I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of the concept of the conference.
Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending in conferences - and we don't limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is not Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year with the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change it, due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally OK and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together, no by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no publicly.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list my view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same thought process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each $1,000 like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be spent on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending it on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the original proposed spending is worth it.
I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to replace their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of board members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt that now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in general, and I have now done so.
Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
Steve
On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative
manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where the donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly
possible
to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on donations.
When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise that plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they
can
say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the point. When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for
them
not to go.
My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective. There are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My
experience
is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have met them. It really helps me in what I do.
Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great opportunity
to
get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe that funds received through the APG process or from money received
through
current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday
people.
When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we
as
chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for
this
but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and
would
wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large
chapters
with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a
disadvantage
or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right,
engagement
on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have
the
right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter
sent
more
then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education
Meeting,
but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to
know
why
this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it
before.
I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember
we
asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule"
of
number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we
decided
to
select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's
staff
and
board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for,
and
asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome,
or
willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status
quo
we
been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally
some
activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit
that
I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team
regarding
programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the
same
discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most
importantly,
to start discussing and taking position towards the conference
topics
on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas.
We
have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it
together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they
see
fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license
for
everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is
best
expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and
not
implicit
condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that
as a
former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own
direction
and
not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that
is
not
controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when
that
gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because
somewhere
else
in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the
current
criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a
large
delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste
money
by
sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <
russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
:
> Gerard, et al > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen > gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote: > > > > > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if
they
> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to
question
this
> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place. > > > Might I make a point here. > > It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e.
the
general
> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help
to
> survive. > > The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency
to
waste
> money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
> last year by > http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and > http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/ > > The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the
funds
is
> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as
good
as
any.
> > As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such
questions,
> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such
questions
> without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer
the
chair,
> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately,
there
is a
> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised,
for a
> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with
snide
> attacks. > > Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is
only
fair
> that they answer them. > > Cheers, > > Russavia > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe