Re: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014
I had thought that to ensure the cost of the conference was kept to a healthy level that organizations would send no more than 2 representatives plus one optional guest. This seems to not be the case looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania representatives), significantly larger than any other Chapter or Thorg.
Could we please be modest with the movement's money and than some of these proposed names are withdrawn? I propose setting an absolute maximum of 3 representatives from any chapter, thorg or user group and that is enforced rather than a vague guideline.
There will be video conferencing available, costing the movement nothing.
Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Participants
Fae
Hoi, Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.
Cost is only one criteria to measure things by. What would you consider as relevant for more people to go ? Thanks, Gerard
On 31 March 2014 11:47, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Re: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014
I had thought that to ensure the cost of the conference was kept to a healthy level that organizations would send no more than 2 representatives plus one optional guest. This seems to not be the case looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania representatives), significantly larger than any other Chapter or Thorg.
Could we please be modest with the movement's money and than some of these proposed names are withdrawn? I propose setting an absolute maximum of 3 representatives from any chapter, thorg or user group and that is enforced rather than a vague guideline.
There will be video conferencing available, costing the movement nothing.
Links:
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.
Cost is only one criteria to measure things by. What would you consider as relevant for more people to go ? Thanks, Gerard
Yes absolute cost is only one measure, but should remain a primary one when judging if the charitable funds of our movement are being spent wisely.
Another consideration is past concern from smaller chapters that this meeting was being overwhelmed with the viewpoint of the larger and better funded chapters that found it easiest to travel to Berlin, or pay employees to attend. This is probably a reason why the German chapter, compared to the UK chapter, is sending a relatively modest number of people to represent their chapter at the conference they are actually hosting.
Fae
Hoi, When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out of kilter.
Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it means that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these people have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who decide on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned.
Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it is not spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 March 2014 14:34, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.
Cost is only one criteria to measure things by. What would you consider
as
relevant for more people to go ? Thanks, Gerard
Yes absolute cost is only one measure, but should remain a primary one when judging if the charitable funds of our movement are being spent wisely.
Another consideration is past concern from smaller chapters that this meeting was being overwhelmed with the viewpoint of the larger and better funded chapters that found it easiest to travel to Berlin, or pay employees to attend. This is probably a reason why the German chapter, compared to the UK chapter, is sending a relatively modest number of people to represent their chapter at the conference they are actually hosting.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I don't think the costs are the issue here, neither if there is streaming or not (and I don't think we need to have one. It's WMCconf, not Wikimania).
But we have strict rule - two representatives, 3 if you have ED. I also saw that some chapters have more than that, and I really don't know why. If they are coming as speakers to one of the sessions - I hope their participation and attending in the venue area will be limit only to this session only (and then it will be really waste of money). This is also relevant by the way (from my point of view) to WMDE staff/board that are not part of conference staff.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out of kilter.
Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it means that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these people have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who decide on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned.
Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it is not spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 March 2014 14:34, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not
allow
you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.
Cost is only one criteria to measure things by. What would you consider
as
relevant for more people to go ? Thanks, Gerard
Yes absolute cost is only one measure, but should remain a primary one when judging if the charitable funds of our movement are being spent wisely.
Another consideration is past concern from smaller chapters that this meeting was being overwhelmed with the viewpoint of the larger and better funded chapters that found it easiest to travel to Berlin, or pay employees to attend. This is probably a reason why the German chapter, compared to the UK chapter, is sending a relatively modest number of people to represent their chapter at the conference they are actually hosting.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out of kilter.
Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it means that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these people have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who decide on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned.
Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it is not spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard, I am unclear if you believe that from the information available this appears to be an effective use of Wikimedia funds. For one chapter to break the rules and send significantly more representatives to this conference than the others when they are not even the host does not appear effective to my eyes, rather than "misplaced frugality".
A rationale for a higher UK representatives might be that London is the host for Wikimania this year, however the attendees going for other reasons were excluded from the count of 8. From my quick check, there are actually 10 members of Wikimedia UK going to the conference.
It is reasonable to assume that they are being funded to do so through Wikimedia funds, however as there are no complete open list I cannot check this fact.
In addition we should take care to ensure appropriate transparency when using our funds. It is almost impossible to fully assess how many employees are attending in proportion to unpaid volunteers (which implies costs beyond travel and accommodation), or whether named representatives have any experience or interests in the Wikimedia projects, as many names are given no link or context. For example, being a past Chair of the chapter I am familiar with most people active in it, however, oddly, this is the first time I have seen the name Katherine Ruth published and there is no information available about her on the UK wiki.
Fae
Hoi, Fae what I object to is assuming going to a conference with " too big" a delegation is a waste of money by definition. In your reply you mention * you were a chair of the chapter and, * you do not know Katherine Ruth. Given that you were the chair of the chapter, you should be happy new people are joining the fray; it shows the chapter is vibrant and new people join.
In WIkipedia there was a time when we had disdain for rules. I applaud this sentiment; rules for rules sake is neither effective nor cost effective.
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. When other considerations exist like agreements not to send too many people, then it is for the people involved to address these issues.
Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"? Thanks, GerardM
On 31 March 2014 15:36, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are
out
of kilter.
Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it
means
that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these
people
have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who
decide
on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned.
Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it is not spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard, I am unclear if you believe that from the information available this appears to be an effective use of Wikimedia funds. For one chapter to break the rules and send significantly more representatives to this conference than the others when they are not even the host does not appear effective to my eyes, rather than "misplaced frugality".
A rationale for a higher UK representatives might be that London is the host for Wikimania this year, however the attendees going for other reasons were excluded from the count of 8. From my quick check, there are actually 10 members of Wikimedia UK going to the conference.
It is reasonable to assume that they are being funded to do so through Wikimedia funds, however as there are no complete open list I cannot check this fact.
In addition we should take care to ensure appropriate transparency when using our funds. It is almost impossible to fully assess how many employees are attending in proportion to unpaid volunteers (which implies costs beyond travel and accommodation), or whether named representatives have any experience or interests in the Wikimedia projects, as many names are given no link or context. For example, being a past Chair of the chapter I am familiar with most people active in it, however, oddly, this is the first time I have seen the name Katherine Ruth published and there is no information available about her on the UK wiki.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 31 March 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: ...
Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"? Thanks,
Thanks Gerard, I'll return to being dead and buried now.
Fae
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions, and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia
A few points.
There is no policy to restrict participation to three representatives. Indeed, many chapters are sending more than three delegates as has been the case in previous years.
For the record we have people going for four reasons:
- CEO and Chair as standard - Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas of strength in the chapter. - Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a great chance to meet other people and learn about the community. - Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas and expectations.
I think this is a sensible use of our resources, (flights to Berlin are cheaper than many train journeys to UK cities), supports our learning and helps share our knowledge and understanding with other chapters.
And on a final point we will certainly not be going round in a sort of WMUK gang trying to overwhelm small chapters - quite the opposite and I think we have a good record at WMUK of supporting others.
*Regards, Jon Davies*
*CEO Wikimedia UK.*
On 31 March 2014 15:43, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions, and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
For the record we have people going for four reasons:
- CEO and Chair as standard
- Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
of strength in the chapter.
- Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
- Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
and expectations.
I was going to step back from this, however a correction needs to be made here for the record, There are 8 people being funded not 7. Named as going are the CEO, 2 additional full time employees and 5 trustees representing Wikimedia UK at the conference.
This excludes two other active members of Wikimedia UK who are representing the London Wikimania Programme and a member of the FDC.
Fae
You are right - eight. as Chris is going as well. The reasons remain the same.
On 31 March 2014 17:00, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
For the record we have people going for four reasons:
- CEO and Chair as standard
- Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on
areas
of strength in the chapter.
- Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees -
a
great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
- Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
and expectations.
I was going to step back from this, however a correction needs to be made here for the record, There are 8 people being funded not 7. Named as going are the CEO, 2 additional full time employees and 5 trustees representing Wikimedia UK at the conference.
This excludes two other active members of Wikimedia UK who are representing the London Wikimania Programme and a member of the FDC.
Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The additional trustee is also talking so Jon's points stand. It's great that Wikimania representatives will be there, and that a WMUK member will also be there as part of the FDC. However, while I certainly hope those individuals are happy to represent WMUK, they're really not relevant to your point - they are there for other (international movement) purposes and not funded by WMUK.
Best Simon
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ Sent: 31 March 2014 17:00 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014
On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
For the record we have people going for four reasons:
- CEO and Chair as standard
- Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
of strength in the chapter.
- Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
- Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
and expectations.
I was going to step back from this, however a correction needs to be made here for the record, There are 8 people being funded not 7. Named as going are the CEO, 2 additional full time employees and 5 trustees representing Wikimedia UK at the conference.
This excludes two other active members of Wikimedia UK who are representing the London Wikimania Programme and a member of the FDC.
Fae
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is totally surprise for me. I checked the last years participation lists, and none of the chapters sent more than 2+1 representatives. The idea all this years was very simple: to keep the conference small as possible in order to have effective discussions, and to allow all the chapter to be equal - neither if you are WMDE or a chapter that just been approved few months ago with zero budget.
The fact that this year the "rules" (if they been written or not somewhere till now is less relevant) had been changed without having a discussions about it very disappointing. I'll be happy to hear from the organization committee about this surprising change.
BTW - The idea that people from WMUK are coming in order to promote Wikimania among chapters makes me very amusement.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
A few points.
There is no policy to restrict participation to three representatives. Indeed, many chapters are sending more than three delegates as has been the case in previous years.
For the record we have people going for four reasons:
- CEO and Chair as standard
- Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
of strength in the chapter.
- Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
- Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
and expectations.
I think this is a sensible use of our resources, (flights to Berlin are cheaper than many train journeys to UK cities), supports our learning and helps share our knowledge and understanding with other chapters.
And on a final point we will certainly not be going round in a sort of WMUK gang trying to overwhelm small chapters - quite the opposite and I think we have a good record at WMUK of supporting others.
*Regards, Jon Davies*
*CEO Wikimedia UK.*
On 31 March 2014 15:43, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question
this
at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the
general
public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as
any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions, and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the
chair,
why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there
is a
tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only
fair
that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see fit. The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for everyone to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not implicit condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that gets the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else in "the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste money by sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardM
Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions, and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly, to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see fit. The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for everyone to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not implicit condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that gets the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else in "the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste money by sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions, and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree with Nicole.
There is definitely a conversation to be had about the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference and how the movement gets the most out of it.
That is quite a broad question, but once it is answered then there will be a clear answer about how many people should or can be allowed to come from each organisation.
Of course it is much easier to talk about narrow questions than broader ones....
Chris
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.dewrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly, to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see
fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for
everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not
implicit
condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that
gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else
in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste money by sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question
this
at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the
general
public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as
any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such
questions,
and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the
chair,
why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there
is a
tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only
fair
that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right, engagement on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent more then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education Meeting, but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know why this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it before. I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule" of number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we decided to select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's staff and board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for, and asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo we been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.dewrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly, to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see
fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for
everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not
implicit
condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that
gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else
in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste money by sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question
this
at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the
general
public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as
any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such
questions,
and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the
chair,
why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there
is a
tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only
fair
that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe that funds received through the APG process or from money received through current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday people. When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we as chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for this - but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and would wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large chapters with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a disadvantage or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right, engagement on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent more then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education Meeting, but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know why this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it before. I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule" of number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we decided to select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's staff and board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for, and asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo we been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly, to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see
fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for
everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not
implicit
condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction
and
not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that
gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere
else
in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste money
by
sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question
this
at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the
general
public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to
waste
money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as
any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such
questions,
and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the
chair,
why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there
is a
tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only
fair
that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative manner. Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where the donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly possible to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on donations.
When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise that plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they can say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the point. When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for them not to go.
My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective. There are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My experience is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have met them. It really helps me in what I do.
Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great opportunity to get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe that funds received through the APG process or from money received through current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday people. When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we as chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for this - but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and would wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large chapters with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a disadvantage or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right, engagement on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent
more
then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education Meeting, but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know
why
this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it
before.
I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule" of number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we decided
to
select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's staff
and
board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for, and asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo
we
been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly, to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see
fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for
everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not
implicit
condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction
and
not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is
not
controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that
gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere
else
in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste
money
by
sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <
russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to
question
this
at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the
general
public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to
waste
money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds
is
committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good
as
any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such
questions,
and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the
chair,
why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately,
there
is a
tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised,
for a
committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is
only
fair
that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list my view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same thought process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each $1,000 like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be spent on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending it on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the original proposed spending is worth it.
I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to replace their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of board members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt that now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in general, and I have now done so.
Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
Steve
On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative manner. Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where the donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly possible to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on donations.
When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise that plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they can say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the point. When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for them not to go.
My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective. There are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My experience is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have met them. It really helps me in what I do.
Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great opportunity to get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe that funds received through the APG process or from money received
through
current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday people. When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we
as
chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for this
but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and
would
wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large
chapters
with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a
disadvantage
or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right,
engagement
on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent
more
then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education
Meeting,
but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know
why
this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it
before.
I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule" of number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we
decided
to
select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's staff
and
board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for,
and
asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo
we
been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit
that
I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the
same
discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most
importantly,
to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they
see
fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for
everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not
implicit
condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that
as a
former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own
direction
and
not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is
not
controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when
that
gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere
else
in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the
current
criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste
money
by
sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <
russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if
they
> spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to
question
this
> at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e.
the
general
public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help
to
survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to
waste
money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds
is
committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good
as
any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such
questions,
and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such
questions
without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer
the
chair,
why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately,
there
is a
tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised,
for a
committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with
snide
attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is
only
fair
that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of the concept of the conference.
Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending in conferences - and we don't limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is not Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year with the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change it, due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally OK and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together, no by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no publicly.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list my view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same thought process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each $1,000 like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be spent on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending it on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the original proposed spending is worth it.
I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to replace their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of board members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt that now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in general, and I have now done so.
Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
Steve
On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative
manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where the donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly
possible
to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on donations.
When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise that plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they
can
say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the point. When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for
them
not to go.
My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective. There are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My
experience
is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have met them. It really helps me in what I do.
Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great opportunity
to
get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe that funds received through the APG process or from money received
through
current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday
people.
When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we
as
chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for
this
but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and
would
wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large
chapters
with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a
disadvantage
or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right,
engagement
on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have
the
right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter
sent
more
then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education
Meeting,
but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to
know
why
this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it
before.
I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember
we
asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule"
of
number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we
decided
to
select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's
staff
and
board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for,
and
asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome,
or
willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status
quo
we
been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally
some
activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit
that
I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team
regarding
programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the
same
discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most
importantly,
to start discussing and taking position towards the conference
topics
on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas.
We
have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it
together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they
see
fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license
for
everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is
best
expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and
not
implicit
condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that
as a
former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own
direction
and
not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that
is
not
controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when
that
gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because
somewhere
else
in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the
current
criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a
large
delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste
money
by
sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <
russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
:
> Gerard, et al > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote: > > > > > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if
they
> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to
question
this
> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. > > > Might I make a point here. > > It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e.
the
general
> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help
to
> survive. > > The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency
to
waste
> money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
> last year by > http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and > http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/ > > The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the
funds
is
> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as
good
as
any.
> > As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such
questions,
> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such
questions
> without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer
the
chair,
> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately,
there
is a
> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised,
for a
> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with
snide
> attacks. > > Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is
only
fair
> that they answer them. > > Cheers, > > Russavia > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such lists, but on the conference itself.
I for my case really would have liked to come, mainly for listening live to the discussions and get to know some people from other chapters. And as I this year live in the city where the conference takes place, it would have been possible with very few costs, too.
I really would like to see this aspect of the rules to be discussed on this year's event because I also think that more people will represent the bigger variety of the movement and still don't boost the event to a happening where no serious discussion and fair international decision-finding can be made because of overcrowding or overrepresentation of some chapters.
Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :)
Best regards
Jens
2014-04-02 13:37 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il:
I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of the concept of the conference.
Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending in conferences - and we don't limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is not Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year with the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change it, due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally OK and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together, no by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no publicly.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list my view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same thought process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each
$1,000
like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be
spent
on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending
it
on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the original proposed spending is worth it.
I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to
replace
their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of board members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt that now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in general, and I have now done so.
Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
Steve
On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective.
There
is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative
manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the
money
involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where
the
donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly
possible
to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on donations.
When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise
that
plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they
can
say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the
point.
When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for
them
not to go.
My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective.
There
are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My
experience
is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have
met
them. It really helps me in what I do.
Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great
opportunity
to
get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and
don't
necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I
believe
that funds received through the APG process or from money received
through
current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday
people.
When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would
feel
about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether
the
proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds
we
as
chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds,
and
this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for
this
but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and
would
wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large
chapters
with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a
disadvantage
or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion
will
mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed,
but I
would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully
going
forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right,
engagement
on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have
the
right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter
sent
more
then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education
Meeting,
but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to
know
why
this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it
before.
I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember
we
asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this
"rule"
of
number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we
decided
to
select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's
staff
and
board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking
for,
and
asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and
the
program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't
welcome,
or
willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status
quo
we
been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally
some
activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit
that
I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team
regarding
programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the
same
discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most
importantly,
to start discussing and taking position towards the conference
topics
on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and
ideas.
We
have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it
together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in
Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hoi, > Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as
they
see
fit. > The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license
for
everyone > to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is
best
> expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and
not
implicit > condemnations. > > Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand
that
as a
> former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own
direction
and
> not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that
is
not
> controversial. > > When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what
the
> formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules"
when
that
gets > the job done in an effective way. The notion that because
somewhere
else
in > "the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the
current
> criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a
large
> delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you
waste
money
by
> sending people to a conference, why is that". > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <
russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
: > >> Gerard, et al >> >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen >> gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote: >> >> > >> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide
if
they
>> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to
question
this >> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. >> >> >> Might I make a point here. >> >> It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors --
i.e.
the
general >> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your
help
to
>> survive. >> >> The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency
to
waste
>> money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated >> last year by >>
http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
>>
http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
>> >> The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the
funds
is
>> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as
good
as
any. >> >> As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions, >> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such
questions
>> without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no
longer
the
chair, >> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him .
Unfortunately,
there
is a >> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are
raised,
for a
>> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with
snide
>> attacks. >> >> Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it
is
only
fair >> that they answer them. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Russavia >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> 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 > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985
.
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement members who would be interested in attending this conference, but it is intended to be a very limited one. Several of the topics (Conflict of Interest, Meet the Trustees, Lessons learnt on huge projects, How to measure blood, sweat and tears, and particularly Reimagining movement structures) are of interest to a much, much larger community than simply the chapters/Thorgs. I'm still a bit baffled at having a session devoted to Wikimania, since almost all of the attendees of the conference will be attending Wikimania.
Indeed, if others besides the 2+1 representatives from chapters/thorgs are permitted to attend, I would strongly urge that any additional seats/participants be focused on movement members who work *outside* of the formal structures. It's pretty hard to come up with community-based reimaginations of movement structures if you exclude those who aren't already involved in existing movement structures. :-)
The WMF umbrella of projects, chapters, thorgs etc has not done a lot in terms of leadership development. I'll note, however, that the place where leadership is most sorely lacking is on projects, while the majority of those participating in leadership activities at the chapter/thorg level are not doing a lot of work on WMF projects. (That's a generalization, and there are exceptions.) It may be that either this conference needs to be refocused, or it needs to be split into two separate conferences. There is definitely an audience out there for many of these same topics which is being ignored completely.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 08:32, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such lists, but on the conference itself.
I for my case really would have liked to come, mainly for listening live to the discussions and get to know some people from other chapters. And as I this year live in the city where the conference takes place, it would have been possible with very few costs, too.
I really would like to see this aspect of the rules to be discussed on this year's event because I also think that more people will represent the bigger variety of the movement and still don't boost the event to a happening where no serious discussion and fair international decision-finding can be made because of overcrowding or overrepresentation of some chapters.
Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :)
Best regards
Jens
2014-04-02 13:37 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il:
I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of the concept of the conference.
Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending in conferences - and we
don't
limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is not Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year
with
the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change
it,
due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally OK and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together, no by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no publicly.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than
the
majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list my view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list)
that
regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same
thought
process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each
$1,000
like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be
spent
on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending
it
on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the original proposed spending is worth it.
I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to
replace
their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of
board
members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt
that
now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in general, and I have now done so.
Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
Steve
On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective.
There
is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative
manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the
money
involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where
the
donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly
possible
to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on donations.
When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise
that
plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree,
they
can
say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made.
One
really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going
to
conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the
point.
When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument
for
them
not to go.
My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective.
There
are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My
experience
is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have
met
them. It really helps me in what I do.
Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It
is
realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great
opportunity
to
get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and
don't
necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee
or
Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I
believe
that funds received through the APG process or from money received
through
current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday
people.
When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would
feel
about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether
the
proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the
funds
we
as
chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds,
and
this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for
this
but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all,
and
would
wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large
chapters
with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a
disadvantage
or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion
will
mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed,
but I
would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully
going
forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right,
engagement
on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't
have
the
right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter
sent
more
then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education
Meeting,
but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve
to
know
why
this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about
it
before.
I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely
remember
we
asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this
"rule"
of
number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we
decided
to
select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's
staff
and
board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking
for,
and
asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run
the
conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and
the
program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't
welcome,
or
willing to response such a crucial question that changed the
status
quo
we
been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
>wrote:
> I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is
finally
some
> activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must
admit
that
> I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like > conference goals and themes, support for the programme team
regarding
> programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having
the
same
> discussions on rules and logistics like every year before. > > There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or > volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most
importantly,
> to start discussing and taking position towards the conference
topics
> on-wiki and internally in our home organisations. > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
> > Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and
ideas.
We
> have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political > discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it
together!
> > I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in
Berlin!
> > Best, > Nicole > > On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote: > > Hoi, > > Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as
they
see
> fit. > > The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a
license
for
> everyone > > to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is
best
> > expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions
and
not
> implicit > > condemnations. > > > > Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand
that
as a
> > former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own
direction
and > > not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done
that
is
not
> > controversial. > > > > When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what
the
> > formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules"
when
that
> gets > > the job done in an effective way. The notion that because
somewhere
else > in > > "the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the
current
> > criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a
large
> > delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you
waste
money
by > > sending people to a conference, why is that". > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <
russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
>: > > > >> Gerard, et al > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > >> gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote: > >> > >> > > >> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide
if
they
> >> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter
to
question
> this > >> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. > >> > >> > >> Might I make a point here. > >> > >> It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors --
i.e.
the
> general > >> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your
help
to
> >> survive. > >> > >> The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a
tendency
to
waste > >> money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation,
as
> demonstrated > >> last year by > >>
http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
> >>
http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
> >> > >> The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the
funds
is
> >> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is
as
good
as
> any. > >> > >> As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask
such
> questions, > >> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such
questions
> >> without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no
longer
the
> chair, > >> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him .
Unfortunately,
there
> is a > >> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are
raised,
for a
> >> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning
with
snide
> >> attacks. > >> > >> Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and
it
is
only
> fair > >> that they answer them. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Russavia > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list > >> 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 > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Nicole Ebber > Leiterin Internationales > Head of International Affairs > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
> Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0 > > http://wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das > Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer
27/681/51985
.
> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > 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 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 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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
How about expanding its scope but alternating it with Wikimania, so one every other year?
This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
On 2 April 2014 15:59, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement members who would be interested in attending this conference, but it is intended to be a very limited one. Several of the topics (Conflict of Interest, Meet the Trustees, Lessons learnt on huge projects, How to measure blood, sweat and tears, and particularly Reimagining movement structures) are of interest to a much, much larger community than simply the chapters/Thorgs. I'm still a bit baffled at having a session devoted to Wikimania, since almost all of the attendees of the conference will be attending Wikimania.
Indeed, if others besides the 2+1 representatives from chapters/thorgs are permitted to attend, I would strongly urge that any additional seats/participants be focused on movement members who work *outside* of the formal structures. It's pretty hard to come up with community-based reimaginations of movement structures if you exclude those who aren't already involved in existing movement structures. :-)
The WMF umbrella of projects, chapters, thorgs etc has not done a lot in terms of leadership development. I'll note, however, that the place where leadership is most sorely lacking is on projects, while the majority of those participating in leadership activities at the chapter/thorg level are not doing a lot of work on WMF projects. (That's a generalization, and there are exceptions.) It may be that either this conference needs to be refocused, or it needs to be split into two separate conferences. There is definitely an audience out there for many of these same topics which is being ignored completely.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 08:32, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such lists, but on the conference itself.
I for my case really would have liked to come, mainly for listening live
to
the discussions and get to know some people from other chapters. And as I this year live in the city where the conference takes place, it would
have
been possible with very few costs, too.
I really would like to see this aspect of the rules to be discussed on
this
year's event because I also think that more people will represent the bigger variety of the movement and still don't boost the event to a happening where no serious discussion and fair international decision-finding can be made because of overcrowding or
overrepresentation
of some chapters.
Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :)
Best regards
Jens
2014-04-02 13:37 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il:
I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question
of
the concept of the conference.
Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending in conferences - and we
don't
limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is
not
Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year
with
the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change
it,
due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally
OK
and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together,
no
by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no publicly.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than
the
majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list
my
view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list)
that
regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same
thought
process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each
$1,000
like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be
spent
on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in
spending
it
on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether
the
original proposed spending is worth it.
I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to
replace
their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of
board
members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt
that
now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in general, and I have now done so.
Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
Steve
On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective.
There
is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative
manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the
money
involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government
where
the
donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly
possible
to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year
on
donations.
When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to
exercise
that
plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree,
they
can
say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made.
One
really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going
to
conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the
point.
When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument
for
them
not to go.
My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective.
There
are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My
experience
is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I
have
met
them. It really helps me in what I do.
Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend.
It
is
realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great
opportunity
to
get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and
don't
necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee
or
Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I
believe
that funds received through the APG process or from money
received
through
current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday
people.
When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma
would
feel
about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question
whether
the
proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the
funds
we
as
chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for
funds,
and
this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made,
for
this
but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all,
and
would
wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large
chapters
with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a
disadvantage
or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this
discussion
will
mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed,
but I
would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully
going
forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
> Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right,
engagement
> on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't
have
the
> right to ask questions and raise concerns. > > We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the
chapter
sent
more > then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the
Education
Meeting,
> but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve
to
know
why > this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about
it
before. > I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely
remember
we
> asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this
"rule"
of
> number of representatives from each org. More than that, when
we
decided
to > select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years
WMDE's
staff
and > board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking
for,
and
> asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run
the
> conference. > > WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals
and
the
> program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't
welcome,
or
> willing to response such a crucial question that changed the
status
quo
we > been used to since the beginning so secretly. > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
> >wrote: > > > I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is
finally
some
> > activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must
admit
that
> > I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics
like
> > conference goals and themes, support for the programme team
regarding
> > programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having
the
same
> > discussions on rules and logistics like every year before. > > > > There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or > > volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most
importantly,
> > to start discussing and taking position towards the
conference
topics
> > on-wiki and internally in our home organisations. > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
> > > > Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and
ideas.
We
> > have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political > > discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it
together!
> > > > I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in
Berlin!
> > > > Best, > > Nicole > > > > On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > Hoi, > > > Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend
as
they
see
> > fit. > > > The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a
license
for
> > everyone > > > to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny
is
best
> > > expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions
and
not
> > implicit > > > condemnations. > > > > > > Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand
that
as a
> > > former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own
direction
> and > > > not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done
that
is
not > > > controversial. > > > > > > When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight
what
the
> > > formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules"
when
that
> > gets > > > the job done in an effective way. The notion that because
somewhere
> else > > in > > > "the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify
the
current
> > > criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending
a
large
> > > delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you
waste
money > by > > > sending people to a conference, why is that". > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > > > Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" < russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com > >: > > > > > >> Gerard, et al > > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > > >> gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to
decide
if
they
> > >> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter
to
question > > this > > >> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. > > >> > > >> > > >> Might I make a point here. > > >> > > >> It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors --
i.e.
the
> > general > > >> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs
your
help
to
> > >> survive. > > >> > > >> The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a
tendency
to
> waste > > >> money on frivolous things such as travel and
accommodation,
as
> > demonstrated > > >> last year by > > >>
http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
> > >>
http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
> > >> > > >> The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE
the
funds
is > > >> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is
as
good
as > > any. > > >> > > >> As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask
such
> > questions, > > >> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such
questions
> > >> without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no
longer
the
> > chair, > > >> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him .
Unfortunately,
there > > is a > > >> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are
raised,
for a > > >> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning
with
snide
> > >> attacks. > > >> > > >> Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and
it
is
only > > fair > > >> that they answer them. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > >> Russavia > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list > > >> 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 > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > -- > > Nicole Ebber > > Leiterin Internationales > > Head of International Affairs > > > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
Berlin
> > Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0 > > > > http://wikimedia.de > > > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien
Wissens
e.V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
> > unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch
das
> > Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer
27/681/51985
.
> > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > 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 > 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 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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
(my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will)
2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :)
May I say? Please come by also at the conference. I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw) but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply Wrong(TM) to me. For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public, everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting (e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always have some bystanders (this includes the occasional "I am painter, why I don't have my Wikipedia page?") and, to date, our assemblies have never being flooded by strangers :-). Moreover, for the sake of "bias" and over-representation I think that this will not be of much more impact than the fact of chosing to hold the event itself in Berlin.
Cristian
On 03/31/2014 05:47 AM, Fæ wrote:
with the UK sending a massive party of 8 people
That seems niether all that surprising nor all that costly; obviously the cost of sending UK members to London will be considerably cheaper than from anywhere else (and, indeed, some of those may well be local to London reducing travel to nil) -- a rare opportunity for a local movement to increase their participation.
Unless you are aware that the actual /cost/ of that delegation is unreasonable, I would think that being able to have a larger party is, in fact, desirable and wouldn't object to size for size's sake.
-- Marc
2014-03-31 11:47 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
This seems to not be the case looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania representatives), significantly larger than any other Chapter or Thorg.
Well, the question then is "can WM-UK explain the rationale for sending such a large representation?"
C
Please note that this year the invitation to the conference states "Organizations who would like to send more than two persons will have to book and pay for all their travel and accommodation themselves." - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Registration - There is no more a blanket recommendation against sending more than two people.
Nevertheless, a discussion on who should attend such a conference in general, and if there is a specific goal WMUK is hoping to achieve this year are still valid.
Best regards, Bence
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org