The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better serve the movement going forward. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes Thanks to all who participated!
Ellie
Hoi, I positively HATE the notion that Wikimania will be once every other year. It is easy enough to get in contact with local heroes. What Wikimania does is bring people from the whole world together. Without Wikimania our community is parochial. This is where our projects are weak in having a global view.
I resent this conclusion forcefully. Thanks, GerardM
On 8 February 2016 at 23:53, Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better serve the movement going forward. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/...
Thanks to all who participated!
Ellie
-- Ellie Young Events Manager Wikimedia Foundation eyoung@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
Interestingly, having them every other year would make it potentially viable for an entirely new community group to start putting on their own wikimanias, essentially forking the process.
On 09/02/16 07:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I positively HATE the notion that Wikimania will be once every other year. It is easy enough to get in contact with local heroes. What Wikimania does is bring people from the whole world together. Without Wikimania our community is parochial. This is where our projects are weak in having a global view.
I resent this conclusion forcefully. Thanks, GerardM
On 8 February 2016 at 23:53, Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better serve the movement going forward. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/... Thanks to all who participated!
Ellie
-- Ellie Young Events Manager Wikimedia Foundation eyoung@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
Was there a "don't mess with the process, but also don't hold it in tiny towns while telling staff not to go because there's no room for them"? option in the survey?
-- brion On Feb 8, 2016 2:54 PM, "Ellie Young" eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better serve the movement going forward. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes Thanks to all who participated!
Ellie
-- Ellie Young Events Manager Wikimedia Foundation eyoung@wikimedia.org
Wmfall mailing list Wmfall@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 14:54 Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better serve the movement going forward. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes Thanks to all who participated!
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back with some changes to our processes.
Yours,
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who
took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back
with some changes to our processes.
Ellie started the discussion just 18 hours ago, and now your closing it yet it hasnt even had time for the earth to make one complete rotation, if you seriously want opinions at least give it one 24 hour cycle better 7-14 of them as ideas and thoughts take time to be developed...
All you achieved is proving that Wikimania Committee isnt interested in the community
On 10 February 2016 at 00:19, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 14:54 Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to
better
serve the movement going forward. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/...
Thanks to all who participated!
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back with some changes to our processes.
Yours, _______________________________________________ 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
The communications failure and lack of any public consultation before throwing away the community driven bidding process, was a very good moment to appoint a new Chair of the Wikimania Committee. The suggestion at the time was ignored.[1] How can the community force real changes, if the Committee is in apparent PR lock-down? From my understanding of the history of this committee, it is long overdue to appoint a Chair who is not reliant on keeping the WMF executive happy for their salary.
By the way, 220 Wikimedians took part in the vote that asked for a WMF trustee to be removed (admittedly, a vote that did not result in the WMF board changing its mind in any way about their absolute confidence in their appointment). We probably should expect that level of participation before announcing that is a significant consensus to make major changes to something as fundamental to the global community of Wikimedians as Wikimania.
P.S. The Wikimania Committee appears to have failed to publish minutes or draft notes of its deliberations since last summer, unless they have published them somewhere other than Meta.[2] When the Wikimania Committee looks more secretive than the WMF board of trustees, the community should be questioning their commitment to openness and transparency.
Links: 1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079274.html - "...starting a public process to ensure some new faces in the next few months, including a change of the Chairman. This would show the Committee recognizes this was a real serious failure which should see proportionate changes of roles on the Committee. If everything stays exactly the same for the next six months, then this would show the Committee is more interested in protecting itself, than ensuring that the unpaid volunteer and community consensus is central to the way this process *should* be seen to work, and in line with the original mandate for the Committee itself." 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee
Fae
On 9 February 2016 at 17:04, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who
took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back
with some changes to our processes.
Ellie started the discussion just 18 hours ago, and now your closing it yet it hasnt even had time for the earth to make one complete rotation, if you seriously want opinions at least give it one 24 hour cycle better 7-14 of them as ideas and thoughts take time to be developed...
All you achieved is proving that Wikimania Committee isnt interested in the community
On 10 February 2016 at 00:19, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 14:54 Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to
better
serve the movement going forward. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outco...
I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/...
Thanks to all who participated!
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back with some changes to our processes.
Yours,
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
The communications failure and lack of any public consultation before throwing away the community driven bidding process, was a very good moment to appoint a new Chair of the Wikimania Committee. The suggestion at the time was ignored.[1] How can the community force real changes, if the Committee is in apparent PR lock-down? From my understanding of the history of this committee, it is long overdue to appoint a Chair who is not reliant on keeping the WMF executive happy for their salary.
Hi Fae,
I did wonder how long how much time would elapse from Arnnon Geshuri's departure before you demanded someone else resigned from something.
Perhaps for "transparency" you could publish a list of all the occasions you have demanded people in the Wikimedia movement resign from things? By my count we are already on 4 in 2016 alone, which is quite good going for period of 6 weeks :)
Chris
Chris, calling me out on transparency, really?
I'm more than a little bit creeped out by your personal "interest". If you insist, I'll publish everything of interest since 2011 that involves both of us, and everything about me you have been interested in tracking, but I'll do it on my own blog rather than on this list. I have very little to lose as you know.
Thanks, Fae
On 9 February 2016 at 22:29, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
The communications failure and lack of any public consultation before throwing away the community driven bidding process, was a very good moment to appoint a new Chair of the Wikimania Committee. The suggestion at the time was ignored.[1] How can the community force real changes, if the Committee is in apparent PR lock-down? From my understanding of the history of this committee, it is long overdue to appoint a Chair who is not reliant on keeping the WMF executive happy for their salary.
Hi Fae,
I did wonder how long how much time would elapse from Arnnon Geshuri's departure before you demanded someone else resigned from something.
Perhaps for "transparency" you could publish a list of all the occasions you have demanded people in the Wikimedia movement resign from things? By my count we are already on 4 in 2016 alone, which is quite good going for period of 6 weeks :)
Chris
On 2016-02-08 5:53 PM, Ellie Young wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
I will join my voice to the chorus expressing concern and dismay at the completely ridiculous interpretation of that minor discussion - it clearly does not resemble a mandate to make such a sweeping change to a movement-central event like this.
[Obvious disclaimer: I am the lead organizer of the 2017 edition of said event so clearly I am not unbiased]
I've never been a fan of the old bidding process - having been its victim in the past and seeing the large amount of wasted effort and demotivation it must necessarily generate - and I agree wholeheartedly that the *process* needs to be reexamined. But even *that* reexamination requires more than a couple weeks on a talk page with a couple dozen people involved.
Something of the scope of the changes that consultation is claimed to warrant, however? Farcical.
Wikimania is the beating heart of our movement. We should be deploying efforts to be more inclusive and place it within reach of a larger segment of the community, not chopping it up.
-- Marc
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org