Hi Tom; On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, your suggestion has had an impact, and yes, we feel that on reflection we need to scale back our growth. However, we are still working on the basis of hitting the 1 October deadline for the FDC bid. Essentially we are paring back some estimates that were either cautious (in the sense of "what's the most we could spend on the GLAM conference?") or optimistic (in the sense of "What's the most we could spend on Wikimedians in Residence"?) while leaving the direction of travel unchanged. This will, indeed, result in somewhat less work overall - but just as importantly it will mean less risk of underspent budgets, which are in themselves a bit unhealthy.

Well if you look at the costs of VLE, for example, there are hosting and

Similarly I would expect that a one-day GLAM conference would cost a

Nevertheless, if there are particular activities that you think we ought

On the contrary, I really do get it: you don't think it matters what gets cancelled; and I disagree. You don't think we can deliver the planned programme; and I disagree.

I'm saying you should be doing less.

On Sep 28, 2012 5:27 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: wrote: Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.

So now you want to prevent individuals from talking to each other? Not that's relevant here, because the potential trainers were not asked to contact potential trainees directly.

Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.

I'll say again, the issue here is the plan in aggregate. Specific examples aren't really important - there is plenty of room for reasonable people to come to different conclusions on a specific budget item. What we should be able to agree on though, is that this plan, when considered as a whole, is problematic. On Sep 28, 2012 10:44 PM, "Andrew Gray" <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote: > On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should > > therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having > > individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears > unprofessional > > and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response. > > I don't think it's producing bad results, but perhaps I'm biased. > > I've been spending the past six months doing *exactly this*; contacting > organisations directly, usually through personal contacts, arranging > training, and (with the invaluable help of volunteers) delivering it. I > have kept the chapter informed, but the sessions are pretty much > independent of the ongoing WMUK training events, though they provide > support (laptops, printed sheets, etc). I do not believe the chapter are in > any way unhappy with this arrangement; they've had plenty of opportunity to > say if they are! > > It's certainly more efficient than asking the chapter to do it - you > yourself have argued on this very mailing list that they are overworked, > and trying to do too much. To demand it be centralised is to give them yet > more work to do, on top of the existing load. It also introduces extra > inefficiencies - they won't be going through the same direct connections, > which makes the offer of a workshop less likely to be accepted, and it's > much easier to arrange a session when the person delivering it is also the > person negotiating it. > > Yes, random people emailing random contacts offering training is bad. But > if we trust the person to deliver the training professionally, and we are > willing to send them out there to represent the community in doing so, I > can't imagine any reason we wouldn't trust them to reach out and organise > the sessions as well. > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk > > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > >