An 22 August 2012 12:14, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sending this again because it went off-list by accident. Anyone know
> why Tom's email didn't have a reply-to header?
Yes; as part of the changes we made to the list last week, we set it
so that "reply" will by default only reply to the sender, and you have
to "reply-all" to send to the list, as one small way to make it more
likely that people know they're replying in a way that is published
and archived forever.
James.
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester(a)gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity)
On 22 August 2012 20:34, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 August 2012 20:18, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I'm not a involved in technology professionally, but I did handle most
> >> of the tech work for WMUK's first fundraiser in 2009.
> >
> >
> > Great! I've been trying to find someone able to give me a good overview
> of
> > what exactly is needed (tech-wise) for the fundraiser to little effect.
> Any
> > chance you could fill me in on what was/is needed?
>
> Back in 2009, it was mostly creating web forms using HTML, javascript
> and CSS and battling with CiviCRM to try and integrate them as well as
> possible. We need something a little more sophisticated now, though
> (actually, we needed something more sophisticated in 2009, but all we
> had was me!).
>
Harry pointed me at this:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_system_spec* *which rocks!
Looking at it my view is that a) that's about 2 weeks work (10 days). So
not insubstantial. But b) a lot of it is reusable for the future (i.e.
maintenance is a good deal easier than initial development).
So it is probably worth contracting this task out this year.
In fact I would factor it out of the developer hire as it needs to be done
this year, and we are not likely to hire anyone. But we do have a £30,000
budget for 2012 development...
> True, some aspects are hard to handle remotely. But, again, this gives us
> a
> > tech resource to draw on and helps justify FTE in 2014.
> >
> > Realistically speaking; if you're paying £35K for a developer/manager
> (which
> > is what the last job description was looking for) it's not a great use of
> > his or her time to be fixing laptops :) If this is a major issue there
> are
> > contract tech support services we could look into to fill this specific
> gap
> > that would be more cost effective.
>
> I think the best approach is to accept that you are paying an inflated
> price at first so that you can get someone with the potential to be a
> head of department once there is a department for them to head. In the
> meantime, they can fix laptops!
>
But if there is a regular tech support demand then it's better just to
employ a part time guy to do it.
Think about it this way; if you were hired in to be the first technical
staff at a young charity, in a management role with hands on technical
things to do, a budget and potential for expansion... and you are fixing
laptops for an appreciable portion of your time it is de-motivating ("I was
doing this 5 years ago...").
Companies often think this way (lets hire a top guy, and he can cover the
whole gap whilst building a team); it's a bad use of funds and rarely works
out well.
> > So this just needs prioritising; not everything will get support - but
> that,
> > again, is another data point.
>
> Why prioritise? Why not do everything? We aren't short of money,
> either as a chapter or as a movement. WMUK has a tendency to be afraid
> to spend money. Not being wasteful is good, but our donors have given
> us the money so we can use it. It's no good sitting in the bank.
>
Throwing money at a problem might work, but it's never the best solution.
If that's what we want to do then fine; I'm perfectly OK with that. This is
an alternate "bootstrapped" solution.
>
> > This is a silly idea, as I said before, and we should forget about this
> for
> > a moment. Focus on our own tech needs.
>
> It's helpful for us to do work that benefits the global movement.
> Obviously, it is of benefit to the movement, but it is also of benefit
> to us politically. One of the main arguments Sue Gardner (WMF ED) was
> making for chapters not fundraising was that they only do local work
> while the WMF does global work. We need to show people that that isn't
> true. (It never has been true, and it her conclusion didn't follow
> anyway, but that's not the point!)
>
I agree; but I think this should be on our two year goals. Expecting
someone to come in and work on MediaWiki is not going to work well. As I
explained the last time working on a major project of this sort is
non-trivial and you don't want to have someone who is being disturbed with
"can you set up this mailing list", "the server is down!" or "my laptop is
broken" queries.
As you note we need to make a good effort on this; and saying "we have a
developer, he could write some MediaWiki code I am sure!" isn't going to
work IMO. We need to liaise with WMF tech, figure out the projects we want
to focus on (with detailed spec!) and make sure everyone is happy with the
approach.
What I am trying to say is that you're casually tacking on *a whole other
full time job* to the description :)
>
> > I have considered everything I've been told so far about our own needs;
> and
> > added on top of it my own experience in working this way. So I am
> confident
> > one day per week is sufficient in the short term.
>
> Does your experience not tell you that there is always something
> important that needs doing that you didn't think of before? That is
> certainly the case in my experience and I can't see why tech would be
> any difference.
>
Of course; but this problem exists whether we hire a contractor or a full
time employee.
I'm suggesting a short term solution to the technology gap. As we have
found out hiring someone with several specialist capabilities and
management experience is not workable; but you *are *quite likely to get
someone more along these lines via contracting. Because we have to be
versatile.
> > In fact, companies almost always overestimate the tech time they need.
> This
> > is because they see projects that might fill 4 days of work - and
> > extrapolate that the developer is going to be BUSY. The truth is you get
> > busy periods and lulls - and a good engineer will be able to manage time
> > effectively to spread this out (for example; fundraiser might need lots
> of
> > work, but if you start in May...).
>
> We're not a for-profit company trying to do the bare minimum, though.
> If we have extra capacity, we can do extra work, and that's good.
>
It would be nice to enumerate what this "extra work" is. Often companies
say this; many years ago I started working at somewhere with a couple of
specific projects and "lots of extra work once your here". There was very
little of the latter in truth.
If we can identify "nice to have" projects then fine, I'll bow to this. But
otherwise I am skeptical.
>
> > What's the alternative? We can't find someone to do all the stuff we
> need at
> > the budget we have set. And a FTE is certainly too much for our next
> years
> > needs.
>
> Then set a larger budget. As I've said, I disagree that we couldn't
> make good use of a full time tech person. ("Needs" is actually the
> wrong word - it doesn't matter what we need, what matters is what we
> could do that would be worth the money.)
>
Well ok, I'm all for that. But it didn't seem to be getting great feedback
on the ideas page (i.e. all out tech team budget) so I am offering an
alternative to consider.
>
> > The best approach is to bring in a minimum utility and work up from
> there;
> > justifying a FTE for the 2014 budget will be MUCH easier if we can say
> "look
> > at X specific things we didn't have time to do".
>
> Then we'll continue having problems due to having too little tech
> capacity for another year.
>
If you can get budget approval for a much increased tech budget, and hire
them at the start of the year then go for it. I am skeptical but I will
support the endeavour.
On the other hand this lightweight solution might tide us over :)
Tom
Afternoon all,
I've had some free time today so looked into the technical gap Wikimedia UK
is facing (this is somewhat tied into the 2013 activity plan/budget). My
understanding is that the developer job failed to recruit a suitable
candidate<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2013_Activity_Plan/Ideas#Build_a_tech_team>.
I've not seen any feedback on that, but at the time I did criticise the
process and suggested this might happen (not intending to gloat, just
pointing this out).
One of the major problems, I think, was we wanted a multi-skilled
individual with management experience... at a rate around £10,000 less than
the average for London (and that is conservative).
As I was such a staunch critic :) it seems only fair that I make the effort
to submit a proposal I think would work out for us next year. To wit; I am
proposing we fill the technology gap short term by contracting an
individual one day per week. This will be a little more expensive than
one-fifth of the full-time rate proposed before - but because it is
contracted we are more likely to find someone able to address the varied
requirements.
My estimate for contractor cost + a technical budget (for servers, travel,
etc.) is about £17,000 - just over half of this years budget. This based on
my experience of doing similar work.
The proposal is drafted here:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ErrantX/2013_Developer_role
If you have a moment to comment on it that would be great! Ideally the
community needs to identify *exactly* what development needs it has - and
establish some fixed goals for hiring. If we can do this I am confident we
could fill this gap.
And if it seems ridiculous say so :) I am simply trying to present a
possible option.
Cheers,
Tom
Dear all,
I would suggest that participants in this public list reflect somewhat
before making comments. I have looked through the link which was sent and
done some research:
1) I could not find any evidence to show that Wikimedia Argentina
(http://www.wikimedia.org.ar) are involved in WLM, or indeed the page
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Monumentos_de_la_Provincia_de_Tierra_del…
(there is nothing on the talk page)
2) This page was started on the Spanish language version of wikipedia by
Usuario:B1mbo, who quite clearly presents themselves as a Chilean. Please
look at their editing history: they have been involved in developing a
number of lists of monuments across Latin America including Mexico and
Columbia as well as Argentina. The other two contributors have simply
added geodata. One of them (Usuario:Galio) self-identifies as a member of
Wikimedia Argentina.
3) The reference offered is to the Comisión Nacional de Museos y Lugares
Históricos, an official Argentinian source. The fact that they chose to
administratively categorise monuments in South Atlantic within the
Province of Tierra Del Fuego is a simple historical fact. The page simply
reflects this.
4) From the above it seems to me that the only "politicising" of the issue
has come about on the list, and this could have been avoided if:
a) More research ahd been done on the issue before it was raised here.
b) Clarification had been sought from the relevant people before
stimulating the discussion here.
5) The geographical remit of WMUK outside of the UK, as regards the 14
British Overseas Territories was started as regards Gibraltar. I would
suggest that the involvement of WMUK in this broader remit is considered
in terms of all 14 territories in principle, rather than responding to
issues as they
arise.
Anyway, I hope this helps clarify the matter.
all the best
Leutha
Has anyone else noticed that the Falkland Islands are participating in Wiki
Loves Monuments this year, but as part of Wikimedia Argentina?
Richard Symonds
Hello everyone,
Joscelyn Upendran, one of our Trustees, has been working on a draft
submission to the Communications Data Bill. This is now on the UK wiki at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission_on_Communications_Data_Bill
Please do read through this and feel free to leave your comments *on the
talk page please* before 12pm on Thursday 23 August. Apologies for the fast
turnaround but sumbissions must be in by the end of the working day on
Thursday.
Thank you,
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton
Communications Organiser
Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, 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.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Richard Symonds
<richard.symonds(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> The list of monuments at
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Monumentos_de_la_Provincia_de_Tierra_del…
> - includes Port Darwin, Fox Bay, Goose Green, Stanley, Pebble Island, and a
> few more. I think it's been imported straight from the Argentine national
> registry, which of course assumes that the Falklands are Argentine.
IMHO the best way to depoliticise the issue would be to either to
create a specific Falklands list/template or to ensure the same
monuments are also on a British list to allow islanders the choice.
Harry
--
Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250)
Hello everyone,
We have some anniversaries coming up on 5 November - four years since
incorporation, a year since achieving charitable status - and we were
wondering how you'd like to see us mark the date.
Any comments and suggestions here please -
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anniversary_celebration_suggestions
Thanks!
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton
Communications Organiser
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, 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.
Hello everyone,
We're scoping out the possibility of bringing in some media training for
volunteers, trustees and appropriate staff. At the moment, we're simply
looking for quotes.
I've put together a very simple brief of our requirements and it can be
seen here -
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Media_training_for_volunteers_-_quotes_required
If you know of any parties who may be interested in submitting quotes for
this please do share the page. If you'd like to discuss this, please do so
either by email or on the discussion page - please leave the content space
as is.
Thanks very much,
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton
Communications Organiser
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, 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.
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note to let you know that our report for July 2012 is now
published. http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports/2012/July
Highlights include notes on how we reached 4 million articles on the
English language Wikipedia, details of GLAM activities, the June / July
board meeting and a comms round up.
Please do get in touch if you have any comments or questions.
Thanks,
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton
Communications Organiser
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, 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.