On 28/09/15 11:05, Quim Gil wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Isarra Yos
<zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a question. For volunteers or
third-party folks less close to core
- suppose we do want to come talk about whatever pertains to us. How do we
bring these things up? How do we propose discussions when they're not our
projects (upstream) and we don't even necessarily know whose projects they
are (I've certainly lost complete track of what WMF teams are which, and
whoever is actually doing/maintaining the stuff can still apparently be
other folks entirely)? Do we just put up a proposal 'talk about blah' and
hope someone who actually knows about blah shows up? If I want to discuss
the future of MF, do I just put up a thing 'the future of MF' and hope it
attracts the relevant attention needed to actually go somewhere?
In the context of the Summit, "talk about blah" becomes a useful
session
proposal when the problem of blah is defined, the goals of the session are
defined, and the people and projects related with blah are invited to
participate.
If you want to discuss the future of MobileFrontend, it is useful to define
what problems MobileFrontend has today, and what do you expect to solve
between now and the day of this session at the Summit. #MobileFrontend has
a project in Phabricator, and depending on the problems you might want to
add more projects/tags. If that is not enough to raise attention (it
should), then you have this list and/or mobile-l.
Okay, thanks. That does help clarify things a bit.
See
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_Summit_2016#Call_for_par…
for the fields we expect in all Summit proposals.
Also, something I find particularly confusing is that we need to be heavily
involved in the proposals in order to even be
considered for sponsorship
when in a lot of cases volunteers/third party folks may not even in much
position to bring them up in the first place even when we're definitely
impacted. And yet we're also the ones who are most likely to need
sponsorship, being less likely to be already working out of the bay area,
and much less likely to be involved in the general team discussions that
happen throughout the year.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_Summit_2016#Travel_spons…
says "Candidates for travel sponsorship must be active contributors in
ongoing Summit proposals". If a candidate is not active right now in the
specific task, but they can proof their involvement in that topic in other
ways, that is fine as well. We just want to see a clear connection between
the people we sponsor and the activities being planned. It is a sensible
requirement.
In the example of template editors, gadget and tool developers, etc used
earlier in this thread, how would that apply? Folks just do enough
templates etc elsewhere and poke a related proposal saying 'yup
relevant' so interest is known on that end, and then just list their
involvements on the application?
(And
seriously, what's with the timing? So close after new year's, people
are going to be on holiday and plane prices are horrible; for me it'd bring
the price down by over half if it were even just a week later, and others
may be more extreme.)
These dates were not our first option, but the availability of venues in
San Francisco for the Summit and WMF AllHands during those weeks didn't
gave us many alternatives. Also, the Wikimedia Hackathon is very close next
year (end of March). On the other hand, the proximity / overlap with
holidays might make it easier for some (i.e. students) to travel?
Students probably aren't the best example, as it starts the same time as
classes some places, which means they don't even have the option. (Later
in the term would allow them to find folks to cover for them, talk to
professors ahead of time, etc, but missing the beginning, especially if
they have TA meetings, is a very bad idea for most.)