One of the things I like most of Wikimania is reading people's notes etc. about it, e.g. starting from * https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Attendees * https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimania_2016_presentations (make sure to add yours!). Having chaired the scholarship committee this year, I want to remind everyone that the scholars are working on the outcomes of their attendance, to be described or pointed to from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars#Reports_from_2... . Whether you attended Wikimania or not, consulting this material is useful; even more useful if you comment on the respective talk page. You could point out what you found most interesting, or give suggestions on how achievements could be further advanced (maybe with inspiration from other attendees, current or past), or what else you'd like to see. Such comments will be useful for the author of the report (and their community), for other wikimaniacs and for next year's scholarship committee too. If you instead have comments on specific applications (or granted scholarships), e.g. because you don't understand the committee's decision, and you can't post them on any talk page, feel free to throw them at me (e.g. at wikimania-scholarships@wikimedia.org ). I may reply on your talk page, as my responses can't contain private information anyway, and I can usually shed light on the thought process or the mechanism which led to a certain outcome. Understanding the system is necessary both to work with it as is and to change it; this is how I interpret transparency.

Federico Leva