Yes. Let me be extremely clear: this committee would not organize Wikimania. Full stop. That is, and has always been, the job of the local team that gets appointed to run the bid.

What Harel is saying that there isn't a formal point of contact within the WMF, which is true. Yes,  every person who has been named in this thread so far has worked on Wikimania in the past, and/or has a specific area of expertise. What a *committee* would be good for is making sure that all of these connections are made. For instance, Kul works on sponsorships. He is one direct point of contact within WMF for Wikimania-related funding issues. But he doesn't -- shouldn't -- answer all of your questions about Wikimania. Conversely, Delphine, me, Samuel, and a bunch of other people know the history of Wikimania and roughly what is going on -- but I don't think any of us want to keep volunteering to be on the organization committee year after year. And if Delphine or I are unavailable for some reason, that shouldn't mean the local team can't get their questions answered. Having a group rather than just one or two people makes it more failsafe.

So yes, keeping a general eye on progress is what I would go for here. The "actions" of the committee would only consist in that -- getting reports, making sure questions are answered. All other organizational actions -- the ones that Moushira are fondly remembering ;) -- would be done by the local team, as ever.

-- phoebe



On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
I'm not sure an acting committee would be what we need here. The local team should, imho, always strive to take that task on itself. The committee we're talking about here however, can keep an eye on progress, both before and after the bidding - and flag for help in case things are not going as scheduled. That way we should be able to catch problems before they become problematic. In Alexandria Delphine also took on that role yes, but that was /before/ she got involved hands-on. She was there both the flagging person and the "solution" - this does not necessarily have to be the case.

If we are going to set up such a committee, I would recommand a very small one, of three people roughly. For specific tasks (program, jury, organization) they can approve committees or whatever, but they should not be doing it themselves. Just keeping an eye on progress. I'm not sure either they necessarily need decision power, although it speaks for itself everybody should take their input damn seriously.

I would vouch for three types of people on such a committee:
1) staff liaison (ie, James)
2) someone who has experience with the broad organizing, ie a former wikimania organizer (someone like phoebe, delphine, patricio etc)
3) someone familiar with program issues (former program committee lead?), ie to overview and advise the program committee

I hope these people are explicitely /not/ involved in the organization itself, to keep them "independent", and they should have access to teamwiki's etc. even if in another language. Also, we should try to get at least two continents on the committee. The committee would have a contact person at staff, the organizing teams and maybe even (if budget gets involved) at board level.

best,

Lodewijk

2010/6/18 Harel Cain <harel.cain@gmail.com>

I do know Delphine personally (well, at least to some extent) and have been in touch with her on such matters.
She's definitely another option for assuming the role of formal point of contact for local Wikimania teams. We just need someone (Sue?) to act and appoint someone to this role.

Moushira, I would be very happy for us to learn from the experience of the Alexandria 2008 team. Unfortunately I couldn't make it there. On a personal level, if we see real cooperation between the Egyptian and Israeli teams - that would be a true achievement. We'll be very happy for as many of you as possible to come to Haifa.


Harel



On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Moushira Elamrawy <moushirah@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Harel,


Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use.

Exactly. Organizing Wikimania needs action. Will the committee act? ...

Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness to do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.

 That's what I meant when I brought up the name of Délphine and her role. An experienced and executive person is required.  I am not sure if you personally know her. I was among the team of Wikimania2008, and definitly someone of that role was required. Enthusiasm and some knowledge are wonderful, but they don't get things done. The amount of details related to organizing such a conference need experience and knowledge.

Devil is in the details, so it takes another devil to watch out for them.

I am unfortunately not going to make it to Poland in 2010, but I would be more than happy to contribute in discussion/meetings from distant.

Good luck in 2011 Harel
M


On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy <moushirah@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee acting? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee.
You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.

Thanks
M

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) <jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea

as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation
though committee is not necessary
but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism

anyway if really such committee will start
I would like to be part of it

Jerry~雨雨
Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD
User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK
ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF
Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com
MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com
also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places

Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
Laudamus quae laudentur
Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis
Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus



On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester <james@jdforrester.org> wrote:
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>>> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) --
>>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect
>>> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for
>>> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create
>>> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really
>>> just a Foundation issue.
>>>
>> I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who
>> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could
>> authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in,
>> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not
>> really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than
>> strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and
>> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing
>> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably
>> people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like
>> this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we
>> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced
>> Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to
>> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction
>> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still
>> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity,
>> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on
>> structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>
> Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the
> Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for
> direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where
> would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any
> particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and
> simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently
> lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where
> the interested community grants it authority by building the
> structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
>
> I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am
> wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for
> forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course
> we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but
> for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works
> on, it seems tricky.
>
> Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential
> glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise
> of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How
> about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other
> interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's
> panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
>
> -- phoebe
>
> p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be
> unstoppable. Powered by James^2.

Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to
refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)

James. No, the other one.
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l