I think everybody on this thread agree that funding in-person conferences is a crucial way to invest in our community ;)
And I think most of us agree too that we now know the survey results were unrepresentative of the actual distribution of community opinions. I'm simply making suggestions about what we can learn from the imperfections.
Deryck On 9 Jul, 2016 9:49 pm, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Deryck, all,
While you can agree or disagree on the usefulness of the letter, I would
like to make one point about the idealab survey. One thing that is not pointed out clearly, is that there was a lot of criticism on the methodology of that particular survey, and how the conclusions were drawn. Please take a look at the talk page attached to that outcomes page that you linked, and consider that much of the criticism wasn't even responded to. I think Marc was kind but correct in his characterisation as 'clearly flawed'. There was some useful data in there, but the conclusions that were drawn, were a few bridges too far.
Another thing that was mentioned in private conversations a lot, but not
in many public discussions is that Wikimania is and should be primarily an investment in our community. Our community is by far our biggest asset. Having a healthy community is essential, and it is important that different communities learn from each other, exchange ideas and methods, interact. Not just with the few neighboring languages, but also with those far away.
You can investigate if this Wikimania structure if the most effective
way, but please lets not approach this from a 'cost cutting' perspective. Lets not consider Wikimania as a cost, but as an investment in something intangible, in infrastructure. The financial picture should be only a very small part of the consideration - in my humble opinion. I'm not sure who mentioned this at Wikimania (was it Dimi? Liam?) but if you compare the amount of money we spend on community building, and how much big companies spend on their staff happyness programmes, annual meetups and all - we're probably not doing too bad. I would be much happier if we looked at this from the perspective of the most effective way to have an international, constructive, interactive and exchanging community.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-07-09 21:50 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com:
I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed
as to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution, involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer / not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences and Wikimania.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future, I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent to WMF.
Thanks,
Pine
Actually, I'm afraid it runs a bit deeper than who's represented in the group. The way the questions were set up are considered to be 'leading' and there was no choice between the outcome and the status quo. Maybe this is indeed obvious to all - and I'm happy if that is the case. But I cannot conclude that from your emails (the opposite is suggested actually), and also at the discussion in Esino I didn't get the impression everyone was aware of what those flaws exactly were. So hopefully superfluously - pointing it out again. Sorry if I get boring or obnoxious!
Best, Lodewijk
2016-07-09 23:57 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com:
I think everybody on this thread agree that funding in-person conferences is a crucial way to invest in our community ;)
And I think most of us agree too that we now know the survey results were unrepresentative of the actual distribution of community opinions. I'm simply making suggestions about what we can learn from the imperfections.
Deryck On 9 Jul, 2016 9:49 pm, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Deryck, all,
While you can agree or disagree on the usefulness of the letter, I would
like to make one point about the idealab survey. One thing that is not pointed out clearly, is that there was a lot of criticism on the methodology of that particular survey, and how the conclusions were drawn. Please take a look at the talk page attached to that outcomes page that you linked, and consider that much of the criticism wasn't even responded to. I think Marc was kind but correct in his characterisation as 'clearly flawed'. There was some useful data in there, but the conclusions that were drawn, were a few bridges too far.
Another thing that was mentioned in private conversations a lot, but not
in many public discussions is that Wikimania is and should be primarily an investment in our community. Our community is by far our biggest asset. Having a healthy community is essential, and it is important that different communities learn from each other, exchange ideas and methods, interact. Not just with the few neighboring languages, but also with those far away.
You can investigate if this Wikimania structure if the most effective
way, but please lets not approach this from a 'cost cutting' perspective. Lets not consider Wikimania as a cost, but as an investment in something intangible, in infrastructure. The financial picture should be only a very small part of the consideration - in my humble opinion. I'm not sure who mentioned this at Wikimania (was it Dimi? Liam?) but if you compare the amount of money we spend on community building, and how much big companies spend on their staff happyness programmes, annual meetups and all - we're probably not doing too bad. I would be much happier if we looked at this from the perspective of the most effective way to have an international, constructive, interactive and exchanging community.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-07-09 21:50 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com:
I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed
as to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution, involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer / not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences and Wikimania.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future, I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent to WMF.
Thanks,
Pine
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
That original survey was intrinsically flawed and show be totally thrown out, the people who participated(myself included) were invited that list was primarily constructed of people who had participated in a closed discussion in Mexico which decided on Montreal by usurping the community consulation process that existed yet left many to unknowingly follow that process. The questions gave no alternatives to the decisions of mexico.
Discussions at Wikimania are great except that the voices of those who cant attend arent heard, its important that everyones voice is heard fairly. You've all heard my voice before about how unfair the scholarship processes are we saw again this year that unfairness to the region that is the third highest source of funding. Balancing that unfairness should mean that Wikimania should be more accessible either via scholarships or via locations .
Wikimania should be returned to the community in a public process not decided behind closed doors. The other unidentified benefits of hosting a Wikimania is that having the Board, the ED and so many other recognisable people in one place is that opportunity for the fundraising team to engage with potential new sources of funds and other resources alongside the community engagements. It appears to me at least that the full potential of hosting Wikimania hasnt been identified and until that happens its value to the community isnt being realised.
On 10 July 2016 at 06:07, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Actually, I'm afraid it runs a bit deeper than who's represented in the group. The way the questions were set up are considered to be 'leading' and there was no choice between the outcome and the status quo. Maybe this is indeed obvious to all - and I'm happy if that is the case. But I cannot conclude that from your emails (the opposite is suggested actually), and also at the discussion in Esino I didn't get the impression everyone was aware of what those flaws exactly were. So hopefully superfluously - pointing it out again. Sorry if I get boring or obnoxious!
Best, Lodewijk
2016-07-09 23:57 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com:
I think everybody on this thread agree that funding in-person conferences is a crucial way to invest in our community ;)
And I think most of us agree too that we now know the survey results were unrepresentative of the actual distribution of community opinions. I'm simply making suggestions about what we can learn from the imperfections.
Deryck On 9 Jul, 2016 9:49 pm, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Deryck, all,
While you can agree or disagree on the usefulness of the letter, I
would like to make one point about the idealab survey. One thing that is not pointed out clearly, is that there was a lot of criticism on the methodology of that particular survey, and how the conclusions were drawn. Please take a look at the talk page attached to that outcomes page that you linked, and consider that much of the criticism wasn't even responded to. I think Marc was kind but correct in his characterisation as 'clearly flawed'. There was some useful data in there, but the conclusions that were drawn, were a few bridges too far.
Another thing that was mentioned in private conversations a lot, but
not in many public discussions is that Wikimania is and should be primarily an investment in our community. Our community is by far our biggest asset. Having a healthy community is essential, and it is important that different communities learn from each other, exchange ideas and methods, interact. Not just with the few neighboring languages, but also with those far away.
You can investigate if this Wikimania structure if the most effective
way, but please lets not approach this from a 'cost cutting' perspective. Lets not consider Wikimania as a cost, but as an investment in something intangible, in infrastructure. The financial picture should be only a very small part of the consideration - in my humble opinion. I'm not sure who mentioned this at Wikimania (was it Dimi? Liam?) but if you compare the amount of money we spend on community building, and how much big companies spend on their staff happyness programmes, annual meetups and all - we're probably not doing too bad. I would be much happier if we looked at this from the perspective of the most effective way to have an international, constructive, interactive and exchanging community.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-07-09 21:50 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com:
I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed
as to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution, involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer / not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences and Wikimania.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future, I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent to WMF.
Thanks,
Pine
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@lists.wikimedia.org