Thank you for beginning this important discussion! I have the same concerns as others, especially around how this consultation fits into the decision making process. This sentence from the introduction makes it sound very serious indeed-- maybe this was a misunderstanding? [1]
The outcomes of this consultation will begin to be implemented starting
in 2018.
The participation was too low, the margin between "votes" too narrow, and it seems like a huge mistake to call this a "survey" but then synthesize the results by tallying the votes directly. I can safely assume that the responses would have been much different if we had said from the outset that this was a binding, democratic ballot.
The concerns raised with Option 3 (alternate years) touch on an issue so central to our work that I would personally interpret this as a blocker, a signal that the plan needs to be amended and put to another discussion before taking any steps to implement:[2]
... some expressed that working relationships with individuals they are accustomed to seeing at Wikimania would be difficult to maintain if they could only meet every two years. Likewise, it may also be more difficult to initiate and maintain projects and initiatives where meetups at Wikimania are useful.
I have raved over the two Wikimanias I've had the chance to attend, they stand out as by far the most inspiring and engaging moments of my 3.5 years as a WMF staffer. In fact, I'd like to see many more such opportunities for staff, editors and other contributors to interact. I would like to see the Wikimedia Foundation spend much more of its budget on directly supporting editors and promoting community growth (e.g. Teahouse, Wikipedia Library, Revscoring, Education Program), and to invest more in training for its staff, to help acculturate us to the contributor community and prevent an adversarial dynamic.
Problem 1 states that "it is difficult to know if Wikimania is meeting the movement's needs", but this survey isn't set up to answer that question. Perhaps we should try to measure our success at meeting the movement's needs, and make projections for how well these needs will be met under alternative scenarios, before accidentally defunding something that might be working? Anyway, cutting back on Wikimanias without a plan to provide a better substitute would be a huge loss.
Love, Adam
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:09 AM, 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