Following Andrew's comments, here's what I know --
1 - User Digest is just one session of about 30 minutes. Liaisons pick the
speakers to that. It's supposed to give a review of the thematic subject -
GLAM, EDU, etc.
2 - I'm posting here what I've sent to the Cultural Partners Mailing List -
*"*I've just updated the GLAM part on the program liaison page on Meta
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Program/Liaisons#GLAM>,
putting there everything from our joint google doc.
Now that the "critical issues" submission part is over, *it's high time to
submit your suggestions *to all the other aspects of our GLAM track, if you
haven't done so thus far. This includes suggestions for:
** Discussions*
** Workshops / Training*
** Posters*
** Lightning talks*
* *Anything else we might have forgotten*
Some of you have already contacted me privately about *discussions *and
*workshops,* so please feel free to update the relevant part on meta.
Try to keep it in the same format as suggested below, so it's easier to
follow -
* Title:
* Purpose:
* Target audience:
* Length:
* Max number of people (only if there is a limitation on your part):
* Facilitator(s):
* any other detail that will help others get a sense of the workshop and
what you want to achieve.
Please see an example I posted on behalf of Barbara Fischer -- building the
GLAM KIT library
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Program/Liaisons#Building_the_GLAM_KIT_library>
.* "*
In other words*, use the liaison page for now,* till the organizing team
has the separate pages ready.
- Follow the format suggest, so it's cohesive and easier to follow.
- Show your support to proposals, the wiki-way. The organizing team will
take that into consideration.
- When the organizing team opens submissions for the remaining parts --
submit!
Hope that helps,
Shani.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:
On 2016-02-04 3:22 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Hope Montreal manages something a bit better,
I don't know about "better", nor do I think it quite fair to slam the 2016
team either for what was clearly intended to be an attempt to improve the
process - even if some of the results appear suboptimal in retrospect.
FWIW, the Montreal team is keeping a close eye on the experiments being
done by the Italian team - no doubt there will be a valuable set of lessons
learned and we may be able to translate some of the things that worked well
into improvements to future Wikimanias.
As for the programme selection, we are gunning for a process that splits
about 30% invited, 40% community CFP, and 30% unconference-style, with the
selection process for the CFP being very close to past years (i.e.: public
review on-wiki). We also don't intend to make a distinction between
submissions by Foundation staff and the other community members, though we
expect that many presentations that would have been proposals by staff will
end up being invited directly by the programming committee leaving more
"slots" available to the CFP.
-- Marc
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l