On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but
I
find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do.
What Pete said.
We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place...
...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process.
Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ...
What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference? Or MetaWiki Conference?
It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the movement going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event) that a regular editor would get a lot out of it?
Regards,
This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum) name. It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for designated members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is.
It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a bikeshed a community centre.
Risker/Anne