Hello All.
Ballsy and sincere mail Pavel, thank you for that and I understand your points, however as a longstanding wikiperson actually volunteering and a believer in the open participatory model which built Wikiprojects, I need to respond and disagree with you in some parts.
I don't see that anything needs fixing here. So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and the committee did something that we see not often enough in Wikimedia-land:
they made a decision. A decision they were tasked to take: Think and decide on the next Wikimania host, and on the process to find one.
1. Except clearly at least one com member is unhappy with the process, the com was somewhat unaware of actual candidates, the decision is suspended, the change of the game terms was not communicated to anyone in public (not to mention major stakeholders like Chapters sponsoring Wikimania attendees) and the whole process is completely not transparent. We are not even sure if WMF in general (Staff? Board?) supports it.
Fun fact: we have this website thing to document processes and inform others, they call it Meta. 8-) And taking a look into https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2017_bids you don't even see any Montreal. Or info about the major change in the process.
OTOH, you could see there encouragements to submit bids.
Fun fact #2: this page has been marked as historical by JForester only minutes ago which looks like a panic management.
3. "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em: laws and sausages" (Leo McGarry, The West Wing, "Five Votes Down").
Actually, it was Bismarck.
And there is one thing Wikimedians in this world could not care less about: How the next host for Wikimania is found. Let's applaud the great people of the Wikimania
Committee that they took on that task, came up with a great decision for 2017 AND implemented a new (even so not perfect) process while they were at it.
Well, some seem to care, at least on these lists or fb (see Josh or Perth people).
And others care for general transparency and community involvement which seem to be noticably deteriorating, see the issues with strategic plan. Not that I require a multilevel RFCs, general venue elections and whatnots but at least simple message would be more than great to not waste time of the potential bidders.
I might be wrong but I think that volunteer-driven organizations should be careful to respect their volunteers. Here I think the ball was somewhere dropped. I imagine someone actually wanted to off-load the volunteers and make their lives much better, improve the spending etc. etc., but the communication failed at some point.
Regarding the community consultation, I feel there are some more people than "old-timers" of en.wp and de.wp, and what is more these talks are read by much more people. In many cases I think they were found crucial by WMF staff as well although I do agree we could improve here, people are often overburdened and we are running circles. But it would be very sad to turn into a yet another bureaucracy.
Tl;dr I agree with you that making decisions is important and WMF is the major stakeholder, but I would put more value into making things fair and transparent, otherwise people get angry and the decisions are more prone to fault.
Warm Regards, michał "aegis maelstrom" buczyński
P.S. Sorry for the editting, some mail client issue.
Dnia 4 października 2015 20:03 Pavel Richter mail@pavelrichter.de napisał(a):
2015-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard :
Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit : Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix that ? I don't see that anything needs fixing here. So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and the committee did something that we see not often enough in Wikimedia-land: they made a decision. A decision they were tasked to take: Think and decide on the next Wikimania host, and on the process to find one. Nobody ever said that their job was only to execute a set of old guidlines and processes (which, I guess, were never "community approved" but rather were around just for a long, long time). So, they abandoned the process, came up with a new one, and decided who would host Wikimania in 2017 (Montreal seems a great choice, btw - I mean, a bilingual city has some great opportunities for us, right?). Whats wrong with that? Nothing! Let's face some truths here: 1. Wikimania has become well too big to be run by volunteers. EVERY Wikimania since Danzig (at least) happened only because the WMF jumped in at one point of time to rescue the whole event. That is not to say that volunteers did not do a great job for Wikimania - but the job proved to be too big for volunteers, for at least five times in a row. So it was right to abandon the current process and replace it with something new. 2. The new process has a lot of problems build in - I think, for example, that the decision to exclude major parts of the world from Wikimanias (except for every third year, when regions are "up to grabs), is wrong. BUT: We now have at least 18 MONTHS to fix this (and possible other problems) - thanks to the bold decision of the Wikimania committee. 3. "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em: laws and sausages" (Leo McGarry, The West Wing, "Five Votes Down"). And there is one thing Wikimedians in this world could not care less about: How the next host for Wikimania is found. Let's applaud the great people of the Wikimania Committee that they took on that task, came up with a great decision for 2017 AND implemented a new (even so not perfect) process while they were at it. 4. I think with a lot of things in Wikimedia-land, we need MORE bold decisions (by whomever), and LESS "community consultation" that only leads to some old-timers in en.WP and de.WP voice their anger and concerns, but rarely solves the problem that needs solving. 5. Dear Wikimania Committee: Your communication of this whole thing sucked, big time. Consider yourself scolded. Move on. Cheers, Pavel
Hi
I think we are all jumping ahead about the committee's status first of all. It's mandate was never to make such broad changes. If you would read the talk page on meta from 2010 on this issue, there are comments there from me and others where the envisioned goal of this committee was to facilitate the jury and develop expertise for wikimania, no one thought it was going to change the jury process. This is a huge leap that was made by broadening the mandate and most people here are accepting it, as an established fact - It is not.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
There are roughly three components on the Wikimania committee. One component is WMF staff. One component is former and future Wikimania organizers. One component is community members.
Those components aren't that distinguishable. If ellie was the only liaison for WMF on the committee acting in a passive capacity, it would be one thing. But someone like James, actually fits in to all 3 roles. It's his position as chair that also complicates the situation.
WMF staff does not have the same obligations and standards than the other members.
The rather unique situation of this committee is that... whilst it should include much community input... for most years (not all), Wikimania is actually mostly funded by WMF and beyond funding, some WMF staff put quite a bit of work in it. To say it bluntly, most of the time, without WMF input, Wikimania would simply not happen. This is no criticism to local teams (without them, Wikimania would not occur either), but a simple statement. WMF is a key stakeholder. What is the consequence of that from a committee member perspective ?
In my opinion, the consequence to that is that community members on the committee do not feel that they "own" this committee. It "does" feel like being invited on a Wikimedia Foundation committee. And as such, it feels like a sort of special attention/listening should be given to WMF staff members on that committee. And when things go ashtray... we hesitate being bold. It is not about forgetting.
I understand WMF being a key stakeholder. But I'd differ here about who feels a sense of ownership. I really have the opinion that James is over reaching. He used to start with a call for jury, run the process year after year, then formed this committee, of which he is the chair, and now wants to remove the jury process all together for a list of places he would like wikimania to happen.
I would also venture to guess that the board and Lila, are probably the least involved in these decisions about where Wikimania should happen for the next 5 years.
Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix that ?
I never suggested head rolling. To be absolutely blunt, I think James should stand down from his own capacity and let someone else take over the process and committee. Or give the community the option to choose which way it prefers.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015, Pavel Richter mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and the committee did something that we see not often enough in Wikimedia-land: *they made a decision*. A decision they were tasked to take: Think and decide on the next Wikimania host, and on the process to find one. Nobody ever said that their job was only to execute a set of old guidlines and processes (which, I guess, were never "community approved" but rather were around just for a long, long time).
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an entire roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge - because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I missed a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com:
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an entire roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge - because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I missed a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my book.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Pavel
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
The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
Never.
Fae On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter" mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com:
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
entire
roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge - because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
missed
a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my book.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Pavel
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
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
Pavel Richter Mobile: +49-151-19645755 Mail: mail@pavelrichter.de Twitter: @pavel https://twitter.com/pavel Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de _______________________________________________ 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
Of course it is the committee to have its say about Wikimania.
If I understand it well, the main problem was that the bid period was from August to November 2015, and some groups were working on their bids. They feel that they could have saved a lot of work if they had known before.
Kind regards Ziko
2015-10-04 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
Never.
Fae On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter" mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com:
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
entire
roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge - because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
missed
a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my book.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Pavel
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
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
Pavel Richter Mobile: +49-151-19645755 Mail: mail@pavelrichter.de Twitter: @pavel https://twitter.com/pavel Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de _______________________________________________ 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 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
2015-10-04 22:42 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com:
Of course it is the committee to have its say about Wikimania.
If I understand it well, the main problem was that the bid period was from August to November 2015, and some groups were working on their bids. They feel that they could have saved a lot of work if they had known before.
Yes, I agree, Ziko. And I do not take it lightly. As I said, communications was really, really bad here. So WMF would be well advised o invite everyone who worked on a bid to Montreal 2017, all costs covered. And maybe Lila would be well advised to call the good folks who prepared a bid as well.
BUT: That is not the main point. The main point is that Wikimedia now has replaced a broken process. And we should celebrate that. (And if it turns out that the new process does not work, than it will be changed again. Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say: Enough is enough).
Pavel
Kind regards Ziko
2015-10-04 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
Never.
Fae On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter" mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com:
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to
take
that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken,
they
thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set
about
corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
entire
roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near
foreseeable
future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't
community
approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and
how
these people got on this committee, or how long they will be
in-charge -
because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
missed
a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my book.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Pavel
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
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
Pavel Richter Mobile: +49-151-19645755 Mail: mail@pavelrichter.de Twitter: @pavel https://twitter.com/pavel Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de _______________________________________________ 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 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 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 5 Oct 2015, at 05:03, Pavel Richter mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
BUT: That is not the main point. The main point is that Wikimedia now has replaced a broken process. And we should celebrate that. (And if it turns out that the new process does not work, than it will be changed again. Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say: Enough is enough).
Pavel, with all do respect, I HIGHLY doubt there’s anything to celebrate here.
While I agree that the Wikimania process is broken, no one would’ve thought that the way we’d go about fixing that process would be handing that process over to a small group of people who can easily say “Oh! This doesn’t work—let’s throw it out.” For goodness’ sake, James claimed they talked to people—our question then is who did they talk to? They certainly didn’t talk to us, and there DEFINITELY was no discussion taking place on Meta or anywhere else!
A lot of work was poured into the Manila and Perth bids, and at least for us here in Manila, we’re doing so because it was suggested (by Ellie, nonetheless!) to do so for the 2017 bid process. If you seriously, seriously think that we will stand idly by and see this process be rammed down our throats while at the same time being advised that all our work is meaningless at this point, you’ve really got to be kidding us.
So yeah, if you think your idea of meaningful change is top-down diktat by a group of people who say “Enough is enough!” but without considering not just the open nature of our movement and the inherent need for discussion to take place before such drastic moves are taken, then I’m sorry, but this is utter hypocrisy. You can’t have your cake by saying that we should value open communication between stakeholders in a movement like Wikimedia, and at the same time eat it too by saying that top-down decision making is acceptable when a process is broken.
Regards,
Josh
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com mailto:jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (915) 321-7582 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://about.me/josh.lim http://about.me/josh.lim
El 05/10/2015 a las 04:18 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:
Pavel, with all do respect, I HIGHLY doubt there’s anything to celebrate here.
+1
While I agree that the Wikimania process is broken, no one would’ve thought that the way we’d go about fixing that process would be handing that process over to a small group of people who can easily say “Oh! This doesn’t work—let’s throw it out.” For goodness’ sake, James claimed they talked to people—our question then is who did they talk to? They certainly didn’t talk to us, and there DEFINITELY was no discussion taking place on Meta or anywhere else!
A lot of work was poured into the Manila and Perth bids, and at least for us here in Manila, we’re doing so because it was suggested (by Ellie, nonetheless!) to do so for the 2017 bid process. If you seriously, seriously think that we will stand idly by and see this process be rammed down our throats while at the same time being advised that all our work is meaningless at this point, you’ve really got to be kidding us.
With all due respect to the Montreal team, AFAIK the place where "the community" looks for information about future bids for Wikimania is Meta. So far, I could see only Perth and Bali. Well, until James deleted what was posted there reflecting this decision -and the best part is the edit reason: */Correct this to not lie. Oy./*
So yeah, if you think your idea of meaningful change is top-down diktat by a group of people who say “Enough is enough!” but without considering not just the open nature of our movement and the inherent need for discussion to take place before such drastic moves are taken, then I’m sorry, but this is utter hypocrisy. You can’t have your cake by saying that we should value open communication between stakeholders in a movement like Wikimedia, and at the same time eat it too by saying that top-down decision making is acceptable when a process is broken.
Simply, rename the whole thing to Wikimedia, Inc. and problem solved. That way you can /fuck the community /because TBH, you just don't care.
I would not comment the possibility of the community to manage a Wikimania.
The community is the main stakeholder of Wikimedia, and as main stakeholder everything should be focused on the community.
In the other hand I really think that the current trend of Wikimania is not *sustainable* neither for the community nor for the WMF staff.
The staff can manage Wikimania but using a lot of resources, and it's not sustainable.
The current position of the Wikimania's committee, even if bold, goes in the right direction to have a more sustainable Wikimania with a long term program of setup.
The main concern is that this position should have been communicated more efficiently and should have been introduced to the community earlier.
The community is not a stupid body, it's the body of Wikimedia.
Kind regards
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Pavel Richter mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
2015-10-04 22:42 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com:
Of course it is the committee to have its say about Wikimania.
If I understand it well, the main problem was that the bid period was from August to November 2015, and some groups were working on their bids. They feel that they could have saved a lot of work if they had known before.
Yes, I agree, Ziko. And I do not take it lightly. As I said, communications was really, really bad here. So WMF would be well advised o invite everyone who worked on a bid to Montreal 2017, all costs covered. And maybe Lila would be well advised to call the good folks who prepared a bid as well.
BUT: That is not the main point. The main point is that Wikimedia now has replaced a broken process. And we should celebrate that. (And if it turns out that the new process does not work, than it will be changed again. Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say: Enough is enough).
Pavel
Kind regards Ziko
2015-10-04 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
Never.
Fae On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter" mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com:
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to
take
that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken,
they
thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set
about
corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
entire
roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near
foreseeable
future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't
community
approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and
how
these people got on this committee, or how long they will be
in-charge -
because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
missed
a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to
who
should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And
their
mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in
my
book.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Pavel
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>
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
Pavel Richter Mobile: +49-151-19645755 Mail: mail@pavelrichter.de Twitter: @pavel https://twitter.com/pavel Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de _______________________________________________ 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 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 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
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
Pavel Richter Mobile: +49-151-19645755 Mail: mail@pavelrichter.de Twitter: @pavel https://twitter.com/pavel Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de _______________________________________________ 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
I think we are stuck with Montreal and to change now isnt going address the problems this decision has created, no matter how the poor situation thats been created is remedied every outcome will be a poisoned challis. There are measures IMHO that the WMF should take to ensure the people who created this mess are held to account for it.
The only way forward now is to return to the community for its input on how to take the Wikimania location/rotation process for 2018 onwards into a workable solution that wont cause further disillusionment within the community
note: I say this as the co-ordinator of the Perth 2017 bid
On 5 October 2015 at 16:29, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I would not comment the possibility of the community to manage a Wikimania.
The community is the main stakeholder of Wikimedia, and as main stakeholder everything should be focused on the community.
In the other hand I really think that the current trend of Wikimania is not *sustainable* neither for the community nor for the WMF staff.
The staff can manage Wikimania but using a lot of resources, and it's not sustainable.
The current position of the Wikimania's committee, even if bold, goes in the right direction to have a more sustainable Wikimania with a long term program of setup.
The main concern is that this position should have been communicated more efficiently and should have been introduced to the community earlier.
The community is not a stupid body, it's the body of Wikimedia.
Kind regards
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Pavel Richter mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
2015-10-04 22:42 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com:
Of course it is the committee to have its say about Wikimania.
If I understand it well, the main problem was that the bid period was from August to November 2015, and some groups were working on their bids. They feel that they could have saved a lot of work if they had known before.
Yes, I agree, Ziko. And I do not take it lightly. As I said, communications was really, really bad here. So WMF would be well advised
o
invite everyone who worked on a bid to Montreal 2017, all costs covered. And maybe Lila would be well advised to call the good folks who prepared
a
bid as well.
BUT: That is not the main point. The main point is that Wikimedia now has replaced a broken process. And we should celebrate that. (And if it turns out that the new process does not work, than it will be changed again. Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say: Enough is enough).
Pavel
Kind regards Ziko
2015-10-04 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
Never.
Fae On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter" mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com:
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to
take
that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is
broken,
they
thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set
about
corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed
an
entire
roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near
foreseeable
future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't
community
approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why
and
how
these people got on this committee, or how long they will be
in-charge -
because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge.
Maybe I
missed
a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to
who
should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And
their
mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in
my
book.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Pavel
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>
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
Pavel Richter Mobile: +49-151-19645755 Mail: mail@pavelrichter.de Twitter: @pavel https://twitter.com/pavel Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de _______________________________________________ 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 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 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
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
Pavel Richter Mobile: +49-151-19645755 Mail: mail@pavelrichter.de Twitter: @pavel https://twitter.com/pavel Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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 15-10-05 05:26 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
I think we are stuck with Montreal and to change now isnt going address the problems this decision has created
I... am obviously in a delicate situation responding to this thread, and specifically to that particular statement; but I think it's worth saying this:
I am *very* aware of how much effort and work (in planning, making contacts, approaching sponsors and suppliers, building a team, etc) preparing for a Wikimania bid is.
I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's benefit! I really wish that communications and timing had been better so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are desirable and your willingness to host is now known).
I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and, I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone location played a part). It's clear to me the steering committee dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started working on bids in time to communicate with you.
That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the very reason why the process needed changing. Even if three teams bid for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit of loosing in a bidding process. I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been even worse.
I am, of course, disapointed that *any* effort has been wasted by other community volunteers, but I very much look forward the a future Wikimania in either place.
I hope we'll see you in Montreal with no hard feelings - you will be welcome here.
-- Marc-André Pelletier / Coren
On 15-10-05 05:26 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
I think we are stuck with Montreal and to change now isnt going address the problems this decision has created
I think that this is a very unhappy wording; there is nothing wrong with the bid or the city by itself. As much as I find the wasted effort scandalous, it is not the fault of our friends from Montreal.
About the process of the past weeks since Wikimania in Mexico I cannot say much, I have not been involved, and I don't want to judge about something I don't know much about.
What I know about is that "the community" does not exist as an organ. How to make decisions "by the community"? Hold a referendum for every little question that arises in an organizing committee? Even in the WCA Council we saw how months were wasted for clear decisions that in other contexts had been made in a couple of days.
Kind regards Ziko
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
I think that this is a very unhappy wording; there is nothing wrong with the bid or the city by itself. As much as I find the wasted effort scandalous, it is not the fault of our friends from Montreal.
About the process of the past weeks since Wikimania in Mexico I cannot say much, I have not been involved, and I don't want to judge about something I don't know much about.
What I know about is that "the community" does not exist as an organ. How to make decisions "by the community"? Hold a referendum for every little question that arises in an organizing committee? Even in the WCA Council we saw how months were wasted for clear decisions that in other contexts had been made in a couple of days.
Kind regards Ziko
The WCA council was a bureaucratic mess that seemed almost doomed from its inception. I think the comparison is inapt.
To reduce the level of criticism and resistance, the Wikimania committee merely needed to conduct its deliberations partly in the open and follow the typical steps of consulting with the community. Make a page, float some ideas, listen to feedback, incorporate as much of it as possible, and then make a decision. Many people commenting here would not have taken the opportunity to be involved in that process, but would have been comforted that it existed.
And not for nothing, but a lot of the ideas in the threads of yesterday and today were interesting and worthwhile; the benefit of consulting with the broader community is that problems and opportunities are both more likely to surface than in a closed, hierarchical decision making process.
It still is not apparent that the Wikimania committee even sought or acquired the endorsement and permission of the WMF or the Board to make such a major change in the host site selection process. The committee seems to have become characterized by its secrecy and disregard for public input, which is quite a reversal from its past history.
2015-10-05 18:16 GMT+02:00 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
The WCA council was a bureaucratic mess that seemed almost doomed from its inception. I think the comparison is inapt.
No, there was hardly any "bureaucracy", the problem was that Council members did not met their tasks, did not show up at votings etc.
I trust in a small number of capable and active people trusted with a concrete task. That is realistic, that works. People get along the best and come to the best results when everybody knows about what is expected from them.
Kind regards Ziko
I trust in a small number of capable and active people trusted with a concrete task.
Seriously? I trust the community.
Imho the community has more trust then a small group of functionary's.
Apart from that, i agree with Steffen Prößdorf (thanks for posting your concerns).
--Stein
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:33:01 +0200 From: zvandijk@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
2015-10-05 18:16 GMT+02:00 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
The WCA council was a bureaucratic mess that seemed almost doomed from its inception. I think the comparison is inapt.
No, there was hardly any "bureaucracy", the problem was that Council members did not met their tasks, did not show up at votings etc.
I trust in a small number of capable and active people trusted with a concrete task. That is realistic, that works. People get along the best and come to the best results when everybody knows about what is expected from them.
Kind regards Ziko
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
Hi Marc,
Wiadomość napisana przez Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org w dniu 05.10.2015, o godz. 23:03:
I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and, I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone location played a part). It's clear to me the steering committee dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started working on bids in time to communicate with you.
That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the very reason why the process needed changing. Even if three teams bid for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit of loosing in a bidding process. I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been even worse.
Wow, the more I’m disappointed at this ball being "dropped". Heck, I can’t possibly describe the exasperation I feel at this new revelation coming from you as to when the Steering Committee reached out to you guys.
The Manila team was asked to consider planning for a Wikimania 2017 bid as early as January this year—less than a month after the announcement was made that Esino Lario won the bid for Wikimania 2016. To hear that they reached out to you before anyone else knew—heck, to find out that this happened behind our backs even, speaks of the duplicitousness the Committee has acted with when it came to making a decision as critical as this.
I’m not mad at you guys, and I’d like to think that Montréal can pull it off. But I am definitely mad at the Committee not just for dropping the ball, but for having us here in Manila run under the impression that everything will be the same as last year, only to have the wool pulled over our eyes with this decision.
Josh
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com mailto:jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (915) 321-7582 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://about.me/josh.lim http://about.me/josh.lim
Hi Marc,
Wiadomość napisana przez Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org mailto:marc@uberbox.org> w dniu 05.10.2015, o godz. 23:03:
I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and, I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone location played a part). It's clear to me the steering committee dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started working on bids in time to communicate with you.
That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the very reason why the process needed changing. Even if three teams bid for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit of loosing in a bidding process. I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been even worse.
Wow, the more I’m disappointed at this ball being "dropped". Heck, I can’t possibly describe the exasperation I feel at this new revelation coming from you as to when the Steering Committee reached out to you guys.
The Manila team was asked to consider planning for a Wikimania 2017 bid as early as January this year—less than a month after the announcement was made that Esino Lario won the bid for Wikimania 2016. To hear that they reached out to you before anyone else knew—heck, to find out that this happened behind our backs even, speaks of the duplicitousness the Committee has acted with when it came to making a decision as critical as this.
I’m not mad at you guys, and I’d like to think that Montréal can pull it off. But I am definitely mad at the Committee not just for dropping the ball, but for having us here in Manila run under the impression that everything will be the same as last year, only to have the wool pulled over our eyes with this decision.
Josh
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com mailto:jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (915) 321-7582 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://about.me/josh.lim http://about.me/josh.lim
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's benefit! I really wish that communications and timing had been better so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are desirable and your willingness to host is now known).
I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and, I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone location played a part). It's clear to me the steering committee dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started working on bids in time to communicate with you.
That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the very reason why the process needed changing. Even if three teams bid for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit of loosing in a bidding process. I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been even worse.
This reads a bit strangely to me. You seem to suggest that bids can be worked on for many years: in this case, saying that planning for Montreal started in 2010 for an eventual 2017 bid. However, you continue on to write that it's wasted effort if a bid fails in a particular year. Wouldn't failed bids be re-usable in subsequent years?
My guess is that sponsors and venues are capable of understanding a bidding process, so long as it's appropriately communicated to them.
MZMcBride
Everyone knows that when bidding there is a lot of work to be done that may not produce your desired result, its also common for there to be multiple bids. Something that is being missed is that the bidding process isnt a waste of effort, in creating a bid you also create contacts and connections that will serve the community into the future.
Yes Ziko the wording is unhappy because I'm unhappy with the process and there is nothing public about Montreal even being on the radar for Wikimania, A 2011 bid isnt on the radar for selection just like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Perth isnt on the radar either.
On 6 October 2015 at 07:18, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's benefit! I really wish that communications and timing had been better so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are desirable and your willingness to host is now known).
I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and, I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone location played a part). It's clear to me the steering committee dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started working on bids in time to communicate with you.
That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the very reason why the process needed changing. Even if three teams bid for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit of loosing in a bidding process. I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been even worse.
This reads a bit strangely to me. You seem to suggest that bids can be worked on for many years: in this case, saying that planning for Montreal started in 2010 for an eventual 2017 bid. However, you continue on to write that it's wasted effort if a bid fails in a particular year. Wouldn't failed bids be re-usable in subsequent years?
My guess is that sponsors and venues are capable of understanding a bidding process, so long as it's appropriately communicated to them.
MZMcBride
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 6 October 2015 at 01:56, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
the wording is unhappy because I'm unhappy with the process and there is nothing public about Montreal even being on the radar for Wikimania
I can understand your frustration, and to a degree share it.
Perhaps its time to take a sideways step, and not let Wikimania be such a big thing? As I type, WikiConUSA is running, and earlier this year I was honoured to be invited to speak at WikiArabia's first such event.
The OSM community also has both an international event (State of the Map; not held this year) and regional equivalents (State of the Map US; State of the Map Scotland, etc)
Perhaps the future for the Wikimedia movement is national or continent- focussed events, with more occasional Wikimanias? Flying speakers in, if need be, but addressing a more local audience, many of whom would not get to attend Wikimania?
Why not organise WikiOz, or WikiOceana?
Why not organise WikiOz, or WikiOceana?
We tried that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Australia_20... and was knocked back for the funding needed to make it happen.
-- be fon
Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
I'm not sure what you mean by "knocked back," Gnangarra, but the WMF response to that grant proposal looks thoughtful and aimed at finding a viable solution at some point in the future.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Austral...
Andy Mabbett, your perspective is a valuable one. I agree that Wikimania in its existing form may not be of central importance to the movement, and I do think that treating it as such has the potential to unnecessarily elevate the emotional pitch of some of these discussions.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Why not organise WikiOz, or WikiOceana?
We tried that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Australia_20... and was knocked back for the funding needed to make it happen.
-- be fon
Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Pete
We realise what the foundation was thinking in its response, I wasnt looking to be negative about the reasonings rather just pointing out that the community has already gone the path of a National event, and we'll be doing so again.
The problem isnt just the connections within our community they always need improving, the issue we face is that our community is physically isolated from the rest of the global community as well that is as critical for its future development as anything. Wikimanias are still the best way to share information across the whole of the community every project that I have run here in Australia has been as a result of the information I learnt while attending Wikimanias, I must say that I learnt alot thanks to WMUK when I was in London for the Wikimania both practical and how important the personal connections we make within the community are.
Having experienced that I want to get that same opportunity to Australia given how few of our contributors get the chance to attend them even more so given that no one from Australia was given the opportunity to connect in Mexico where this decision was taken is even more distasteful.
On 10 October 2015 at 09:06, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "knocked back," Gnangarra, but the WMF response to that grant proposal looks thoughtful and aimed at finding a viable solution at some point in the future.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Austral...
Andy Mabbett, your perspective is a valuable one. I agree that Wikimania in its existing form may not be of central importance to the movement, and I do think that treating it as such has the potential to unnecessarily elevate the emotional pitch of some of these discussions.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Why not organise WikiOz, or WikiOceana?
We tried that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Australia_20...
and was knocked back for the funding needed to make it happen.
-- be fon
Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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 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, Theoretically you are right, you COULD restart the process for a next year. That is quite a professional attitude. Ask yourself, is that the kind of effort you can ask of volunteers.. Be reasonable. It is too much effort for what benefit ? Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2015 at 01:18, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's benefit! I really wish that communications and timing had been better so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are desirable and your willingness to host is now known).
I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and, I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone location played a part). It's clear to me the steering committee dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started working on bids in time to communicate with you.
That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the very reason why the process needed changing. Even if three teams bid for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit of loosing in a bidding process. I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been even worse.
This reads a bit strangely to me. You seem to suggest that bids can be worked on for many years: in this case, saying that planning for Montreal started in 2010 for an eventual 2017 bid. However, you continue on to write that it's wasted effort if a bid fails in a particular year. Wouldn't failed bids be re-usable in subsequent years?
My guess is that sponsors and venues are capable of understanding a bidding process, so long as it's appropriately communicated to them.
MZMcBride
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 6 October 2015 at 15:15, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Theoretically you are right, you COULD restart the process for a next year. That is quite a professional attitude. Ask yourself, is that the kind of effort you can ask of volunteers.. Be reasonable. It is too much effort for what benefit ? Thanks, GerardM
Its not something you ask volunteers to do as such, its something that the volunteers choose to do. You go into it being optimistic of your chances otherwise you wouldnt even be there knowing that its a fair transparent selection process negates much of disappointment in missing out.
Yes you can take what you've learnt and try again later, since 2008 Perth & 2009 Brisbane bids it was very apparent that costs were an issue this further compounded by the A$ being worth more than the US$, in the last 6 months that changed dramatically some of the underlying factors that added to costs have also shifted. Accommodation is readily available, airfares are down because the boom that triggered all of that is over supply is high and demand is falling which means Australia has a window of opportunity a fix 3 year cycle remember that in fairness its doubtful that a region will see two consecutive Wikimanias even at 3 years apart on rotation thats a 15 year cycle between opportunities for each supposed region yet North America and Western Europe have a guaranteed opportunity every three years, you dont build capacity, capabilities or create incentives when the cycle is one opportunity in 15 years. Theres absolutely no ability to factor in once off circumstances without cause more disharmony
Ultimately that core of local community volunteers on the ground willingly engaged in the Event planning from the beginning is a critical factor that this shift is over looking, its something that someone sitting in an office in San Francisco can never replicate.
What a nonsense. With that justification, any random troll who dislikes the Wikimania location selection process (or anything else) can show up and "volunteer the revolution" which must then be implemented (because they said so!!). Am 04.10.2015 22:31 schrieb "Pavel Richter" mail@pavelrichter.de:
2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com:
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
entire
roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge - because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
missed
a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my book.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Pavel
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
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
Pavel Richter Mobile: +49-151-19645755 Mail: mail@pavelrichter.de Twitter: @pavel https://twitter.com/pavel Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de _______________________________________________ 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
Absolutely right. And the sentence "The revolution will not be community-approved." is the most stupid thing I ever read. When "the government" make significant changes, it has nothing in common with "a revolution". A revolution starts and is led by "the ordinary people" and is illegal per definition. So, if the WMF wants to rule the world without community approving, it's just the opposite of "a revolution"! I rather would call it "Coup d'état"./
/ Am 04.10.2015 um 23:37 schrieb MF-Warburg:
What a nonsense. With that justification, any random troll who dislikes the Wikimania location selection process (or anything else) can show up and "volunteer the revolution" which must then be implemented (because they said so!!). Am 04.10.2015 22:31 schrieb "Pavel Richter" mail@pavelrichter.de:
2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com:
Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
entire
roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge - because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
missed
a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who should be on this committee.
Regards Theo
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my book.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Pavel
I see the talk page on Meta for this committee hasn't been updated since 2013. I copied James' update to the talk page. I am going to oppose there and ask anyone else interested in reverting this decision to comment on meta[1]. This needs consensus, but more so, a choice, that was never given to the larger community.
This committee can be dissolved if needed, or another one can be set up in its place.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015, Pavel Richter mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome. They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my book.
This is a ludicrous proposition to even defend. The outcome, as you might have noticed isn't being supported or endorsed by the majority. This is not a solution, it is another problem, worse than that it is going against the grain by taking an open process and making it closed. By your logic, I can claim this new solution is a bigger problem, some of us here are objecting to it and we can tackle it by dissolving the committee? Or how about I apply the same logic to everyone donating to WMDE - recognize a problem, tackle it, communicate with the concerned parties and not even tell you about it, because I "showed up and volunteered". The whole logic here is indeed, non sense as MF-W put it.
First, there is no consensus the current process is a problem. Second, if there is, James is and has been chiefly responsible for the entire process, ergo, the problem. Now, the new initiative is to give James complete control to decide things in private without discussion, deliberation or so much as a notification to the wider community.
The revolution will not be community-approved.
Actually a revolution by definition, would have to be majority/community led and hence, community-approved. What we have now is a small group of connected individuals in a clique, who make large decisions for everyone. That would be an Oligarchy, and I for one, am tired of seeing the same people make these horrendous decisions.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015, Pavel Richter mail@pavelrichter.de wrote:
Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say: Enough is enough).
You clarified my point further.
Regards Theo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_Committee#Oppose
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org