-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Viajero
On 06/22/04 at 02:32 AM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org said:
And, I don't think calling such meetings "perks" is an overstatement. I've observed quite a few non-profit meetings, as well as meetings and conferences in academia, and they rarely have much real work being done. They're social and networking events, and the most "real work" that gets done is at best finding out about something that you make a note of to look up and read later. The actual real work gets done via email or telephone (or both) either before or after the conferences. H. Cheney's recent email indicated he's had similar experiences on the non-profit boards he's sat on, so this seems to not simply be my personal experience.
I think these comments reflect a grave misunderstanding of the importance of meetings.
In the past, I've been involved in a number of EU-funded projects among at times quite disparate participants, and it was always a given that such projects -- after being approved for funding -- got off to a start with a meeting with everyone involved. Sometimes this was the only time the participants met; they then went back to their respective countries and spent the duration of the project working in their offices and communicating by email and telephone. But that initial face-to-face was critical; it isn't something that can be measured in cold person/hour metrics but rather reflects some as yet not entirely well-understood psychological truth: long-distance, distributed projects work better when the participants have first met.
If Jimbo, Anthere, and Angela will be working closely together in the coming months and years, as appears to be the case, than it is entirely appropriate, no, *imperative* that they meet each other. I would therefore be in favor of Angela being reimbursed for her travel expenses to attend the Paris meeting.
There may very well be in truth in this. However whatever the arguments in favour of the trustees meeting, wouldn't these same arguments be equally applicable to the developers meeting, say? The developers at least have a long and proven track record. So far the board has not had the chance to prove its worth above the old, board-less, way at all - thus we are being asked to take on trust that such a use of funds would be a best use. Perhaps it's a shame that a certain amount of that required trust has already been used by the refusal to publish the election results, despite explicit (albeit informal) assurances to the contrary before and during the elections.
Further Jimbo and Angela and Jimbo and Ant have already met. Thus it is only Ant and Angela who don't have a face to put words too. As these two trustees are much closer geographically, there is more scope for taking time and waiting for the most cost-effective opportunity for them to meet.
Pete/Pcb21
Why do so many people work with the flawed assumption that since there is a way to spend money on X, it precludes spending it on Y? Does your company or household work that way, that is, spending money in a strict serial manner?
On Jimbo's first ever trip to Europe, he and Anthere will be less than 300 miles from Angela. We would be foolish to be so stingy as to hinder them from initiating this new phase in Wikimedia Foundation's development. Very foolish.
-Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado)
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:34:18 +0100, Peter Bartlett pcb21@btconnect.com wrote:
There may very well be in truth in this. However whatever the arguments in favour of the trustees meeting, wouldn't these same arguments be equally applicable to the developers meeting, say? The developers at least have a long and proven track record. So far the board has not had the chance to prove its worth above the old, board-less, way at all - thus we are being asked to take on trust that such a use of funds would be a best use. Perhaps it's a shame that a certain amount of that required trust has already been used by the refusal to publish the election results, despite explicit (albeit informal) assurances to the contrary before and during the elections.
Further Jimbo and Angela and Jimbo and Ant have already met. Thus it is only Ant and Angela who don't have a face to put words too. As these two trustees are much closer geographically, there is more scope for taking time and waiting for the most cost-effective opportunity for them to meet.
Pete/Pcb21
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Peter Bartlett wrote:
There may very well be in truth in this. However whatever the arguments in favour of the trustees meeting, wouldn't these same arguments be equally applicable to the developers meeting, say? The developers at least have a long and proven track record. So far the board has not had the chance to prove its worth above the old, board-less, way at all - thus we are being asked to take on trust that such a use of funds would be a best use. Perhaps it's a shame that a certain amount of that required trust has already been used by the refusal to publish the election results, despite explicit (albeit informal) assurances to the contrary before and during the elections.
I think that in my 2 years and a half participation to Wikipedia, I have left just as long and as provable track record of what I could do than any developer here. The main differences are probably that most of what I did was on the french wikipedia and on meta, two places where I met you very little :-) Second difference is probably that we just have never met on any project. Third difference is that a lot of what I did has to do with organisation and people bridging, which is much less likely to be noticeable than a software improvement.
Once again, and I will repeat something I told privately to Mark yesterday as well : this whole project is based on trust and on volunteer work. Once we begin talking about money, the highest risk is that we begin comparing value of people so as to justify that some are *better* and *more important* than others. This is very very bad, and it is auto-destruction to proceed in this direction. I please ask you not to do that.
We are all necessary here, whether we are developing the software, maintaining the hardware, writing articles, fixing typos, improving style, organising the date, cleaning up the dirt, chasing vandals, writing press release, finding funds, leading decision or on the contrary playing the devil advocate so that no hasty decision is taken.
We are all necessary. Any single step missing is likely to be a disaster. So, if steps are slightly broken, perhaps like the software, then we should fix that step. That does not mean that step is more important that the other steps. This is just the broken one, at that moment. You still need the full stair to go up.
It would be nice, not to criticize or belittle some people, just because you want to promote the importance of other people. It has nothing to do. All are good and important. Some are just missing, and if they are missing, finding ways to stimulate their activity is the right way. So, paying developers.... why not. I am sure it is also controversial among some of us. But I see it as a possibility. But, I really would like that "in an attempt to convince people that developers are necessary, the way to promote this is to misconsider the importance of the other ones".
Doing this is likely to hurt wikipedia human tissue *real* bad. It will bring zizany among us. Discord.
I also would like that a bit of trust is offered to Angel and I, per default, for the work we have both been doing for many many months now.
Further Jimbo and Angela and Jimbo and Ant have already met. Thus it is only Ant and Angela who don't have a face to put words too. As these two trustees are much closer geographically, there is more scope for taking time and waiting for the most cost-effective opportunity for them to meet.
Pete/Pcb21
The only two wikipedians I have ever met are called Yann Forget and Alain Caraco. I met them in a meeting I went to, to present Wikipedia in France. I did that travel *on my own expenses* entirely. Yann and Alain are both french people; and they are the only wikipedians I have met face to face.
I think I know better than you Pete, who I have met in my life, and apart than in dream, I have never met Jimbo.
I will go to Paris on my own money to meet with french wikipedians and Jimbo for the first time ever (but for Yann).
I am not a wealthy person. I will perhaps manage to pay a couple of trips in France this year. However, I do not plan to get out of France on my family money, and I will certainly not go to London to meet Angela.
And I prefer to go to Paris with my money now to meet Jimbo, because my income will never allow me to go to Florida to do so later in the year.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org