Hi folks,
For several years now, people have occasionally floated the notion that there should be a permanent Wikimania oversight committee – basically, a group of people responsible for giving some coaching and guidance and oversight to the local planning team each year. Over the years, support has been offered each year by people like Phoebe, James Forrester, Delphine (Delphine both in her staff role and as a volunteer) and SJ … but there has never (AFAIK) been a formal oversight committee. I think there probably should be.
I've been talking about this idea with a few people over the past several months. Based on those conversations, I'd propose a mixed committee of volunteers and staff, with a small membership – let's say, five or so people. Ideally the people would remain on the committee for several years, and would have experience with past Wikimanias. The role of the committee would be to provide coaching and guidance for the local planning team (“here is how we've done it in past years, here's what usually works, here are some problems you should watch out for”) … and also to provide oversight to the local team, and help them course-correct if they're having problems. Essentially, the committee would be responsible for helping to ensure, in partnership with the local team, that every Wikimania is a success.
I want to reiterate that I (and I think we all) see Wikimania as a volunteer-led event. The Wikimedia Foundation plays a fairly small role --- it is its biggest sponsor, and it supports it in various ways. But Wikimania is a community event, which I don't think should change.
I'd like to throw this out for discussion, and also ask people to self-nominate if they're interested in being on such a committee. If everyone interested will be at Gdansk, the best next step may be to arrange a face-to-face meeting there to figure out how best to do this. And I warn Phoebe via this note (although I'm sure she can anticipate it), I will be aiming to pull her in to help think it through, since she has been one of the most consistently-active planners/organizers, at pretty much every Wikimania so far.
I'm interested in everyone's views on this, and I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the people who've been involved in past Wikimanias, and also from the Haifa people, to hear if this'd be useful for them for 2011.
Thanks, Sue
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
The role of the committee would be to provide coaching and guidance for the local planning team (“here is how we've done it in past years, here's what usually works, here are some problems you should watch out for”) … and also to provide oversight to the local team, and help them course-correct if they're having problems. Essentially, the committee would be responsible for helping to ensure, in partnership with the local team, that every Wikimania is a success.
We actually have tried to do a lot of this informally for a while, but the informality has caused it to sorta fall apart recently. :-)
Some things we've done are: * try to make sure that most planning discussion happens on wikimania-planning-l so that past and present organizers can communicate effectively
* have work occur on the official public (wikimania20XX.wikimedia.org) and private (wikimaniateam.wikimedia.org) wikis so everyone can help and see what's been done in the past
* get some help docs/pages together, here's two on the private planning wiki: http://wikimaniateam.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Ideal_Team / http://wikimaniateam.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Ideal_Timeline
A formal committee and a real, detailed set of tips (or "Wikimania Book" as Sj called it) would definitely be an improvement, but it's important to stress that other people would definitely still be welcome to provide feedback on different topics.
I'm interested in everyone's views on this, and I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the people who've been involved in past Wikimanias, and also from the Haifa people, to hear if this'd be useful for them for 2011.
I know that the Haifa team is definitely interested in this. Last I heard, they were actively reaching out to previous organizers so that they could meet them in Gdansk and get feedback/tips. (They've also been setting up planning information on the existing wikimaniateamwiki.)
Hello,
I had the pleasure of spending this past Monday in Tel Aviv, speaking at the Israeli Wikipedia Academy. (More about that in a bit -- the support for Wikipedia and wikis in general among universities there remains extremely strong.) We talked about next year's Wikimania over dinner.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
I'm interested in everyone's views on this, and I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the people who've been involved in past Wikimanias, and also from the Haifa people, to hear if this'd be useful for them for 2011.
I know that the Haifa team is definitely interested in this. Last I heard, they were actively reaching out to previous organizers so that they could meet them in Gdansk and get feedback/tips. (They've also been setting up planning information on the existing wikimaniateamwiki.)
It is always good to see an org team still flush with the energy of organizing a bid, trying to reach out and connect with all of the right groups with knowledge from previous years.
And it's always a bit of a letdown if that energy doesn't find anyone from outside the team with similar energy, reaching back. Happily, there are a lot of past organizers - both people who were on bid teams and people who were part of other institutions - who have spoken up in recent days to ask how they can help.
If we start a Wikimania Primer now, while a new team has that honeymoon energy, we can have a detailed discussion in Gdansk about how to set up a group to support future org teams from yeear to year. As Casey mentioned earlier, there is a lot of good "how-to" material on the wikimaniateam wiki which is unnecessarily hidden, and should simply be converted into that sort of public document.*
SJ
* a problem shared with most private wikis... -- meta.sj@gmail.com w:user:sj identi.ca:sj
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks,
For several years now, people have occasionally floated the notion that there should be a permanent Wikimania oversight committee – basically, a group of people responsible for giving some coaching and guidance and oversight to the local planning team each year. Over the years, support has been offered each year by people like Phoebe, James Forrester, Delphine (Delphine both in her staff role and as a volunteer) and SJ … but there has never (AFAIK) been a formal oversight committee. I think there probably should be.
Hello Sue and all,
Good timing -- we just had a long conversation about this in the #wikimedia open meeting this afternoon. There were quite a few participants, including several past wikimania organizers.
Quick summary of that discussion: * there is definite interest in an ongoing Wikimania (oversight, governance, guidance) (body, committee, group) (we talked for quite a while about those various names and their different connotations)
* there are a few potential roles that people see for such a group: ** 1) collecting and writing better documentation about the conference, including best practices for organization and what has happened in the past ** 2) answering questions from Wikimania organizers about past practices, helping coordinate who to ask about various aspects ** 3) providing oversight to the overall wikimania process -- for instance making sure that a bid jury is called and the bids are submitted in time (like elections) ** 4) providing oversight/governance as the conference progresses -- for instance, getting regular reports about the conference. Along with this, the org team would have someone to report to if, say, a venue burns down or some other catastrophe happens.
These ideas are roughly in order of how much controversy they generated among discussion participants. I think we all pretty much agreed that we need better conference documentation, and a loose community group of past organizers and interested participants can provide such documentation. Here's a start:
Conference handbook: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Handbook -- let's write the big book of Wikimania Conference checklist: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/checklist -- make sure you have everything you need Conference community: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/community -- a start at a community group, w/ interested participants.
We discussed however that for any oversight/governance functions we might need a more formalized structure and perhaps a formal mandate. This seemed like a Board-level issue to several people (including me). We also discussed that there's not a good process for proposing and forming community committees that would interact with the Foundation on various issues.
What do you all think?
best, Phoebe
A couple of fast thoughts:
* I think it's debatable whether it's board-level or not. It's board-level in the sense that it's "not staff-level" -- meaning it's mainly a community responsibility rather than a staff responsibility. But to the extent that part of the role of the committee would be to ask the staff for help if Wikimania is floundering, that is probably not a board-level issue. For example, I can't imagine the board making a resolution asking me to intervene to offer more support if one year Wikimania were floundering. That just doesn't feel like a governance issue.
* Which leads me to point two, which is that from my perspective, I actually do want someone to flag to me if Wikimania is floundering, and to ask me officially to have the staff get involved. Wikimania in Gdansk this year has had some problems, and I have felt awkward about how to best resolve them, given that (again) it's a community-led event, not a staff-led event. But I don't think the board should need to involve itself in that, because again, I think it's not a governance issue.
* Those aren't super-significant issues from my perspective though. Upshot from my perspective: I think that there's lots of good energy and thinking happening on this, and it feels like people are pretty aligned in feeling we want some form of oversight/guidance/something, in place supporting excellent Wikimanias every year. Which is great. Does someone want to organize a meeting about this for Gdansk? I'm hoping Phoebe will attend, and Casey and SJ, and whoever else is interested. I will be happy to put it in my schedule, and I think James would probably be interested too. (James Owen, not Forrester. I actually don't know if James Forrester is coming this year, although now that I think of it, maybe he is one of the train-travelling people?)
Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:28:37 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimania general list (open subscription)wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Floating a notion: permanent Wikimania committee?
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks,
For several years now, people have occasionally floated the notion that there should be a permanent Wikimania oversight committee – basically, a group of people responsible for giving some coaching and guidance and oversight to the local planning team each year. Over the years, support has been offered each year by people like Phoebe, James Forrester, Delphine (Delphine both in her staff role and as a volunteer) and SJ … but there has never (AFAIK) been a formal oversight committee. I think there probably should be.
Hello Sue and all,
Good timing -- we just had a long conversation about this in the #wikimedia open meeting this afternoon. There were quite a few participants, including several past wikimania organizers.
Quick summary of that discussion: * there is definite interest in an ongoing Wikimania (oversight, governance, guidance) (body, committee, group) (we talked for quite a while about those various names and their different connotations)
* there are a few potential roles that people see for such a group: ** 1) collecting and writing better documentation about the conference, including best practices for organization and what has happened in the past ** 2) answering questions from Wikimania organizers about past practices, helping coordinate who to ask about various aspects ** 3) providing oversight to the overall wikimania process -- for instance making sure that a bid jury is called and the bids are submitted in time (like elections) ** 4) providing oversight/governance as the conference progresses -- for instance, getting regular reports about the conference. Along with this, the org team would have someone to report to if, say, a venue burns down or some other catastrophe happens.
These ideas are roughly in order of how much controversy they generated among discussion participants. I think we all pretty much agreed that we need better conference documentation, and a loose community group of past organizers and interested participants can provide such documentation. Here's a start:
Conference handbook: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Handbook -- let's write the big book of Wikimania Conference checklist: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/checklist -- make sure you have everything you need Conference community: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/community -- a start at a community group, w/ interested participants.
We discussed however that for any oversight/governance functions we might need a more formalized structure and perhaps a formal mandate. This seemed like a Board-level issue to several people (including me). We also discussed that there's not a good process for proposing and forming community committees that would interact with the Foundation on various issues.
What do you all think?
best, Phoebe
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17 June 2010 23:48, susanpgardner@gmail.com wrote:
(James Owen, not Forrester. I actually don't know if James Forrester is coming this year, although now that I think of it, maybe he is one of the train-travelling people?)
I am, to both counts, and you can rely on me turning up to anything to do with Wikimania organisation. :-)
J.
Today's meeting was definitely progressive and the idea of compiling a handbook (or guide, or whatever) to Wikimania is fruitful..but, I just thought: Enthusiasm and good intentions could turn into a problem (or a crisis) if they are not accompanied by experience, or at least know-how. All teams want a conference, but they don't necessairly understand what does that take.
From my limited experience in 2008; Delphine was an imporant factor
(catalyst) in making things go on track, poking volunteers, and reporting to the foundation. She knew what a conference is...and what wikimedians want.
If someone could take the role of Delphine back, maybe on part time or per task basis, then I think that could help.
A book is good; but how do we make sure the content is practically implemented?
Moushira
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:48 AM, susanpgardner@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of fast thoughts:
- I think it's debatable whether it's board-level or not. It's board-level
in the sense that it's "not staff-level" -- meaning it's mainly a community responsibility rather than a staff responsibility. But to the extent that part of the role of the committee would be to ask the staff for help if Wikimania is floundering, that is probably not a board-level issue. For example, I can't imagine the board making a resolution asking me to intervene to offer more support if one year Wikimania were floundering. That just doesn't feel like a governance issue.
- Which leads me to point two, which is that from my perspective, I
actually do want someone to flag to me if Wikimania is floundering, and to ask me officially to have the staff get involved. Wikimania in Gdansk this year has had some problems, and I have felt awkward about how to best resolve them, given that (again) it's a community-led event, not a staff-led event. But I don't think the board should need to involve itself in that, because again, I think it's not a governance issue.
- Those aren't super-significant issues from my perspective though. Upshot
from my perspective: I think that there's lots of good energy and thinking happening on this, and it feels like people are pretty aligned in feeling we want some form of oversight/guidance/something, in place supporting excellent Wikimanias every year. Which is great. Does someone want to organize a meeting about this for Gdansk? I'm hoping Phoebe will attend, and Casey and SJ, and whoever else is interested. I will be happy to put it in my schedule, and I think James would probably be interested too. (James Owen, not Forrester. I actually don't know if James Forrester is coming this year, although now that I think of it, maybe he is one of the train-travelling people?)
Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:28:37 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimania general list (open subscription)< wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Floating a notion: permanent Wikimania committee?
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks,
For several years now, people have occasionally floated the notion that there should be a permanent Wikimania oversight committee – basically, a group of people responsible for giving some coaching and guidance and oversight to the local planning team each year. Over the years, support has been offered each year by people like Phoebe, James Forrester, Delphine (Delphine both in her staff role and as a volunteer) and SJ … but there has never (AFAIK) been a formal oversight committee. I think there probably should be.
Hello Sue and all,
Good timing -- we just had a long conversation about this in the #wikimedia open meeting this afternoon. There were quite a few participants, including several past wikimania organizers.
Quick summary of that discussion:
- there is definite interest in an ongoing Wikimania (oversight,
governance, guidance) (body, committee, group) (we talked for quite a while about those various names and their different connotations)
- there are a few potential roles that people see for such a group:
** 1) collecting and writing better documentation about the conference, including best practices for organization and what has happened in the past ** 2) answering questions from Wikimania organizers about past practices, helping coordinate who to ask about various aspects ** 3) providing oversight to the overall wikimania process -- for instance making sure that a bid jury is called and the bids are submitted in time (like elections) ** 4) providing oversight/governance as the conference progresses -- for instance, getting regular reports about the conference. Along with this, the org team would have someone to report to if, say, a venue burns down or some other catastrophe happens.
These ideas are roughly in order of how much controversy they generated among discussion participants. I think we all pretty much agreed that we need better conference documentation, and a loose community group of past organizers and interested participants can provide such documentation. Here's a start:
Conference handbook: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Handbook -- let's write the big book of Wikimania Conference checklist: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/checklist -- make sure you have everything you need Conference community: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/community -- a start at a community group, w/ interested participants.
We discussed however that for any oversight/governance functions we might need a more formalized structure and perhaps a formal mandate. This seemed like a Board-level issue to several people (including me). We also discussed that there's not a good process for proposing and forming community committees that would interact with the Foundation on various issues.
What do you all think?
best, Phoebe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for this. There were concerns over who or what body can create governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really just a Foundation issue.
I totally agree that part of such a body's role could be to help coordinate between the permanent staff whose work might touch on Wikimania, and the rotating local organization team.
-- phoebe
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM, susanpgardner@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of fast thoughts:
I think it's debatable whether it's board-level or not. It's board-level in the sense that it's "not staff-level" -- meaning it's mainly a community responsibility rather than a staff responsibility. But to the extent that part of the role of the committee would be to ask the staff for help if Wikimania is floundering, that is probably not a board-level issue. For example, I can't imagine the board making a resolution asking me to intervene to offer more support if one year Wikimania were floundering. That just doesn't feel like a governance issue.
Which leads me to point two, which is that from my perspective, I actually do want someone to flag to me if Wikimania is floundering, and to ask me officially to have the staff get involved. Wikimania in Gdansk this year has had some problems, and I have felt awkward about how to best resolve them, given that (again) it's a community-led event, not a staff-led event. But I don't think the board should need to involve itself in that, because again, I think it's not a governance issue.
Those aren't super-significant issues from my perspective though. Upshot from my perspective: I think that there's lots of good energy and thinking happening on this, and it feels like people are pretty aligned in feeling we want some form of oversight/guidance/something, in place supporting excellent Wikimanias every year. Which is great. Does someone want to organize a meeting about this for Gdansk? I'm hoping Phoebe will attend, and Casey and SJ, and whoever else is interested. I will be happy to put it in my schedule, and I think James would probably be interested too. (James Owen, not Forrester. I actually don't know if James Forrester is coming this year, although now that I think of it, maybe he is one of the train-travelling people?)
Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:28:37 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimania general list (open subscription)wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Floating a notion: permanent Wikimania committee?
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks,
For several years now, people have occasionally floated the notion that there should be a permanent Wikimania oversight committee – basically, a group of people responsible for giving some coaching and guidance and oversight to the local planning team each year. Over the years, support has been offered each year by people like Phoebe, James Forrester, Delphine (Delphine both in her staff role and as a volunteer) and SJ … but there has never (AFAIK) been a formal oversight committee. I think there probably should be.
Hello Sue and all,
Good timing -- we just had a long conversation about this in the #wikimedia open meeting this afternoon. There were quite a few participants, including several past wikimania organizers.
Quick summary of that discussion:
- there is definite interest in an ongoing Wikimania (oversight,
governance, guidance) (body, committee, group) (we talked for quite a while about those various names and their different connotations)
- there are a few potential roles that people see for such a group:
** 1) collecting and writing better documentation about the conference, including best practices for organization and what has happened in the past ** 2) answering questions from Wikimania organizers about past practices, helping coordinate who to ask about various aspects ** 3) providing oversight to the overall wikimania process -- for instance making sure that a bid jury is called and the bids are submitted in time (like elections) ** 4) providing oversight/governance as the conference progresses -- for instance, getting regular reports about the conference. Along with this, the org team would have someone to report to if, say, a venue burns down or some other catastrophe happens.
These ideas are roughly in order of how much controversy they generated among discussion participants. I think we all pretty much agreed that we need better conference documentation, and a loose community group of past organizers and interested participants can provide such documentation. Here's a start:
Conference handbook: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Handbook -- let's write the big book of Wikimania Conference checklist: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/checklist -- make sure you have everything you need Conference community: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/community -- a start at a community group, w/ interested participants.
We discussed however that for any oversight/governance functions we might need a more formalized structure and perhaps a formal mandate. This seemed like a Board-level issue to several people (including me). We also discussed that there's not a good process for proposing and forming community committees that would interact with the Foundation on various issues.
What do you all think?
best, Phoebe
On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for this. There were concerns over who or what body can create governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really just a Foundation issue.
I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in, partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity, and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
--Michael Snow
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for this. There were concerns over who or what body can create governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really just a Foundation issue.
I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in, partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity, and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
--Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:27 -0700, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
--Michael Snow
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Well, I would start with approaching the past organizers asking how they got their teams and who actually in the end did their job properly (and who did not).
You would like to have people actually doing smth, not just talking, right?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:27 -0700, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
--Michael Snow
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Well, I would start with approaching the past organizers asking how they got their teams and who actually in the end did their job properly (and who did not).
You would like to have people actually doing smth, not just talking, right?
Cheers Yaroslav
Something... even if that something is mostly just being a reporting/communication facilitator, I think. I don't imagine a committee or group that would actually organize the conference; that should be the job of the local team.
For those following along at home, this conversation seems to have migrated to wikimania-l, where it probably belongs: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2010-June/001922.html
-- phoebe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org