I totally understand (or rather, I think I do). However, just like with any
project, also such calculations would be subject to cost/benefit ratios.
What information do you expect to win, and how much overhead does it
create? It sounds great to be able to put a number on things, but up to a
certain size, things will be mostly intangible anyway (enthusiasm,
inspiration etc.) so you will have little valuable output of such
measurements, while the costs are relatively high (they need to learn speak
your measure language, they need to understand concepts, document
thoroughly, measure etc.) and for small events that seems unreasonable to
me to expect it from them - such as with the article writing contests in
'new' countries.
However, this is of course different for large international events with
many participants. Anyway, I am glad to hear you're not trying to compare
different categories of events with each other.
Lodewijk
2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu>
I see a few misunderstanding here: I do not wish to
compare them to each
other, but to the previous one(s). At least I hope this is what I've
written because this is what I was ment. So compare GLAM 2013 to GLAM 2012,
and GLAM 2011, ..., compare Brussels meetup with previous similar thematic
meetups and so forth. Create a breakdown about the costs and the benefits.
Aimed at GLAM? then the main thing to measue how did it boost GLAM
cooperations. Is there any initiative that had been picked up or created
upon the inspiration they got there? If yes, how much? What types? What are
their outcomes? Any other side goals (like international cooperations -
like a new WLM participant who decided to join after discussions there)?
Any other unexpected benefits? (like an out of the blue content donation
from a participating G,L,A or M representative) etc. Easy to identify a
dozen questions, plus if you start thinking it over, you'll find a dozen
more that are as well pretty important, just not that much visible or in
front. Count them and divide the total number with the total costs, and
you'll get how much was invested in a single initiative there.
If an idea was brought home by a chapter from that event (or the local
ideas have been influenced by it), note even if locally it would cost
almost nothing, on an absolute level, there is this cost/benefit ratio,
both the chapter's and the event's, what you have to further divide it
locally amongst the number of projects. If an example helps you, lets say
you brought home 2 article writing contest ideas, both of them conducted
and did cost nothing, except a few merchandise (total of 200USD) your
travel and stay there should be added to the total costs, since without it,
these would likely never been conducted at you. Hence the absolute numbers
would include your flight and stay in London, divided equally in between
the projects that meeting inspired. Got me?
Balázs
2013/5/14 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
I think this is very true, and we could perhaps
improve our procedures
and
documentation in many ways. However, I do think
it is important to
realize
that you're comparing apples with oranges
here. The meeting in Brussels
for
example was on the topic of influencing
legislative processes - a topic
by
definition long term and hard to measure. The
goals there would be better
(copyright) legislation than without these initiatives - and rather
strategic. The bootcamp in DC was intended as a boost for volunteers,
where
they would get a lot of information and
experience in a short time:
capacity building. This is also long term, but much better to measure.
And
finally there's the hackathon, which is much
more short-term focused (at
least partially), and will have very concrete results (but probably zero
measured in new articles created).
What I think is most important, is that for every meeting we have, we
identify desired outcomes. These outcomes can be very tangible, or
intangible - but they should always be defined, and the agenda should be
built around it.
Based on these desired outcomes, you can estimate up front if the meeting
is likely to be 'worth it'. If not, you can reduce the costs, increase
the
outcomes (different setup) or cancel all
together.
Finally, after the meeting a report (private or public - there should
always be a report or documentation) should be produced and if possible
published. In that report you should always return to these desired
outcomes, and see if they were met - and how/why not.
But even then on the strategy side of things meetings are always hard to
estimate.
Of course you're totally right that there are expectations towards
participants of meetings. Not only because of the money invested, but
also
because of the attention of the other
participants. I definitely have
been
in meetings where people literally fell asleep or
played games during the
meeting - and that is simply insulting to the other people in the room.
So
yeah, if that is your mindset, perhaps it is
better not to go at all. But
then I am assuming good faith, and think that everyone will be going to
meetings with the best of intentions, and not simply to play tourist.
Lodewijk
2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu>
> 40k for a single meetup can be justified if the results worth that much
> money. (I've already argued about this regarding Milan chapters meetup
> btw). Providing a "more than basic" travel and accomodation can be a
way
of
appreciation as well for their work, what they do
as volunteers, that
should be calculated into the costs.
Ain't these intrenational events' (not just this meetup's, but all
events')
"success ratio" being measured by some
way already?
The cost/benefit ratio [1] is a pretty basic (and extreme important)
thing
we like to calculate with here in Hungary about
all of our activities.
For
example the number of articles created divided
with the total costs of
the
> article writing contest they've been created within gives a number we
can
work a
lot with to improve cost-effectiveness. Seemingly very few
chapters
doing anything similar (or not in a visible way)
AffCom already measures itself in some ways in their reports, but
regarding
other meetups, I've barely seen at least a
basic followup or aftercare
and
especially not a detailed overall (measurement)
report what is usually
/at
least in those commercial events I was involved
with/ being published
after
about six month of the last day of the event, and
gives a detailed
summary
> of its pros and cons, dos and don'ts, successes and fails, overall
impact
(upon
proactively collected feedbacks), etc.
There were plenty of international events already this year (Brussels
meeting about EU policies, Milan, London glam, Amsterdam hackathon that
are
> coming in my mind right now from 2013, and this is just the first 4
month
> (only 1/3rd of the year) and not the full
list!) most of them with no
or
very low
visible results yet (ok they need some time to evolve, but
regarding events in 2012, I barely read anything to remember nor any
followups or summares, reports). Compared to the "GLAM camp" in the US
recently, it seems definitely true. The latter looks like a very good
example of a beneficial meetup, having a lot of potential and it seems
there is a chance that it will be followed up by WMDC and other
participating parties well after the event. Why to have a long term
followup? To give a definite answer wheter those potentials actually
resulted in anything at all (was there any "real benefit") or it was
just a
very good mooded, fun and positive, but totally
fruitless event (wasted
money from the movement's POV)
I see compared to 2012 costs going up without any visible rise in
effectiveness or more worse, a decline in it. This is solely based upon
what I can (or can not) read about them on meta and other places, like
the
comments here. Wikimania 2014 was the first event
ever where this thing
was
> taken seriously, but rather on the cost cutting side, than on the
> effectiveness improving side
>
> It would be great to see detailed measurements of these events, like
how
many new
projects or international cooperations (or whatever it aims)
were
boosted/inspired by the given thematic meetup up
until the next similar
meetup. If that number is X, while the costs were Y, and X/Y does not
look
good, than you can start thinking how can you
improve X without
expanding
Y (or even lowering it) to get a much friendly
ratio, thus creating an
even
> more fruitful (better quality) event next time. The best would be a
> detailed breakdown, like main goals, side goals, unexpected or "extra"
> things that that meeting had inspired/boosted/hosted/etc.
>
> Note, there ain't no such thing as free lunch [2]
>
> Cheers,
> Balázs
>
> PS: WMHU has 68k budget for 2013.
>
> [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit%E2%80%93cost_ratio
> [2]
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
2013/5/14 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
> I don't think it is trivial either, and having a discussion is fine.
> However, the bigger discussion is perhaps more relevant - because
AffCom
> is
> > simply following WMF policy here, which is in place for many
employees,
> > board members (and others? not sure).
> >
> > So I think there are two relevant discussions to be had: First of
all,
whether there should be an AffCom meeting at all. Fair
question of
course.
> (analogous you could wonder if certain chapters should really send a
> representative to Wikimania from their budget, whether certain
employees
> really should be there and whether all
chapters should be present at
the
> > Chapters meeting - all fair discussions to be had in their time,
too).
The
> second relevant question is, in my opinion, whether the WMF travel
policy
> is good, proportional etc. This policy has
mostly received criticism
from
> two sides - some think it is too elaborate,
and WMF should get 'less
> luxury' (again fair discussion, but we should then focus on the whole
> question) - another criticism is that it should be equalized for all
> Wikimedia-sponsored trips, including individual engagement grants,
trips
> to
> > the chapters meeting etc. When this question was brought up last
time,
I
> > believe it was Sue who mentioned that this would simply result in
much
> less
> > travel and participation. Again, a fair question.
> >
> > Personally, I feel that WMF Committee (and board) members should not
be
> > treated to a lower standard than staff
members, simply because they
are
not
> being paid for their work. But maybe I'm the only one in thát opinion
> though...
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> 2013/5/14 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
>
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality
> >
> >
> > I don't really think this is a triviality.
> > Cents and single dollars of chapters are weighted and analyzed,
> > FDC and GACs nitpicks and their goal is to assure that donor moneys
is
> not
> > wasted.
> > We all know that there are issues on that and a lot of chapters had
to
> > work
> > > hard to be able to draw their budget, and receive their money.
> > >
> > > 40'000 $ for Wikimania travels are a lot, especially compared to
the
>
travel
> > budget of chapters. Period.
> > I would assume that WMF and the Board budgets should be reasonably
> > proportional to chapters ones.
> > Maybe I'm the only one, though.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l