On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's hard for me to read this as anything but "WMF Product selects the topics, and then 'listens' for objections on wikitech-l".
Since this is not even remotely what I am trying to say, let me try again, while I keep iterating on the proposal:
The organizers of the Summit propose to have a few main topics defined beforehand, so we can invite the people beyond the usual Summit participants that should be involved in these discussions.
We don't have any opinion about which topics should be selected. However, we believe that it is important to choose complex topics with a high user impact (direct or indirect) and ramifications in multiple technical areas. The Summit with its +200 participants provides a great framework to push these topics.
We don't have any opinion about who decides these topics and how. However, we need good enough answers and fast, so we can start organizing the participation and the program. There will be time to fine tune things as we go, and there will be enough space for all the topics not selected beforehand, in the unconference part of the Summit.
We believe that by having the right people focusing on a few main topics before and during the Summit, the outcome of the event will have a clearer impact in the strategy and goals that ultimately drive where we put a lot of our attention and resources.
Is your sense that the
correct direction for us is for someone to provide more top-down direction instead of wikitech-l conversation?
My sense is that we need to open registration, call for participation, and call for travel sponsorship requests as soon as possible. This list, the Architecture committee, the WMF Technology management team, and the WMF Product management team are aware of this situation and our request to define main topics. I will be checking with all these sources with the goal of having a good enough answer that allows us to move forward with the Summit organization.