Oldak Quill wrote:
2008/4/21 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Greg Maxwell writes:
In the message I responded to you stated that the collection of emergency contact information would present considerable privacy concerns. Here you seem to be suggesting that the foundation would instead prefer to pass off the collection to a volunteer driven project. This seems like a completely inconsistent position, but perhaps I just do not understand.
I guess I'm both callous and inconsistent. Next thing you know I'll be downright evil. (That's where you going, isn't it? Just admit it.)
It should be noted that the concerns that have been raised to me, both publicly and privately, are themselves inconsistent. Some people are concerned about their privacy. Some are concerned about security. Some are concerned about both privacy and security. Some are concerned about neither. Some are concerned about wholly separate matters. Some feel that they can't post publicly to this list without themselves being criticized.
So don't be surprised if you hear from me representations of inconsistent concerns. This is not exactly a consistent crowd. (News flash!)
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what means could possibly be more efficient and effective than simply adding a single additional field to the official Wikimania registration form. Could you please elaborate?
I can elaborate by saying that I think you have spent more time responding to me than it might have taken you to come up with a solution that addresses the concerns you state here. This strikes me as callous.
Is there a registration form somewhere that the Foundation has access to, Greg, that you don't? I don't know of one. Have you considered making your concerns known to those who are actually organizing the conference, such as Delphine and the local team? (The Foundation is only paying for it.)
I... no... I totally disagree here. The Foundation is not ONLY paying for it.
Actually, it is really hardly *paying*, because the past three Wikimanias have been a zero sum cost, or even made a tiny benefit (used for following Wikimanias). The costs of Wikimania are supported by sponsors, participants, sometimes chapters, and lots' of good will (free work by wikipedians or by local organizations). The major real costs for the Foundation are to pay for the participation of board members/staff members. The Foundation is simply NOT paying for the conference. It is helping money to come in, and helping the money to come out.
However, paying is not really the issue. It is probably boosting to say that Wikimedia Foundation is organizing Wikimania. This is not really true, most events have been organized by the Wikimania teams.
What Wikimedia Foundation is really doing is facilitation. It facilitates in providing the right to use the brand. It facilitates in providing access to a bank account and means to pay. It facilitates in "lending" staff or contractors (be it Delphine to help coordinate, or Jay to help with Press and communication, or Mike for the security assessment etc....) It facilitates in providing reassurance to sponsors
etc...
Facilitation is an important role. Probably essential. The Conference of the America was cancelled precisely because the Foundation could not (would not) play this role of facilitator.
I would also largely say that facilitating should be the ONLY role of the Foundation.
Ant
The Foundation's role is a little less passive than this. It is ultimately responsible for choosing the winning bid/city... At least, the jury is composed of WF board members and people involved with past Wikimanias. Am I wrong in thinking the jury falls under the WF?
WF doesn't merely facilitate these events, it has an active role in saying "go" or "no".
Board members+staff are in a serious minority with regards to voting to choose the city (2 or 3 votes ?). It is certainly not a blocking majority. So, I would not say that choosing the city is the responsibility of the WMF, given that board members can vote for city A and city B be chosen ultimately by the entire jury.
However, I think that if these board members or the ED (or Mike) had a MAJOR argument against choosing a specific city, the jury members would be sensitive to it and vote accordingly.
That's not a written rule, but simply healthy way to work collectively for the best outcome.
Ant