foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Additionally, "we" (as in "the community") did not choose who made up the jury. I don't know who chose it, why they were chosen, but for a group to act on "our" behalf in such a big way (big in my view) it surely deserves more accountability. Maybe something for another thread. -- Alex (Majorly)
Good point. Who did choose the jury? If they are supposed to be working in "our" interests, then someone needs to tell them that they are not doing their job(s).
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
As an Asian living in East Asia, I daresay I sure was not chosen to mimic US arrogance.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Additionally, "we" (as in "the community") did not choose who made up the jury. I don't know who chose it, why they were chosen, but for a group to act on "our" behalf in such a big way (big in my view) it surely deserves more accountability. Maybe something for another thread. -- Alex (Majorly)
Good point. Who did choose the jury? If they are supposed to be working in "our" interests, then someone needs to tell them that they are not doing their job(s).
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Were you chosen to mimic anti-US arrogance?
-Dan On Mar 31, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Aphaia wrote:
As an Asian living in East Asia, I daresay I sure was not chosen to mimic US arrogance.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Additionally, "we" (as in "the community") did not choose who made up the jury. I don't know who chose it, why they were chosen, but for a group to act on "our" behalf in such a big way (big in my view) it surely deserves more accountability. Maybe something for another thread. -- Alex (Majorly)
Good point. Who did choose the jury? If they are supposed to be working in "our" interests, then someone needs to tell them that they are not doing their job(s).
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Who is "our?" We still haven't defined who the community is. Some people say just editors. Some people say editors+readers, and some others say that it's just the editors who seem to put the most effort in.
However, this "community" cannot be rigidly defined, and for different purposes, we need different measuring sticks. For the board elections, there's issues of "who can vote?" On one hand, it would be _nice_ to allow anyone who edits or reads WMF-projects to vote, as it would help us be more representative. However, that leads to issues of potential vote stacking (it's easy enough to use a new IP address to vote twice, if anons were allowed to vote). So we limit that "community" to just editors.
For Wikimania, it becomes harder. Who are we trying to encourage to attend? Is it our "core" editors and contributors? The media? People who have never edited but are interested? Potential donors? Readers?
Until you figure out who Wikimania is designed for, you'll have trouble defining who they're representing, and indeed, if they are doing their job right. It's far too early to say "they didn't do it right" when you still don't know what "it" is.
-Chad
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Additionally, "we" (as in "the community") did not choose who made up the jury. I don't know who chose it, why they were chosen, but for a group to act on "our" behalf in such a big way (big in my view) it surely deserves more accountability. Maybe something for another thread. -- Alex (Majorly)
Good point. Who did choose the jury? If they are supposed to be working in "our" interests, then someone needs to tell them that they are not doing their job(s).
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Additionally, "we" (as in "the community") did not choose who made up the jury. I don't know who chose it, why they were chosen, but for a group to act on "our" behalf in such a big way (big in my view) it surely deserves more accountability. Maybe something for another thread. -- Alex (Majorly)
Good point. Who did choose the jury? If they are supposed to be working in "our" interests, then someone needs to tell them that they are not doing their job(s).
Please note that members of the jury read Foundation-l and Wikimania-l, so any criticisms, compliments or suggestions made here does indeed reach them. Therefore, you should probably address yourself directly to the moderators and jury members if you think we are doing a bad job. In addition, I will be glad to forward any private messages to the jury email list. Constructive suggestions are probably the most helpful, along with a more detailed explanation of any criticisms.
In that vein, these are the basic questions that I am personally most interested in hearing constructive, creative, and thoughtful answers to:
* Is the bidding system the best way to identify possible Wikimania locations? if not, what other system could be used to ensure an enthusiastic and capable organizing team every year? * If the bidding system is the best way, then how would you choose from amongst bids in a timely manner that would ensure fairness, consistency and community representation, while also providing in-depth knowledge of the conference and representing the interests of the Foundation? If the answer is a small-group jury, then how would you pick the members of that jury? * Is something wrong with the conference, or the conference location? * If the conference location, then how would you define a better location? How would you pick a location that does not unfairly penalize any group of Wikimedia editors and community members? How would you pick a location that is accessible to as many community members as possible? What evidence would you base this decision on? * How would you change the bidding criteria to ensure this better location? Would you change the bidding criteria in other ways? * How would you deal with the different criticisms of locations that have been raised on this list -- considering that different criticisms have been raised regarding all four conference locations (on four continents) to date, and all of them have validity? * How would you best support the passionate and dedicated community members who have volunteered to make the huge personal sacrifice of organizing the conference? * Would you be willing and capable of organizing the conference (which past experience says is a commitment of 10-30 hours a week for a year, plus the responsibility of providing an excellent experience for the community with very little reward and the responsibility of coming up with your own funding, and motivating 10-20 volunteers to donate an equivalent amount of time)? If not, how do you suggest we find people who are?
-- Phoebe
On 31/03/2008, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Jason Safoutin
Please note that members of the jury read Foundation-l and Wikimania-l, so any criticisms, compliments or suggestions made here does indeed reach them. Therefore, you should probably address yourself directly to the moderators and jury members if you think we are doing a bad job. In addition, I will be glad to forward any private messages to the jury email list. Constructive suggestions are probably the most helpful, along with a more detailed explanation of any criticisms.
In that vein, these are the basic questions that I am personally most interested in hearing constructive, creative, and thoughtful answers to:
- Is the bidding system the best way to identify possible Wikimania
locations? if not, what other system could be used to ensure an enthusiastic and capable organizing team every year?
- If the bidding system is the best way, then how would you choose
from amongst bids in a timely manner that would ensure fairness, consistency and community representation, while also providing in-depth knowledge of the conference and representing the interests of the Foundation? If the answer is a small-group jury, then how would you pick the members of that jury?
- Is something wrong with the conference, or the conference location?
- If the conference location, then how would you define a better
location? How would you pick a location that does not unfairly penalize any group of Wikimedia editors and community members? How would you pick a location that is accessible to as many community members as possible? What evidence would you base this decision on?
- How would you change the bidding criteria to ensure this better
location? Would you change the bidding criteria in other ways?
- How would you deal with the different criticisms of locations that
have been raised on this list -- considering that different criticisms have been raised regarding all four conference locations (on four continents) to date, and all of them have validity?
- How would you best support the passionate and dedicated community
members who have volunteered to make the huge personal sacrifice of organizing the conference?
- Would you be willing and capable of organizing the conference (which
past experience says is a commitment of 10-30 hours a week for a year, plus the responsibility of providing an excellent experience for the community with very little reward and the responsibility of coming up with your own funding, and motivating 10-20 volunteers to donate an equivalent amount of time)? If not, how do you suggest we find people who are?
-- Phoebe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't have any issues with the members of the jury, but others might, and there's currently no real way to bring up problems.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't have any issues with the members of the jury, but others might, and there's currently no real way to bring up problems.
I agree with Majorly on this, and maybe this is the root reason why people seem to be so disgruntled with these processes. We've got this closed and secretive selection where a small group are making these sweeping decisions. The "community" (however you choose to define that) isn't given any input in this matter whatsoever. We don't get to help in the decision-making process (except for submitting bids which are judged on unknown criteria), and we don't get to express problems in any orderly way after the fact.
I won't harp on this issue anymore here other then to say, as I say often, that a little bit of openness and communication can go a long way to solving problems.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't have any issues with the members of the jury, but others might, and there's currently no real way to bring up problems.
I agree with Majorly on this, and maybe this is the root reason why people seem to be so disgruntled with these processes. We've got this closed and secretive selection where a small group are making these sweeping decisions. The "community" (however you choose to define that) isn't given any input in this matter whatsoever. We don't get to help in the decision-making process (except for submitting bids which are judged on unknown criteria), and we don't get to express problems in any orderly way after the fact.
Criteria was on meta for months and you had have a lot of time but definitely less than any jury member to spare the time to give your consideration and feedback to its talk page.
What is the unknown but public any one can give a suggestion criteria? I am afraid we cannot share the idea what "unknown" means here.
I won't harp on this issue anymore here other then to say, as I say often, that a little bit of openness and communication can go a long way to solving problems.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Criteria was on meta for months and you had have a lot of time but definitely less than any jury member to spare the time to give your consideration and feedback to its talk page.
This may be, but people are still asking questions about how this decision was reached, what criteria the Jury used and what those criteria mean. And regardless of what the page says at meta, nobody really knows what the Jury members were thinking when they voted, or what they discussed amongst themselves in private. Then, when the decision has been made, there seems to be no venue presented and no tolerance displayed for people who have questions, comments, or concerns about it.
Having a talk page on meta hardly means that the process is an "open" one.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote: Then, when the decision has been made, there seems to be no venue presented and no tolerance displayed for people who have questions, comments, or concerns about it.
Anyone could attend the open meeting on the IRC where jury and others made a question. For people who had no IRC access either regularly or occasionally, they could submit questions to meta bidding pages. Each venues had their page on meta and welcomed questions from anyone.
Having a talk page on meta hardly means that the process is an "open" one.
I will disagree.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't have any issues with the members of the jury, but others might, and there's currently no real way to bring up problems.
I agree with Majorly on this, and maybe this is the root reason why people seem to be so disgruntled with these processes. We've got this closed and secretive selection where a small group are making these sweeping decisions. The "community" (however you choose to define that) isn't given any input in this matter whatsoever. We don't get to help in the decision-making process (except for submitting bids which are judged on unknown criteria), and we don't get to express problems in any orderly way after the fact.
The deliberations may be private, but the process certainly isn't secretive, and it's not at all the case that others from outside the jury have no input.
The timeline, with a step-by-step description of the process, can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2009. There were two public IRC meetings, and the Q&A pages on meta were open to anyone, not just members of the jury. We did see more public participation with the 2008 bid process, but this was coming straight out of the 2007 event, when Wikimania was on everyone's minds and interest was a lot greater. I'm not aware of any kind of conscious effort to close out the community for the 2009 selection.
The criteria are very well known, and posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2009/Judging_criteria. These, too, were open to comment by the public before being finalized; in fact, until just now the page still read "This is a work in progress. Please consider and comment. This list of criteria will be closed on February 29, 2008."
I won't harp on this issue anymore here other then to say, as I say often, that a little bit of openness and communication can go a long way to solving problems.
I and others on the jury have made every effort to explain how we arrived at our decision, and I continue to do so while reasonable, productive discussion is still taking place.
Austin
Jason Safoutin wrote:
foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Additionally, "we" (as in "the community") did not choose who made up the jury. I don't know who chose it, why they were chosen, but for a group to act on "our" behalf in such a big way (big in my view) it surely deserves more accountability. Maybe something for another thread. --
Good point. Who did choose the jury? If they are supposed to be working in "our" interests, then someone needs to tell them that they are not doing their job(s).
To whom is "our" referring?
I would prefer to praise them for their excellent work.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org