It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced formations?
Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us, with interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to our increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF can be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration of a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE, or others?
Pine
Im not sure now is the right time to divide affiliates. Thematic organizations and user groups are still new and there is still a heavy preference towards chapters. User groups are not necessarily small, and chapters are not necessarily large. I hear what you are saying about resources being stretched thin. Wiki Learning was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years of trying, but we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately, we are already pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de Monterrey. Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just now got some kind of recognition and voice.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700 From: wiki.pine@gmail.com To: maorx@wikimedia.org.ve; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: kharold@wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups
It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced formations?
Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us, with interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to our increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF can be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration of a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE, or others?
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
Any process that divides the community isnt good for the community, we already seeing the effects of poor decisions being taken by groups and individuals acting in isolation
On 18 October 2015 at 20:02, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
Im not sure now is the right time to divide affiliates. Thematic organizations and user groups are still new and there is still a heavy preference towards chapters. User groups are not necessarily small, and chapters are not necessarily large. I hear what you are saying about resources being stretched thin. Wiki Learning was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years of trying, but we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately, we are already pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de Monterrey. Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just now got some kind of recognition and voice.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700 From: wiki.pine@gmail.com To: maorx@wikimedia.org.ve; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: kharold@wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups
It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced formations?
Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us,
with
interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to
our
increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF
can
be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration
of
a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE,
or
others?
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) has been preparing for the increased momentum since the user group model was implemented, and it follows a pattern that we’ve been seeing over the past couple of years. In 2013, we approved 10 user groups, last year we approved 19, and so far this year we have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next year. This growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the approval process to be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. So, from our perspective, this is something we have been preparing for from the start, and not a surprise.
Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is a bad idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies across the models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes over time, and implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates cannot, when we continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The current criteria for WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more appropriate. Additionally, dividing them will not save much money, if any, as there would still presumably be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.
I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more support, but I do not think those efforts will be served well by further dividing them.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
On Oct 18, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Any process that divides the community isnt good for the community, we already seeing the effects of poor decisions being taken by groups and individuals acting in isolation
On 18 October 2015 at 20:02, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
Im not sure now is the right time to divide affiliates. Thematic organizations and user groups are still new and there is still a heavy preference towards chapters. User groups are not necessarily small, and chapters are not necessarily large. I hear what you are saying about resources being stretched thin. Wiki Learning was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years of trying, but we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately, we are already pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de Monterrey. Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just now got some kind of recognition and voice.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700 From: wiki.pine@gmail.com To: maorx@wikimedia.org.ve; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: kharold@wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups
It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced formations?
Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us,
with
interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to
our
increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF
can
be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration
of
a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE,
or
others?
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. 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
Ok, maybe more attention to user groups and small affiliates at WMCON is the way to go.
I heard at WMCON 2015 that WMF was considering assigning more resources to supporting user groups, in addition to the community capacity development research. I would still like to see that happen, such as with proactive outreach and mentorship for user groups. The organizations in the FDC process collectively have thousands of WMF staff hours focused on them each year, when they are generally the most mature groups. I think that WMF might get better total ROI by increasing the proportion of time and resources that are devoted to supporting and developing small affiliates. The community capacity development framework is a step in that direction, and I hope that we'll see a ramp up in WMF investment in small affiliates starting this quarter.
Pine
I personally think that the main concern, in this proliferation of groups, is an lack of the implementation of a "good governance".
A user group is like a body, it can born, can develop and can die.
At the moment there is an unclear guideline about the monitoring and the development of these groups: they can only born.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to freeze) some old entities when they become essentially inactive or silent.
In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of these groups would have a sense.
Kind regards
On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) has been preparing for the increased momentum since the user group model was implemented, and it follows a pattern that we’ve been seeing over the past couple of years. In 2013, we approved 10 user groups, last year we approved 19, and so far this year we have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next year. This growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the approval process to be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. So, from our perspective, this is something we have been preparing for from the start, and not a surprise.
Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is a bad idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies across the models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes over time, and implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates cannot, when we continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The current criteria for WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more appropriate. Additionally, dividing them will not save much money, if any, as there would still presumably be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.
I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more support, but I do not think those efforts will be served well by further dividing them.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
Ilario, I agree that I would like to see more proactive mentoring and support. Some user groups may get born and die in ways that are fine. But others that are very promising for growth may wilt away due to lack of nurturing and support. I get the impression that Affcom itself is short on volunteer time to do mentoring, so I would like to see more proactive support from WMF.
Pine
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I personally think that the main concern, in this proliferation of groups, is an lack of the implementation of a "good governance".
A user group is like a body, it can born, can develop and can die.
At the moment there is an unclear guideline about the monitoring and the development of these groups: they can only born.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to freeze) some old entities when they become essentially inactive or silent.
In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of these groups would have a sense.
Kind regards
On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) has been preparing for the increased momentum since the user group model was implemented, and it follows a pattern that we’ve been seeing over the past couple of years. In 2013, we approved 10 user groups, last year we approved 19, and so far this year we have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next year. This growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the approval process to be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. So, from our perspective, this is something we have been preparing for from the start, and not a surprise.
Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is a bad idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies across the models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes over time, and implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates cannot, when we continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The current criteria for WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more appropriate. Additionally, dividing them will not save much money, if any, as there would still presumably be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.
I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more support, but I do not think those efforts will be served well by further dividing them.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
-- 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 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
IMHO, the idea of the user groups is not to divide the community, the main goal is to create the opportunity for small communities to work in the same direction, learn with each other and have a framework to work together, learning from and sharing experiences.
The user group is an important step to move forward to a thematic organization or chapter based on the learnings and experiences acquired after some projects and activities. It can be a good opportunity to professionalize the community and avoid frustrated attempts to create a chapter or thematic organization with no previous experience.
For sure we will need more guidance and dedicated activities during the next conference in Berlin. Having a dedicated event, IMHO will not generate the same opportunity that we have to learn from chapters like WM UK, WM MX, WM DE and etc in an event like WMCON.
For me, the opportunity to see what active chapters are doing was crucial to organize here in Brazil 2 editions of WLE and our first edition of WLM.
I guess we are in the right direction and the types of grants available, including the new simple annual plan project, will generate excellent impacts to the movement during the next years.
Rodrigo Padula
Coordenador de Projetos
Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
21 99326-0558
---- On Dom, 18 Out 2015 12:08:54 -0200 Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote ----
Any process that divides the community isnt good for the community, we
already seeing the effects of poor decisions being taken by groups and
individuals acting in isolation
On 18 October 2015 at 20:02, Leigh Thelmadatter <osamadre@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Im not sure now is the right time to divide affiliates. Thematic
> organizations and user groups are still new and there is still a heavy
> preference towards chapters. User groups are not necessarily small, and
> chapters are not necessarily large.
> I hear what you are saying about resources being stretched thin. Wiki
> Learning was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years
> of trying, but we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately,
> we are already pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de
> Monterrey.
> Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just
> now got some kind of recognition and voice.
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700
> > From: wiki.pine@gmail.com
> > To: maorx@wikimedia.org.ve; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > CC: kharold@wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups
> >
> > It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can
> > Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced
> > formations?
> >
> > Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the
> > budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to
> > accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was
> > thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small
> > affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us,
> with
> > interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to
> our
> > increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences
> > for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF
> can
> > be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration
> of
> > a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE,
> or
> > others?
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
Hi Pine,
I recall that several representatives at the User Group meetup at the WMCON last spring noted that they would like to see more sessions that focused on the needs of smaller affiliates, and I am glad that you brought it up. It would be great to start a list of the kinds of session topics or training that smaller affiliates would like to see, as well as ways in which the WMF can provide the attention or support you felt was lacking in previous years.
Cheers,
Kacie
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced formations?
Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us, with interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to our increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF can be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration of a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE, or others?
Pine
Hi all,
Please have a look at the timeline for the Wikimedia Conference 2016[1], which already incorporates the feedback from last year: This year, we will work closer with the participants when we create the programme. In the registration, we will ask for concrete needs for capacity building support, and possible contributions to the programme. This is why the registration process will start earlier than in the years before.
We are now in the process of finalising the grant proposal and publish it by the end of the week. Of course, we have calculated with a higher number of User Groups than this year. In the proposal, we will give more details on the the program design process.
To ensure an impact oriented conference, we need different formats and target group specific sessions. We have identified four cornerstones that complete the program:
* One overarching movement theme. WMCON brings together movement stakeholders to discuss the future of the movement. We have to make the most of the this unique opportunity where this group of affiliate and WMF representatives is gathering in one place and have them work, think, talk, listen, and learn together. For inspiration, we will also consider to invite external key note speakers. * Capacity building. The culture of shared learning is slowly increasing among movement entities. We are getting better at learning from each other’s mistakes and successes, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Working and learning sessions will be built according to the participants needs; speakers will come from within and outside of the movement. * Facilitated social activities. Only a safe space in a creative, trustful atmosphere will enable a good, effective working environment that includes newbies and old hands alike. We will create more moments of sharing, of social exchange and provide guidance for side events and evening sessions. * Wildcard and must-have topics. Since the agenda design process starts early, we will leave some space in the schedule for urgent movement issues that might come up in the time between January and April.
Further information will follow in the next weeks. We are looking forward to your contributions. Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016
On 20 October 2015 at 02:18, Kacie Harold kharold@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
I recall that several representatives at the User Group meetup at the WMCON last spring noted that they would like to see more sessions that focused on the needs of smaller affiliates, and I am glad that you brought it up. It would be great to start a list of the kinds of session topics or training that smaller affiliates would like to see, as well as ways in which the WMF can provide the attention or support you felt was lacking in previous years.
Cheers,
Kacie
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced formations?
Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us, with interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to our increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF can be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration of a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE, or others?
Pine
--
Kacie Harold Interim Program Officer - Project and Event Grants Wikimedia Foundation
Hoi, I very much appreciate the format ... This program has shown its quality over the years and is unafraid to ask what matters most. It is why people will work together well. It is because it is about their agenda and the agenda holds the items they care for.
Wonderful ! Thanks, GerardM
On 20 October 2015 at 11:24, Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi all,
Please have a look at the timeline for the Wikimedia Conference 2016[1], which already incorporates the feedback from last year: This year, we will work closer with the participants when we create the programme. In the registration, we will ask for concrete needs for capacity building support, and possible contributions to the programme. This is why the registration process will start earlier than in the years before.
We are now in the process of finalising the grant proposal and publish it by the end of the week. Of course, we have calculated with a higher number of User Groups than this year. In the proposal, we will give more details on the the program design process.
To ensure an impact oriented conference, we need different formats and target group specific sessions. We have identified four cornerstones that complete the program:
- One overarching movement theme. WMCON brings together movement
stakeholders to discuss the future of the movement. We have to make the most of the this unique opportunity where this group of affiliate and WMF representatives is gathering in one place and have them work, think, talk, listen, and learn together. For inspiration, we will also consider to invite external key note speakers.
- Capacity building. The culture of shared learning is slowly
increasing among movement entities. We are getting better at learning from each other’s mistakes and successes, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Working and learning sessions will be built according to the participants needs; speakers will come from within and outside of the movement.
- Facilitated social activities. Only a safe space in a creative,
trustful atmosphere will enable a good, effective working environment that includes newbies and old hands alike. We will create more moments of sharing, of social exchange and provide guidance for side events and evening sessions.
- Wildcard and must-have topics. Since the agenda design process
starts early, we will leave some space in the schedule for urgent movement issues that might come up in the time between January and April.
Further information will follow in the next weeks. We are looking forward to your contributions. Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016
On 20 October 2015 at 02:18, Kacie Harold kharold@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
I recall that several representatives at the User Group meetup at the
WMCON
last spring noted that they would like to see more sessions that focused
on
the needs of smaller affiliates, and I am glad that you brought it up.
It
would be great to start a list of the kinds of session topics or training that smaller affiliates would like to see, as well as ways in which the
WMF
can provide the attention or support you felt was lacking in previous
years.
Cheers,
Kacie
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups.
Can
Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced formations?
Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us,
with
interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to
our
increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate
conferences for
the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF can
be
given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration
of a
conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE, or others?
Pine
--
Kacie Harold Interim Program Officer - Project and Event Grants Wikimedia Foundation
-- Nicole Ebber Referentin Internationale Beziehungen Adviser to the ED, International Relations
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org