Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years. Meeting once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping it smaller / capping funding.
Hoi, When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come? Who is not relevant enough. We are a big movement and there is a reason for that. You care about health, what about mental health? How do you learn the lessons from the Malayalam source movement. There is more than we can do and you talk about capping funding.. WHY Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2016 at 16:25, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years. Meeting once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping it smaller / capping funding.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
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.
Your point about sharing lessons is important. It would be good to put significant focus on how to share lessons in ways that are significantly less expensive and have the opportunity to reach a broader audience. Wikimania, for all its good points, isn't necessarily the best way to share a lot of these lessons. It's very expensive for everyone, there's very limited evidence that many of those lessons have been effectively utilized by other similar groups, and the presentations and lessons may not hit the most logical target audiences.
I've not expressed a particular opinion about any of the proposed "Wikimania solutions" but I do believe that there is a real place for more focused, specialized conferences such as Hackathons, Wikisource conference and the CEE conference. I also believe we have to work harder at capturing lessons and sharing them in a more permanent way, such as the "learnings" that many groups have created and shared with the assistance of Community Engagement. I'm sure we can think of more ways to share information that doesn't involve people having to fly half-way around the world and spend thousands of dollars.
Risker/Anne
On 9 February 2016 at 10:40, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come? Who is not relevant enough. We are a big movement and there is a reason for that. You care about health, what about mental health? How do you learn the lessons from the Malayalam source movement. There is more than we can do and you talk about capping funding.. WHY Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2016 at 16:25, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years.
Meeting
once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping
it
smaller / capping funding.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
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.
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): 1) 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
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
- 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".
Hey Chris. I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment. It's true that I along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this consultation, and we've done our best to present conclusions and make a general plan based on the feedback we received. Further complicating this issue of ownership is the absence of this team's director (Siko Bouterse) and her boss (Luis Villa), who have resigned.
With that said, I expect decisions around Wikimania in 2018 to be shaped by outcomes in Esino Lario this year, in addition to the practical matter of our budget. I expect there will be opportunities for community members to help further define what will happen in 2018 as well.
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?)
It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
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.
I'm in full agreement. The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the next year.
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.
For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
With thanks,
Jethro
[1] < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_...
[2] < https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_N...
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, 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
On 18 Feb 2016 00:24, "Chris Schilling" cschilling@wikimedia.org wrote:
- 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".
Hey Chris. I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment. It's true that I along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this consultation, and
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?)
It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
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.
I'm in full agreement. The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the next year.
- 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.
For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
With thanks,
Jethro
[1] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_...
[2] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_N...
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, 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
-- Chris "Jethro" Schilling I JethroBT (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF) Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Chris (or Jethro)! Thanks for taking time to reply.
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?)
It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
Great. I thought that table of issues was helpful, though wasn't quite clear whose it was (so to speak). If the answer is "it's generally the view of the WMF staff working with this", that is good to know.
- 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.
For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
Yes please, that would be helpful!
Chris
[1] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_...
[2] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_N...
- 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.
For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
Yes please, that would be helpful!
Certainly! The feedback our team reviewed from participants indicated a few important factors supporting the conclusions in the consultation. As you and others have stated, the differences in the frequency of instances of support or concern were not substantial, so this difference was only a minor factor.
One prominent factor that arose supporting Option 3 was a general desire for balance in support for for Wikimania and regional/thematic conferences. Participants supporting this option frequently expressed that these conferences both have independent, but important value for the work or projects in which they or others are engaged. For instance, many pointed to the importance of regional collaboration-- travel arrangements and matters of communication (particularly non-English) are easier, local needs of projects can be prioritized in programming, and there are opportunities for people to form working groups. At the same time, participants recognized the value of meeting together as a unified movement. Participants also voiced one benefit we did not consider-- that taking this balanced approach could be an opportunity for better interaction between Wikimania and regional/thematic conferences: e.g. Wikimania could serve to initiate projects relevant for a subsequent regional conference. Conversely, a regional/thematic conference could serve as good preparation for engagement at Wikimania.
A second factor were concerns over the costs of Wikimania itself, though the "what" varied between the cost of attending, travel, and cost to "movement resources" overall. Given the discussion on the discussion page and mailing lists, there are clearly a diversity of views over whether Wikimania should cost more or less, but it was clear from participant feedback that there were concerns with the overall cost. This was also true for folks who supported an annual Wikimania. (On a related note, I also would have expected that a summary of this budget to have been presented from the outset, and I apologize that our team did not have this ready until recently.)
A third factor was about the accessibility and exclusivity of Wikimania. Many participants reported that they and others in their communities have routinely been unable to attend Wikimania. Consequently, they feel they've been denied important opportunities and conversations with fellow contributors, and to the extent that regional/thematic conferences can be made more accessible, the better. Organizers also noted that a consequence of an annual Wikimania is that there is less motivation to plan/organize regional conferences, which harms local solidarity and understanding of regional issues.
I hope these themes provide a bit more depth to the feedback and context for the conclusions in the consultation.
Thanks,
Jethro
Chris "Jethro" Schilling I JethroBT (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF) Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Chris (or Jethro)! Thanks for taking time to reply.
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?)
It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
Great. I thought that table of issues was helpful, though wasn't quite clear whose it was (so to speak). If the answer is "it's generally the view of the WMF staff working with this", that is good to know.
- 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.
For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
Yes please, that would be helpful!
Chris
[1] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_...
[2] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_N...
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
On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers, not as general participants.
Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked this volunteer event.
Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do and how to do it.
Ciao Henning
Your comments are inaccurate, not useful, and completely antithetical to our principles.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers, not as general participants.
Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked this volunteer event.
Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do and how to do it.
Ciao Henning
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
Hoi, When you have been to as many Wikimania's as I have been, you will know that it is exactly the interaction with staff that enables a lot of things. They have the consistency (in time) to make a difference, they are embedded in an organisation that has always cared about what it is that is said. This does not imply that it is often that you can make a real difference, typically things change gradually and, that is good.
When Wikimania is only for volunteers, I do not need to come (I am a volunteer). Thanks, GerardM
On 16 February 2016 at 14:48, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers, not as general participants.
Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked this volunteer event.
Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do and how to do it.
Ciao Henning
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@lists.wikimedia.org