Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimania is the global, annual conference of the Wikimedia movement, organised by the Wikimedia community. Organizing team and location are chosen by a jury in a public bidding process.
Due to the growing requirements and complexity for this growing conference the Wikimania Committee decided to revise the bidding timeline to give more time to prepare the conference.
Here it is: * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bid_selection_timeline
== Jury == The Wikimania Committee is pleased to announce the jury for Wikimania 2016:
Richard Symonds Stuart Prior Claudia Garad Esteban Zarate Daniel Bryant Finne Boonen Ellie Young
== Accepting Bids == We invite anyone in our community to submit a proposal for Wikimania 2016 on Meta Wiki: * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids
Please consult the timeline and Judging Criteria that are posted at: * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids
The deadline for bids is November 15, 23:59 UTC. You should setup a bidding page and contact Ellie Young, WMF Conference Coordinator before the deadline. She will help you prepare your bid. All bids which have been confirmed until November 15 will be considered by the jury, others will be dismissed.
Subsequently there will be a two week period where the community can comment and offer feedback on the proposal.
In December your team must be available for conference calls with the jury, after deliberations the host for Wikimania 2016 will be announced by the end of 2014.
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee with regards,
Manuel
Hey Manuel,
Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?
Correct me, but beside Richard Sydmonds - all the members of this year jury are new? there is not continuity in the jury?
Itzik
*Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Manuel Schneider < manuel.schneider@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimania is the global, annual conference of the Wikimedia movement, organised by the Wikimedia community. Organizing team and location are chosen by a jury in a public bidding process.
Due to the growing requirements and complexity for this growing conference the Wikimania Committee decided to revise the bidding timeline to give more time to prepare the conference.
Here it is:
== Jury == The Wikimania Committee is pleased to announce the jury for Wikimania 2016:
Richard Symonds Stuart Prior Claudia Garad Esteban Zarate Daniel Bryant Finne Boonen Ellie Young
== Accepting Bids == We invite anyone in our community to submit a proposal for Wikimania 2016 on Meta Wiki:
Please consult the timeline and Judging Criteria that are posted at:
The deadline for bids is November 15, 23:59 UTC. You should setup a bidding page and contact Ellie Young, WMF Conference Coordinator before the deadline. She will help you prepare your bid. All bids which have been confirmed until November 15 will be considered by the jury, others will be dismissed.
Subsequently there will be a two week period where the community can comment and offer feedback on the proposal.
In December your team must be available for conference calls with the jury, after deliberations the host for Wikimania 2016 will be announced by the end of 2014.
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee with regards,
Manuel
Manuel Schneider - Chief Information Officer Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 340 66 22 - www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I also would like to know the answer to Itzik question:
" Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?"
_____ *Béria L. de Rodríguez*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.*
2014-09-29 5:17 GMT-03:00 Itzik - Wikimedia Israel itzik@wikimedia.org.il:
Hey Manuel,
Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?
Correct me, but beside Richard Sydmonds - all the members of this year jury are new? there is not continuity in the jury?
Itzik
*Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Manuel Schneider < manuel.schneider@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimania is the global, annual conference of the Wikimedia movement, organised by the Wikimedia community. Organizing team and location are chosen by a jury in a public bidding process.
Due to the growing requirements and complexity for this growing conference the Wikimania Committee decided to revise the bidding timeline to give more time to prepare the conference.
Here it is:
== Jury == The Wikimania Committee is pleased to announce the jury for Wikimania
2016:
Richard Symonds Stuart Prior Claudia Garad Esteban Zarate Daniel Bryant Finne Boonen Ellie Young
== Accepting Bids == We invite anyone in our community to submit a proposal for Wikimania 2016 on Meta Wiki:
Please consult the timeline and Judging Criteria that are posted at:
The deadline for bids is November 15, 23:59 UTC. You should setup a bidding page and contact Ellie Young, WMF Conference Coordinator before the deadline. She will help you prepare your bid. All bids which have been confirmed until November 15 will be considered by the jury, others will be dismissed.
Subsequently there will be a two week period where the community can comment and offer feedback on the proposal.
In December your team must be available for conference calls with the jury, after deliberations the host for Wikimania 2016 will be announced by the end of 2014.
On behalf of the Wikimania Committee with regards,
Manuel
Manuel Schneider - Chief Information Officer Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 340 66 22 - www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
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 29 September 2014 14:45, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I also would like to know the answer to Itzik question:
" Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?"
Richard Symonds Stuart Prior Claudia Garad Esteban Zarate Daniel Bryant Finne Boonen Ellie Young
Could someone point to a profile of the jury members? It is incredibly hard to see who has been an employee of the WMF or Chapters unless you happen to know people personally. However, I believe I am correct in saying that only the minority of the jury has never been a paid employee, which may not be the best thing for a conference aimed at unpaid volunteers.
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
Fae
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
I might be wrong, but I didnt saw a mail with a call for volunteers to compose the jury like they do every year. (I do might had missed though so is better if Manuel or Ellie answers.)
_____ *Béria L. de Rodríguez*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.*
2014-09-29 11:13 GMT-03:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
On 29 September 2014 14:45, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I also would like to know the answer to Itzik question:
" Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?"
Richard Symonds Stuart Prior Claudia Garad Esteban Zarate Daniel Bryant Finne Boonen Ellie Young
Could someone point to a profile of the jury members? It is incredibly hard to see who has been an employee of the WMF or Chapters unless you happen to know people personally. However, I believe I am correct in saying that only the minority of the jury has never been a paid employee, which may not be the best thing for a conference aimed at unpaid volunteers.
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
We have a system that works for jury selection. What I would STRONGLY like to encourage people in the community to do is seek out prospective people who would be good hosts and work with me on preparing a bid. That is is our biggest need! The CFP was posted earlier this month.
Thank you all.
Ellie
On Sep 29, 2014, at 7:18 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
I might be wrong, but I didnt saw a mail with a call for volunteers to compose the jury like they do every year. (I do might had missed though so is better if Manuel or Ellie answers.)
Béria L. de Rodríguez
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.
2014-09-29 11:13 GMT-03:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
On 29 September 2014 14:45, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I also would like to know the answer to Itzik question:
" Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?"
Richard Symonds Stuart Prior Claudia Garad Esteban Zarate Daniel Bryant Finne Boonen Ellie Young
Could someone point to a profile of the jury members? It is incredibly hard to see who has been an employee of the WMF or Chapters unless you happen to know people personally. However, I believe I am correct in saying that only the minority of the jury has never been a paid employee, which may not be the best thing for a conference aimed at unpaid volunteers.
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 29 September 2014 15:53, Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have a system that works for jury selection. What I would STRONGLY like to encourage people in the community to do is seek out prospective people who would be good hosts and work with me on preparing a bid. That is is our biggest need! The CFP was posted earlier this month.
Perhaps it would be easier to respond to assertions rather than direct questions, such as those posted yesterday by Béria. If anyone is aware of why these assertions are incorrect, perhaps they would be kind enough to link to where we can see how things work? Note, the Wikimania jury is not elected, it is selected by the "Wikimania Steering Committee".
Assertion: The Steering Committee is not required to be transparent in its selection criteria. Assertion: The Steering Committee has no published process or policies.[1] Assertion: The Steering Committee is directed by WMF employees.[1] Assertion: At least 5/7 of Wikimania 2016 jury members have been employees of the WMF or Wikimedia Chapters.
Links 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_jury
P.S. "CFP" as used by Ellie, stands for Call for Participation.
Fae
I'm seriously having doubts why this is becoming such a drama for some people. There's a clear process (the Wikimania committee selects a jury, which selects a winning bid to be confirmed by the WMF) and they asked for volunteers, which they selected a jury from. Yay.
Because lets face it, being on the jury is a boring task and little fun. Why are you (plural) trying so hard to make it even less fun...
These are indeed assertions, and I agree to focus on responding to factual questions instead.
So again: Thanks for spending all this effort and time!
Lodewijk
2014-09-30 14:35 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
On 29 September 2014 15:53, Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have a system that works for jury selection. What I would STRONGLY
like to encourage people in the community to do is seek out prospective people who would be good hosts and work with me on preparing a bid. That is is our biggest need! The CFP was posted earlier this month.
Perhaps it would be easier to respond to assertions rather than direct questions, such as those posted yesterday by Béria. If anyone is aware of why these assertions are incorrect, perhaps they would be kind enough to link to where we can see how things work? Note, the Wikimania jury is not elected, it is selected by the "Wikimania Steering Committee".
Assertion: The Steering Committee is not required to be transparent in its selection criteria. Assertion: The Steering Committee has no published process or policies.[1] Assertion: The Steering Committee is directed by WMF employees.[1] Assertion: At least 5/7 of Wikimania 2016 jury members have been employees of the WMF or Wikimedia Chapters.
Links
P.S. "CFP" as used by Ellie, stands for Call for Participation.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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 30 September 2014 14:12, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I'm seriously having doubts why this is becoming such a drama for some people. There's a clear process (the Wikimania committee selects a jury, which selects a winning bid to be confirmed by the WMF) and they asked for volunteers, which they selected a jury from. Yay.
There is no process published. You may think this is clear, but there are no records published and no criteria are set. As an example I have been unable to identify who sits on the "Wikimania Steering Group" nor find any published minutes for its meetings, despite this being a body that bears responsibility for hundreds of thousands of dollars of donated funds. Perhaps you do, and can link us to this information?
Because lets face it, being on the jury is a boring task and little fun. Why are you (plural) trying so hard to make it even less fun...
These are indeed assertions, and I agree to focus on responding to factual questions instead.
The questions in this thread (as raised by Itzik, Beria and myself) were not answered, they appear to be sidestepped. It is unclear why, so I put some assertions which you are free to counter with any facts you are aware of, such as whether at least 5 out of 7 jury members have been employees of the WMF or chapters.
So again: Thanks for spending all this effort and time!
No problem. Wikimedia has a shared value of openness and transparency, I believe it is worth spending a moment to pick up on where our processes, such as for Wikimania governance, appear to be failing these values. It may not be the fun you are advocating, but governance is an important part of what we need to do.
Fae
Ellie,
I don't think "We have a system that works for jury selection" is appropriate answer. I just asked how and by who, not but it strange for me that this simple question is been unanswered.
Adding to my first email, now that I familiar more with the jury members - from one hand I'm happy to see know we have a great and talented jury, but from second hand, a little bit strange feeling that the jury members of the major and the biggest community event within our movement are paid staff from wmf/chapters. I see our staff as an integral part of the movement, but still - we don't have any committee, especially when we are talking about Wikimania, that staff are such a major part of the committee.
So yes, this just reinforces the fact that requires a bit more detailed answer to the question - how they are selected.
Thank you, and thanks for all the people that volunteered for this year jury.
Itzik
*Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have a system that works for jury selection. What I would STRONGLY like to encourage people in the community to do is seek out prospective people who would be good hosts and work with me on preparing a bid. That is is our biggest need! The CFP was posted earlier this month.
Thank you all.
Ellie
On Sep 29, 2014, at 7:18 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find
interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
I might be wrong, but I didnt saw a mail with a call for volunteers to compose the jury like they do every year. (I do might had missed though so is better if Manuel or Ellie answers.)
*Béria L. de Rodríguez*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.*
2014-09-29 11:13 GMT-03:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
On 29 September 2014 14:45, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I also would like to know the answer to Itzik question:
" Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by
who?"
Richard Symonds Stuart Prior Claudia Garad Esteban Zarate Daniel Bryant Finne Boonen Ellie Young
Could someone point to a profile of the jury members? It is incredibly hard to see who has been an employee of the WMF or Chapters unless you happen to know people personally. However, I believe I am correct in saying that only the minority of the jury has never been a paid employee, which may not be the best thing for a conference aimed at unpaid volunteers.
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
With the greatest of respect, everyone, can we please remember that I'm volunteering for this. I'm not paid to do it. It's out of my own time, the sametime in which I edit Wikipedia. Who my employer is doesn't (and shouldn't, in my opinion) enter into it. I don't have to volunteer for the jury - I volunteer for another non-Wikimedia organisation who would love me to spend 40+ hours with them instead. I volunteer for Wikimedia because I have done so consistently for ten years - and I've only been employed by them for three of those.
If you're worried that I will unfairly support the point of view of my employer, I can assure you that that's not the case. The various jury meetings are "in camera", so my employer doesn't get to find out what my opinion on these things are, and they can't censure me for it. And I do disagree with my employer on certain things - and my employer respects my right to disagree with them. They're a pretty decent employer like that.
It feels a little bit like I'm being referred to as a "second class volunteer". I know that isn't the case - but it feels that way, It feels a little bit like my volunteer hours are worth less than everyone else's just because of who pays my salary.
I do understand where you're coming from - but we don't judge other people's ability to volunteer based on who pays their salaries. Nor do we assume that I am a 'paid Wikipedia editor'... because I'm not! I'm a volunteer...
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* Ellie,
I don't think "We have a system that works for jury selection" is appropriate answer. I just asked how and by who, not but it strange for me that this simple question is been unanswered.
Adding to my first email, now that I familiar more with the jury members - from one hand I'm happy to see know we have a great and talented jury, but from second hand, a little bit strange feeling that the jury members of the major and the biggest community event within our movement are paid staff from wmf/chapters. I see our staff as an integral part of the movement, but still - we don't have any committee, especially when we are talking about Wikimania, that staff are such a major part of the committee.
So yes, this just reinforces the fact that requires a bit more detailed answer to the question - how they are selected.
Thank you, and thanks for all the people that volunteered for this year jury.
Itzik
*Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Ellie Young eyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have a system that works for jury selection. What I would STRONGLY like to encourage people in the community to do is seek out prospective people who would be good hosts and work with me on preparing a bid. That is is our biggest need! The CFP was posted earlier this month.
Thank you all.
Ellie
On Sep 29, 2014, at 7:18 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find
interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
I might be wrong, but I didnt saw a mail with a call for volunteers to compose the jury like they do every year. (I do might had missed though so is better if Manuel or Ellie answers.)
*Béria L. de Rodríguez*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.*
2014-09-29 11:13 GMT-03:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
On 29 September 2014 14:45, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I also would like to know the answer to Itzik question:
" Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by
who?"
Richard Symonds Stuart Prior Claudia Garad Esteban Zarate Daniel Bryant Finne Boonen Ellie Young
Could someone point to a profile of the jury members? It is incredibly hard to see who has been an employee of the WMF or Chapters unless you happen to know people personally. However, I believe I am correct in saying that only the minority of the jury has never been a paid employee, which may not be the best thing for a conference aimed at unpaid volunteers.
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever "elected" the jury worked to find interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the normal professional networks.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
The conclusion in response to Itzik's original question "how the current jury was elected and by who", is that the Wikimania jury is not elected, it was selected by a WMF employee against unpublished and presumably undefined criteria. Sadly, there are no plans or commitment by the WMF to change or improve this process to make it transparent or volunteer-centric.
We also know that at least 5 out of 7 members of the jury have been employees. It may be more, but there has been no reply to this question.
It is disturbing that asking questions of governance is being parodied as referring to jury members as "second class citizens". Nobody apart from a member of the jury has made such a ridiculous statement.
Being an employee is not something that should be hidden or kept secret. The community should be free to ask questions about the balance of volunteers in an important jury with responsibility for how several hundred thousand dollars of donated funds gets spent in order to ensure a healthy balance of viewpoints. Having basic governance questions marginalized and parodied by the jury is a disappointing demonstration of how transparency and accountability will be handled for future Wikimania events.
It is obvious that improvement is needed. It would be great to see commitment to change, rather than just defence of the status quo.
Fae
I do agree that it should be great to have a transparent way to elect the jury, but people, let's at least take the word or the people who commented here. The ones who come here and said "I do work for a wikimedia org, but I'm in the jury as a volunteer". Why do not believe in then? Most of then (the ones I know about) are long standing volunteers so it IS possible that was because of that they were chosen. If the criteria were open would be better and we wouldnt have that questions, yes. But let's try to keep civil with the people who DID volunteer to be members of the jury.
_____ *Béria L. de Rodríguez*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.*
2014-10-10 7:48 GMT-03:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
The conclusion in response to Itzik's original question "how the current jury was elected and by who", is that the Wikimania jury is not elected, it was selected by a WMF employee against unpublished and presumably undefined criteria. Sadly, there are no plans or commitment by the WMF to change or improve this process to make it transparent or volunteer-centric.
We also know that at least 5 out of 7 members of the jury have been employees. It may be more, but there has been no reply to this question.
It is disturbing that asking questions of governance is being parodied as referring to jury members as "second class citizens". Nobody apart from a member of the jury has made such a ridiculous statement.
Being an employee is not something that should be hidden or kept secret. The community should be free to ask questions about the balance of volunteers in an important jury with responsibility for how several hundred thousand dollars of donated funds gets spent in order to ensure a healthy balance of viewpoints. Having basic governance questions marginalized and parodied by the jury is a disappointing demonstration of how transparency and accountability will be handled for future Wikimania events.
It is obvious that improvement is needed. It would be great to see commitment to change, rather than just defence of the status quo.
Fae
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
Based on a prompt from Itzik, I checked the archives of wikimania-l (which I was not subscribed to). There is a message from Stuart Prior there with a very brief summary of background of jury members which I was unaware of and it may have been intended as a response to my question. Refer to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2014-October/006418.html.
For those that do subscribe to wikimania-l, please keep in mind that most readers of wikimedia-l do not see your responses unless you post here, and that posts from non-subscribers to wikimania-l get bounced.
Thanks, Fae
On 10 October 2014 11:48, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The conclusion in response to Itzik's original question "how the current jury was elected and by who", is that the Wikimania jury is not elected, it was selected by a WMF employee against unpublished and presumably undefined criteria. Sadly, there are no plans or commitment by the WMF to change or improve this process to make it transparent or volunteer-centric.
We also know that at least 5 out of 7 members of the jury have been employees. It may be more, but there has been no reply to this question.
It is disturbing that asking questions of governance is being parodied as referring to jury members as "second class citizens". Nobody apart from a member of the jury has made such a ridiculous statement.
Being an employee is not something that should be hidden or kept secret. The community should be free to ask questions about the balance of volunteers in an important jury with responsibility for how several hundred thousand dollars of donated funds gets spent in order to ensure a healthy balance of viewpoints. Having basic governance questions marginalized and parodied by the jury is a disappointing demonstration of how transparency and accountability will be handled for future Wikimania events.
It is obvious that improvement is needed. It would be great to see commitment to change, rather than just defence of the status quo.
Fae
If you're interested in discussing the future of Wikimania, perhaps it makes sense to do that on the dedicated list? Just a wild thought.
Best, Lodewijk
2014-10-10 13:25 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
Based on a prompt from Itzik, I checked the archives of wikimania-l (which I was not subscribed to). There is a message from Stuart Prior there with a very brief summary of background of jury members which I was unaware of and it may have been intended as a response to my question. Refer to < https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2014-October/006418.html
.
For those that do subscribe to wikimania-l, please keep in mind that most readers of wikimedia-l do not see your responses unless you post here, and that posts from non-subscribers to wikimania-l get bounced.
Thanks, Fae
On 10 October 2014 11:48, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The conclusion in response to Itzik's original question "how the current jury was elected and by who", is that the Wikimania jury is not elected, it was selected by a WMF employee against unpublished and presumably undefined criteria. Sadly, there are no plans or commitment by the WMF to change or improve this process to make it transparent or volunteer-centric.
We also know that at least 5 out of 7 members of the jury have been employees. It may be more, but there has been no reply to this question.
It is disturbing that asking questions of governance is being parodied as referring to jury members as "second class citizens". Nobody apart from a member of the jury has made such a ridiculous statement.
Being an employee is not something that should be hidden or kept secret. The community should be free to ask questions about the balance of volunteers in an important jury with responsibility for how several hundred thousand dollars of donated funds gets spent in order to ensure a healthy balance of viewpoints. Having basic governance questions marginalized and parodied by the jury is a disappointing demonstration of how transparency and accountability will be handled for future Wikimania events.
It is obvious that improvement is needed. It would be great to see commitment to change, rather than just defence of the status quo.
Fae
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 10 October 2014 14:58, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
If you're interested in discussing the future of Wikimania, perhaps it makes sense to do that on the dedicated list? Just a wild thought.
Thanks for the thought. Itzik's general question was posted to Wikimedia-l, so answering it here makes sense. No doubt most readers of wikimedia-l are like myself and do not normally follow wikimania-l.
Governance and transparency issues for Wikimania are of more general interest than a readership of "Wikimania attendees, presenters, and fans", particularly when as a community of volunteers we have chosen to let a WMF employee make community decisions for us (such as appointing the Jury that has our full authority for deciding where Wikimania will be held, along with the political and financial implications of support contracts and investing significant money in a chosen country).
Wikimania has become a big business with significant press attention and associated significant risks. It benefits from having many volunteers in our movement asking questions and ensuring that the main body of unpaid volunteers are happy that it is directed by volunteers and focused on our community, rather than the interests of partners, other commerical rationales or indeed the interests of the WMF which is not exactly the same as the interests of the wider Wikimedia community/beneficiaries.
As an unpaid volunteer at Wikimania in London, I was very interested in talking to other unpaid volunteers, some of whom were taking part because they wanted to gain experience in event management for their CVs but with no prior understanding of what Wikimania projects actually were. I think that's okay, we welcome this sort of support, but how these varied interests should be managed to meet our shared open knowledge ethics and values is something to continue to ponder as our movement continues to grow, particularly if measured by how many tens of millions of dollars are donated to us each year -- which seems to be the critical measure of success used by the WMF and the international press.
Fae
Fae, I'm sorry, but I'm seeing a lot of bad faith in your messaging here. Everyone who is part of the jury is a longtime volunteer, with the exception of the WMF staffer who has been intensively working on Wikimanias for the last two years so has a great deal of experience with the actual management of the Wikimania conference. Several of the jurors have very deep experience in handling conferences, by dint of their real-world experiences, which in some cases include holding roles on chapter staff. I am having a really hard time understanding why you are very clearly implying that there is something untoward about selecting the group tasked to make the recommendation based on both volunteer and professional experience. And yes, I think selecting a group that actually has these attributes is considerably better than selecting a group with no particular criteria, or what appeared to be the previous criteria of "has been to lots of Wikimanias before". The latter has not been a particularly useful criterion, since attending conferences does not give insight to the managing of a conference.
People are appointed to other committees and groups based on factors that are external to their attendance at certain conferences or their edit count all the time. There is a need to have accountants on the Audit committee. There is a need to have people experienced with checkuser on the Ombud committee. The selection of the Wikimania jury based on actual skill and experience instead of popularity or number of conferences attended is a positive sign of a maturing organization recognizing the value of the conference. It's never been an elected position, and there's no basis in anything that anyone has said on this list that would indicate that making it an elected position would lead to a somehow better process for identifying the next Wikimania location.
Risker/Anne
On 10 October 2014 10:44, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2014 14:58, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
If you're interested in discussing the future of Wikimania, perhaps it makes sense to do that on the dedicated list? Just a wild thought.
Thanks for the thought. Itzik's general question was posted to Wikimedia-l, so answering it here makes sense. No doubt most readers of wikimedia-l are like myself and do not normally follow wikimania-l.
Governance and transparency issues for Wikimania are of more general interest than a readership of "Wikimania attendees, presenters, and fans", particularly when as a community of volunteers we have chosen to let a WMF employee make community decisions for us (such as appointing the Jury that has our full authority for deciding where Wikimania will be held, along with the political and financial implications of support contracts and investing significant money in a chosen country).
Wikimania has become a big business with significant press attention and associated significant risks. It benefits from having many volunteers in our movement asking questions and ensuring that the main body of unpaid volunteers are happy that it is directed by volunteers and focused on our community, rather than the interests of partners, other commerical rationales or indeed the interests of the WMF which is not exactly the same as the interests of the wider Wikimedia community/beneficiaries.
As an unpaid volunteer at Wikimania in London, I was very interested in talking to other unpaid volunteers, some of whom were taking part because they wanted to gain experience in event management for their CVs but with no prior understanding of what Wikimania projects actually were. I think that's okay, we welcome this sort of support, but how these varied interests should be managed to meet our shared open knowledge ethics and values is something to continue to ponder as our movement continues to grow, particularly if measured by how many tens of millions of dollars are donated to us each year -- which seems to be the critical measure of success used by the WMF and the international press.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Risker,
You seem to have missed the point, this is not a question of bad faith in any person. Itzik's question exposed failure in making a key procedure in how our movement manages funding properly transparent. Please do not derail the issue into one of personalities. There is no doubt that all appointed members of the Jury are great people, this was never the question here.
As for transparency, you are not in a strong position to lecture, considering that your behind-the-scenes actions got me banned from the English Wikipedia just a couple of days after Phillipe Beadette had a supposedly personal and private conversation with you and yet you have failed to ever explain your actions.
Thanks, Fae
On 10.10.2014 18:56, Fæ wrote:
As for transparency, you are not in a strong position to lecture, considering that your behind-the-scenes actions got me banned from the English Wikipedia just a couple of days after Phillipe Beadette had a supposedly personal and private conversation with you and yet you have failed to ever explain your actions.
Thanks, Fae
I do not think such gossip has a place on this list. Please consider apologizing to Risker and do not repeat it here again.
Cheers Yaroslav
Fæ, 10/10/2014 16:44:
[...] a WMF employee make community decisions for us (such as appointing the Jury [...]
I've not inspected the facts in detail, but as far as I could understand this is NOT what happened, so it's a bit annoying to hear you repeat it continuously. I added a summary to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_jury some days ago and I encourage everyone to edit it (with references, where controversial).
I'm sure it will be easier to discuss productively once we've agreed upon the essential facts.
Nemo
I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting with interest to see Fae's comprehensive proposal for reforming the process. Once that proposal has been offered, anyone interested can comment on whether it is an improvement to the current process. If the consensus is that it is, great! If not, then we can move on. If no proposal for change is offered, then there isn't much to discuss.
That seems rather unfair. Fæ is raising some valid points about how this process has taken place this year, which are worth addressing. Dismissing concerns unless there is a comprehensive proposal for reform seems like a reduction to bureaucracy…
Thanks, Mike
On 10 Oct 2014, at 18:26, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting with interest to see Fae's comprehensive proposal for reforming the process. Once that proposal has been offered, anyone interested can comment on whether it is an improvement to the current process. If the consensus is that it is, great! If not, then we can move on. If no proposal for change is offered, then there isn't much to discuss. _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
He's already stated his concerns repeatedly. It would be a lot more constructive if he had any suggestions for improvement. As always, the issue with Fae's comments is that he buries a valid point in a mess of combative argumentation and borderline offensive aspersions. If he believes the process needs to be reformed, then even a single polite suggestion for an improvement would be welcome.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
That seems rather unfair. Fæ is raising some valid points about how this process has taken place this year, which are worth addressing. Dismissing concerns unless there is a comprehensive proposal for reform seems like a reduction to bureaucracy…
Thanks, Mike
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org