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 &lt;itzik(a)wikimedia.org.il&gt;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(a)wikimedia.ch&gt; 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: > > * 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 > > -- > > 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

​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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

On 29 September 2014 15:53, Ellie Young &lt;eyoung(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: 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 -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On 30 September 2014 14:12, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote: 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? 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. 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

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 &lt;eyoung(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 10.10.2014 18:56, Fæ wrote: 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

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.

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 &lt;email(a)mikepeel.net&gt; wrote: