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(a)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): 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. (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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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 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 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 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_… On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Chris Keating &lt;chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.comwrote: > 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 > Thanks, > Chris > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)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(a)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

Hello Chris (or Jethro)! Thanks for taking time to reply. 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. there basis Yes please, that would be helpful! Chris https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What… https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_…

On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote: 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

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 &lt;h.schlottmann(a)gmx.net&gt; wrote: