Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of...

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole...

Fæ

31 Mar 2014 31 Mar '14

9:47 a.m.

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 Could we please be modest with the movement's money and than some of these proposed names are withdrawn?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 -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Show replies by date

Gerard Meijssen

31 Mar 31 Mar

11:02 a.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Fæ

12:34 p.m.

On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Gerard Meijssen

1:08 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

relevant for more people to go ? Thanks, Gerard

Itzik Edri

1:33 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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

relevant for more people to go ? Thanks, Gerard

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Fæ

1:36 p.m.

On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Gerard Meijssen

1:59 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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

Fæ

2:03 p.m.

On 31 March 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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 -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Russavia

2:43 p.m.

Gerard, et al On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

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

Jon Davies

3:23 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Gerard, et al On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

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.

-- *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

Fæ

4 p.m.

On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)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.

Jon Davies

4:06 p.m.

You are right - eight. as Chris is going as well. The reasons remain the same. On 31 March 2014 17:00, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)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 -

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Simon Knight

4:11 p.m.

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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: ...

...

Itzik Edri

11 p.m.

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(a)wikimedia.org.uk>wrote;wrote:

...

Gerard, et al On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard Meijssen

1 Apr 1 Apr

8:47 a.m.

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(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Gerard, et al On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

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.

Nicole Ebber

3:46 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Gerard, et al On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

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.

-- 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.

Chris Keating

5:06 p.m.

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(a)wikimedia.de>wrote;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

"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(a)gmail.com>om>: > Gerard, et al > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > > > > 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

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Itzik Edri

10:27 p.m.

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(a)wikimedia.de>wrote;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

gets

the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else

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

demonstrated

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

fair

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Steve Zhang

2 Apr 2 Apr

10:10 a.m.

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(a)infra.co.il> wrote:

...

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

sending people to a conference, why is that". Thanks, GerardM Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com

> Gerard, et al > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > > > > 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

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

fair >> that they answer them. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Russavia >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Gerard Meijssen

10:54 a.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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

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

been used to since the beginning so secretly. On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber(a)wikimedia.de

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(a)gmail.com

>: > > > >> Gerard, et al > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > >> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > 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

> >> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good

> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Steve Zhang

11:17 a.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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

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(a)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

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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com > >: > > > > > >> Gerard, et al > > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > > >> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > 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

>> survive. >> >> The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to

> >> 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

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Itzik Edri

11:37 a.m.

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(a)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

get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang <cro0016(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

> > asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule"

> 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,

> > 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(a)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.

> > > 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(a)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

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" <

they

> >> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to

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

> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Jens Best

12:32 p.m.

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(a)infra.co.il>il>:

...

$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

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(a)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(a)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

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

> 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(a)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"

> 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,

> > 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(a)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.

> > > 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(a)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(a)gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > >> Gerard, et al > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > > > > >> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide

> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > >> Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > > , > > > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Risker

2:59 p.m.

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(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:

...

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(a)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

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(a)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

> 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

> realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great

opportunity

don't > > > necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee

> > 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

the > > > proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the

funds

> 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(a)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

> know > > > why > > > > this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about

> > > 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"

> > 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(a)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.

> > > 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(a)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

if > > they > > > > > >> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter

> > 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,

> > > > 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

> 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

> only > > > fair > > > >> that they answer them. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> > > > >> Russavia > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Jon Davies

3:12 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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(a)infra.co.il>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

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

> and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together,

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(a)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

> 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(a)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

> > > 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

> 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.

> realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great

opportunity

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

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

> know > > > why > > > > this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about

> > > 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

> > > 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

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

> > > > > 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(a)gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > > > Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend

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

> 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

> > 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(a)gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Gerard, et al > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > > > > > > >> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 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

> 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

> > only > > > > fair > > > > >> that they answer them. > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > >> > > > > >> Russavia > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > >> Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > , > > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > >

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Cristian Consonni

4:16 p.m.

(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(a)wikimedia.de>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

Marc A. Pelletier

31 Mar 31 Mar

12:23 p.m.

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

Marc A. Pelletier

12:27 p.m.

On 03/31/2014 08:23 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

...

That seems niether all that surprising nor all that costly

Oh, D'oh! Wrong conference! Ignore me, and move along. :-) -- Marc

Cristian Consonni

1:45 p.m.

2014-03-31 11:47 GMT+02:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

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

Bence Damokos

1:59 p.m.

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

3678

days inactive

3680

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

29 comments

14 participants

tags (0)

participants (14)

Bence Damokos
Chris Keating
Cristian Consonni
Fæ
Gerard Meijssen
Itzik Edri
Jens Best
Jon Davies
Marc A. Pelletier
Nicole Ebber
Risker
Russavia
Simon Knight
Steve Zhang