On 18 Feb 2016 00:24, "Chris Schilling" cschilling@wikimedia.org wrote:
- I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within
the
WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell they are lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with Wikimania".
Hey Chris. I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment. It's true that I along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this consultation, and
Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?)
It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
Equally, I am not really
clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
I'm in full agreement. The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the next year.
- I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
there
isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
basis
that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X". That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z. From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
With thanks,
Jethro
[1] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_...
[2] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_N...
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with
an
issue quite like this before.
Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as significant):
- The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a
good
thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing,
even
if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please
compare
it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter. 2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings
the
movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)
However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the direction this is going: 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within
the
WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell they are lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with Wikimania". Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?) Equally, I am not
really
clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these
days. In
general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania. 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a
particularly
strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
there
isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
basis
that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X". That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z. From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
Thanks,
Chris
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable
one
because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the
movement.
Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own
dime",
but
many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that
position.
Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving
the
value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for
tens
of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively
tiny
cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put
its
own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside
the
organization than it is on internal spending.
It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that
the
conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was
the
"give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of
Wikimania"
and
option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect
that if
there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option
many
would have selected it.
If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I
don't
know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily support that effort. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Chris "Jethro" Schilling I JethroBT (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF) Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe