On 2 April 2014 16:12, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
I can now confirm that Wikimedia UK is not going to make a public report of the total costs of sending 8 people to the Wikimedia Conference 2014. I doubt that Jon Davies' wish to reduce costs can be considered a commitment if as the Chief Executive, he has chosen to not report on them.
Discussion on the UK wiki on this topic started on 27 March, and I waited for 5 weeks for an answer to the direct question of costs (raised 24 April), in which time the original discussion thread on the chapter wiki was manually archived and I had to create a second discussion in an attempt to pursue an answer. This wasted volunteer time, employee time and goodwill, if the answer could have been "no, we have no plan to report on these costs" with a rationale as to why.
Perhaps other chapters have reported on costs and can offer links for Jon, in order to show how this can be achieved in a non-bureaucratic, open and transparent fashion for the benefit of chapter members?
Links: 1. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Engine_room/2014#Attendees_at_the_Wikimedia_Co... 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57343&ol...
Thanks, Fae
Fae,
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 April 2014 16:12, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
I can now confirm that Wikimedia UK is not going to make a public report of the total costs of sending 8 people to the Wikimedia Conference 2014. I doubt that Jon Davies' wish to reduce costs can be considered a commitment if as the Chief Executive, he has chosen to not report on them.
I have read the links that you have provided and I find it totally unacceptable that an organisation can not provide costs for sending 8 people on a junket to New York.
When I have operated businesses in the real world, I have been able to pull up any financial information (expenses, revenue, etc) within a matter of seconds and with a click of a mouse. It is astounding that WMUK is not able to do the same thing.
That Richard Symonds is saying that it is not a good use of resources, and basically putting it in the too hard basket, to supply the amount of donor dollars which have been spent on this controversial junket is, to use a great British colloquialism, total bollocks.
WMUK is an organisation which blows its own trumpet on how transparent it has become in the last 2 years, so it seriously should not be too difficult to do this in a timely fashion.
Cheers
Russavia
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I have read the links that you have provided and I find it totally unacceptable that an organisation can not provide costs for sending 8 people on a junket to New York.
When I have operated businesses in the real world, I have been able to pull up any financial information (expenses, revenue, etc) within a matter of seconds and with a click of a mouse. It is astounding that WMUK is not able to do the same thing.
That Richard Symonds is saying that it is not a good use of resources, and basically putting it in the too hard basket, to supply the amount of donor dollars which have been spent on this controversial junket is, to use a great British colloquialism, total bollocks.
WMUK is an organisation which blows its own trumpet on how transparent it has become in the last 2 years, so it seriously should not be too difficult to do this in a timely fashion.
Cheers
Russavia
The conference was in Berlin, not New York.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014
~Nathan
There is no intention to hide the costs to the chapter of the Chapter's involvement in the Wikiconference Berlin, but it is not a simple calculation.
One person was asking for trustee expenses, others are asking how much we (WMUK) spent on the entire conference (including staff, volunteers, speakers, trustees etc). I hope to clarify this here.
So for trustee expenses: not all of the board went as trustees, as two (at least) were invited as speakers - reporting that as a trustee cost wouldn't be accurate. As to staff – I attended as the Chief Executive, but the other two staff were also invited speakers. One of the staff had some costs paid by the Foundation.
As to the cost mine was probably on the low end, as I booked my flight early and always use public transport or bicycles, but from recollection (and I have to sign off all trustee expenses) the total cost to the chapter is close to £2600. My expenses are here https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Expenses_2014-2015 and give a good baseline.
The trustees are discussing how best to itemise expenses in a way that ensures an appropriate level of transparency at the board meeting this Saturday.
I do not know why anyone would call the conference a 'junket', that needs a citation I'd think, but it was, as I have explained before in detail, a productive working three days at a reasonable cost to the chapter. If you think it was a junket then the whole conference could be judged a waste of money and the previous ones as well - and they aren't. The reality is that these are important working conferences where chapters and other organisations meet to discuss best practice. Jon Davies.
On 1 June 2014 12:22, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I have read the links that you have provided and I find it totally unacceptable that an organisation can not provide costs for sending 8 people on a junket to New York.
When I have operated businesses in the real world, I have been able to
pull
up any financial information (expenses, revenue, etc) within a matter of seconds and with a click of a mouse. It is astounding that WMUK is not
able
to do the same thing.
That Richard Symonds is saying that it is not a good use of resources,
and
basically putting it in the too hard basket, to supply the amount of
donor
dollars which have been spent on this controversial junket is, to use a great British colloquialism, total bollocks.
WMUK is an organisation which blows its own trumpet on how transparent it has become in the last 2 years, so it seriously should not be too
difficult
to do this in a timely fashion.
Cheers
Russavia
The conference was in Berlin, not New York.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014
~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There is no intention to hide the costs to the chapter of the Chapter's involvement in the Wikiconference Berlin, but it is not a simple calculation.
One person was asking for trustee expenses, others are asking how much we (WMUK) spent on the entire conference (including staff, volunteers, speakers, trustees etc). I hope to clarify this here.
So for trustee expenses: not all of the board went as trustees, as two (at least) were invited as speakers - reporting that as a trustee cost wouldn't be accurate. As to staff – I attended as the Chief Executive, but the other two staff were also invited speakers. One of the staff had some costs paid by the Foundation.
As to the cost mine was probably on the low end, as I booked my flight early and always use public transport or bicycles, but from recollection (and I have to sign off all trustee expenses) the total cost to the chapter is close to £2600. My expenses are here https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Expenses_2014-2015 and give a good baseline.
The trustees are discussing how best to itemise expenses in a way that ensures an appropriate level of transparency at the board meeting this Saturday.
I do not know why anyone would call the conference a 'junket', that needs a citation I'd think, but it was, as I have explained before in detail, a productive working three days at a reasonable cost to the chapter. If you think it was a junket then the whole conference could be judged a waste of money and the previous ones as well - and they aren't. The reality is that these are important working conferences where chapters and other organisations meet to discuss best practice. Jon Davies.
It's a simple and basically fair question - how much did the WMUK spend on the Wikimedia Conference 2014? Whether a particular expense can be classified as staff, or trustee, or speaker, or etc. is interesting but not crucial to answering the question. Given the strained relationship with Ashley I can understand the reluctance to respond, but I don't think there is a strong moral basis for not providing the round total number.
~Nathan
£2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken....
On 2 June 2014 14:35, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There is no intention to hide the costs to the chapter of the Chapter's involvement in the Wikiconference Berlin, but it is not a simple calculation.
One person was asking for trustee expenses, others are asking how much we (WMUK) spent on the entire conference (including staff, volunteers, speakers, trustees etc). I hope to clarify this here.
So for trustee expenses: not all of the board went as trustees, as two
(at
least) were invited as speakers - reporting that as a trustee cost
wouldn't
be accurate. As to staff – I attended as the Chief Executive, but the
other
two staff were also invited speakers. One of the staff had some costs
paid
by the Foundation.
As to the cost mine was probably on the low end, as I booked my flight early and always use public transport or bicycles, but from recollection (and I have to sign off all trustee expenses) the total cost to the
chapter
is close to £2600. My expenses are here https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Expenses_2014-2015 and give a good baseline.
The trustees are discussing how best to itemise expenses in a way that ensures an appropriate level of transparency at the board meeting this Saturday.
I do not know why anyone would call the conference a 'junket', that
needs a
citation I'd think, but it was, as I have explained before in detail, a productive working three days at a reasonable cost to the chapter. If you think it was a junket then the whole conference could be judged a waste
of
money and the previous ones as well - and they aren't. The reality is
that
these are important working conferences where chapters and other organisations meet to discuss best practice. Jon Davies.
It's a simple and basically fair question - how much did the WMUK spend on the Wikimedia Conference 2014? Whether a particular expense can be classified as staff, or trustee, or speaker, or etc. is interesting but not crucial to answering the question. Given the strained relationship with Ashley I can understand the reluctance to respond, but I don't think there is a strong moral basis for not providing the round total number.
~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
£2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken....
Perhaps I misunderstood - £2600 is the total for all WMUK expenditures for all attendees? Or just your own? (And your link, by the way, says £226 for yourself and the total for all listed expenses is around £2050).
£2600 for everything. Got to get on! Don't want to get accused of hogging the lists!
On 2 June 2014 14:48, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
£2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken....
Perhaps I misunderstood - £2600 is the total for all WMUK expenditures for all attendees? Or just your own? (And your link, by the way, says £226 for yourself and the total for all listed expenses is around £2050). _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
£2600 for everything. Got to get on! Don't want to get accused of hogging the lists!
Thanks Jon! Sorry for my confusion, appreciate the response. (And its a new month, and a new posting limit!).
Jon,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
£2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken....
And I can tell you that the conference hasn't resulted in a single new long-term editor on our projects, did nothing to address the gender gap on our projects in any way that can be seen in metrics, did nothing to create heaps of content, did nothing to address issues relating to our infrastructure/software, etc.
Unlike the dishwasher guy who charged you £120 to tell you the bleeding obvious that something is broken, I am willing to give you the above comments for free.
Regards,
Russavia
Russavia, Do you remember like me reading why these people came to this conference? In that light, do your remarks provide us with any connection to these objectives? .Do you know the topics of the presentations given? Do you know the topics of the conversations that happened inside and outside the scheduled meetings? Can you imagine that the result may be increased cooperation and less waste because of shared information on best practices? Thanks, GerardM
On 2 June 2014 19:18, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Jon,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
£2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken....
And I can tell you that the conference hasn't resulted in a single new long-term editor on our projects, did nothing to address the gender gap on our projects in any way that can be seen in metrics, did nothing to create heaps of content, did nothing to address issues relating to our infrastructure/software, etc.
Unlike the dishwasher guy who charged you £120 to tell you the bleeding obvious that something is broken, I am willing to give you the above comments for free.
Regards,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia, Do you remember like me reading why these people came to this conference? In that light, do your remarks provide us with any connection to these objectives? .Do you know the topics of the presentations given? Do you know the topics of the conversations that happened inside and outside the scheduled meetings? Can you imagine that the result may be increased cooperation and less waste because of shared information on best practices? Thanks, GerardM
Well my comments were pretty much common sense comments based upon my silly assumption that the conference was related to the core mission of our projects.
I sincerely hope that the irony isn't lost on people that here we have a conference, which was supposedly all about best practices, yet when someone has asked for information on how much was spent by one chapter (who sent an extraordinary EIGHT people), instead of following best practice of transparency (i.e. answering the question), the person was met with deflection. Of course, it is entirely possible "that" memo hadn't filtered down to Richard Symonds, but I think the most likely comment one could make here is.....
WELCOME TO WIKIMEDIA.
Cheers
Russavia
Hoi. The core mission of our projects is to share in the sum of all knowledge.
Gender gap and number of long time editors are, while important, a side show. This was a conference with a specific public in mind and all about chapters and their best practices. It is equally a side show. For diversity we have separate conferences and Wikimania is all about the community of long time editors.
Your notions about evaluating the presence of many people was first about the HUGE amount of money involved and a notion that only a small number of conference goers per chapter were "best practice". Both have been debunked. The amount of money is small, many of the conference goers turned out to present at the conference and all of the people involved benefited by getting better connected with their international colleagues. THAT was the objective of the conference.
If you want to evaluate how we are doing on the basis of our core mission, lets do that. I am game. I found based on the interactions with people from several chapters that they do make a big difference they do enable volunteers to do more/better. When you want to discuss Wikipedia fine, it can do better and I often blog how I think it can do better. When you only care about gender gap and user engagement, I blog about that too.
When you talk about irony, it is ironic that I have to remind you what our core mission is. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 June 2014 03:19, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Russavia, Do you remember like me reading why these people came to this conference? In that light, do your remarks provide us with any connection to these objectives? .Do you know the topics of the presentations given? Do you
know
the topics of the conversations that happened inside and outside the scheduled meetings? Can you imagine that the result may be increased cooperation and less waste because of shared information on best
practices?
Thanks, GerardM
Well my comments were pretty much common sense comments based upon my silly assumption that the conference was related to the core mission of our projects.
I sincerely hope that the irony isn't lost on people that here we have a conference, which was supposedly all about best practices, yet when someone has asked for information on how much was spent by one chapter (who sent an extraordinary EIGHT people), instead of following best practice of transparency (i.e. answering the question), the person was met with deflection. Of course, it is entirely possible "that" memo hadn't filtered down to Richard Symonds, but I think the most likely comment one could make here is.....
WELCOME TO WIKIMEDIA.
Cheers
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 2 June 2014 14:38, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
£2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken....
These things are hard to calculate. You could however get a Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro and a Tamron 150-600mm for that price.
(incidentally the macro lens could be used to get a better version of this pic https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domitianus_II_obverse_ashmolean.JPG I don't have anything long enough)
On 2 Jun 2014, at 13:27, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
So for trustee expenses: not all of the board went as trustees, as two (at least) were invited as speakers - reporting that as a trustee cost wouldn't be accurate. As to staff – I attended as the Chief Executive, but the other two staff were also invited speakers. One of the staff had some costs paid by the Foundation.
I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Would the trustees/staff have been invited as speakers if they weren't trustees/staff? If not, then why make the distinction here?
Thanks, Mike
In short, because that's what UK charity best practice, outlined in the SORP, says we have to do when preparing accounts. Every charity in the UK does this because our regulator believes it's the most transparent way of doing things.
Basically, if people go as trustees, it's a governance cost. Otherwise, it's a charitable cost, because we're spreading knowledge - albeit knowledge of best practice, rather than knowledge of Wikipedia. This knowledge is imparted to other chapters, which in turn use that knowledge to become more effective at fulfilling our global mission. On 2 Jun 2014 21:13, "Michael Peel" email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 2 Jun 2014, at 13:27, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
So for trustee expenses: not all of the board went as trustees, as two
(at
least) were invited as speakers - reporting that as a trustee cost
wouldn't
be accurate. As to staff – I attended as the Chief Executive, but the
other
two staff were also invited speakers. One of the staff had some costs
paid
by the Foundation.
I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Would the trustees/staff have been invited as speakers if they weren't trustees/staff? If not, then why make the distinction here?
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, There are two types of cost. There is money and there is attention to people. As far as I am concerned you are a previous big shot of the English chapter and you did not get your way in everything or things moved on. Apparently you have a big problem with that because you can not leave off. You assume that you are right and never mind the PEOPLE cost you will do everything to get your way, move things in the direction of your point of view.
In the mean time you provide a fair example of what many think is wrong with our community. In a previous mail you indicated that you were going on with the things that matter ie content. At the same time you have been in multiple conversations telling others what to do and informing us what constitutes good / best practices.
When you are a WMF employee you may not seek community functions when you leave employment because the notion is that it is best to settle in the new role of not being WMF involved.
Fae, when are you going to settle in your role of the person that is not in charge and let others get on where you stopped being the "big" man ?
The point is very much NOT if they or you are right or not. The point is that you are the wrong person to make such a point. I said it before and it is a Dutch proverb.. "you attempt to rule from the grave" and people think your point is special because of your history. As far as I am concerned you damage the chapter, the community you may once have loved as it was "yours" to decide on.
NB I would LOVE to hear you say that things are moving well. I would love to hear you provide positive ideas / work towards realising positive ideas because that will cement your appreciation and may even make an "elder statesman" out of you eventually. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 May 2014 19:05, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 April 2014 16:12, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
I can now confirm that Wikimedia UK is not going to make a public report of the total costs of sending 8 people to the Wikimedia Conference 2014. I doubt that Jon Davies' wish to reduce costs can be considered a commitment if as the Chief Executive, he has chosen to not report on them.
Discussion on the UK wiki on this topic started on 27 March, and I waited for 5 weeks for an answer to the direct question of costs (raised 24 April), in which time the original discussion thread on the chapter wiki was manually archived and I had to create a second discussion in an attempt to pursue an answer. This wasted volunteer time, employee time and goodwill, if the answer could have been "no, we have no plan to report on these costs" with a rationale as to why.
Perhaps other chapters have reported on costs and can offer links for Jon, in order to show how this can be achieved in a non-bureaucratic, open and transparent fashion for the benefit of chapter members?
Links:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Engine_room/2014#Attendees_at_the_Wikimedia_Co... 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57343&ol...
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 1 June 2014 10:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
charge and let others get on where you stopped being the "big" man ?
I was never the "big man". I have only ever been an unpaid volunteer like everyone else.
is a Dutch proverb.. "you attempt to rule from the grave" and people think
I am not going to go away and die because you keep saying I should drop dead. This may be a Dutch proverb, in my eyes it is highly offensive and appears deliberately intended to be so here.
Fae
Hoi, No need to drop dead. What I want you to take is more positive role, I said as much.. I want you to try the role of an elder statesman.. Their influence is because of their positive comments and their insight and help move things forward smoothly.
You may try to assume you had a humble role by depicting yourself as "only" an unpaid volunteer. it does not help. It does not convince and it does not make your remarks helpful or pleasant or bring about a cooperative spirit. Thanks, GerardM
On 1 June 2014 12:07, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2014 10:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
charge and let others get on where you stopped being the "big" man ?
I was never the "big man". I have only ever been an unpaid volunteer like everyone else.
is a Dutch proverb.. "you attempt to rule from the grave" and people
think
I am not going to go away and die because you keep saying I should drop dead. This may be a Dutch proverb, in my eyes it is highly offensive and appears deliberately intended to be so here.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org