee appears to have failed to publish minutes or draft notes of its deliberations since last summer, unless they have published them somewhere other than Meta.[2] When the Wikimania Committee looks more secretive than the WMF board of trustees, the community should be questioning their commitment to openness and transparency.
Links: 1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079274.html - "...starting a public process to ensure some new faces in the next few months, including a change of the Chairman. This would show the Committee recognizes this was a real serious failure which should see proportionate changes of roles on the Committee. If everything stays exactly the same for the next six months, then this would show the Committee is more interested in protecting itself, than ensuring that the unpaid volunteer and community consensus is central to the way this process *should* be seen to work, and in line with the original mandate for the Committee itself." 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee
Fae
On 9 February 2016 at 17:04, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who
took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back
with some changes to our processes.
Ellie started the discussion just 18 hours ago, and now your closing it yet it hasnt even had time for the earth to make one complete rotation, if you seriously want opinions at least give it one 24 hour cycle better 7-14 of them as ideas and thoughts take time to be developed...
All you achieved is proving that Wikimania Committee isnt interested in the community
On 10 February 2016 at 00:19, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 14:54 Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to
better
serve the movement going forward. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/...
Thanks to all who participated!
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back with some changes to our processes.
Yours,
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra