How about expanding its scope but alternating it with Wikimania, so one
every other year?
This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
On 2 April 2014 15:59, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think the biggest challenge here is that there are
dozens of movement
members who would be interested in attending this conference, but it is
intended to be a very limited one. Several of the topics (Conflict of
Interest, Meet the Trustees, Lessons learnt on huge projects, How to
measure blood, sweat and tears, and particularly Reimagining movement
structures) are of interest to a much, much larger community than simply
the chapters/Thorgs. I'm still a bit baffled at having a session devoted to
Wikimania, since almost all of the attendees of the conference will be
attending Wikimania.
Indeed, if others besides the 2+1 representatives from chapters/thorgs are
permitted to attend, I would strongly urge that any additional
seats/participants be focused on movement members who work *outside* of the
formal structures. It's pretty hard to come up with community-based
reimaginations of movement structures if you exclude those who aren't
already involved in existing movement structures. :-)
The WMF umbrella of projects, chapters, thorgs etc has not done a lot in
terms of leadership development. I'll note, however, that the place where
leadership is most sorely lacking is on projects, while the majority of
those participating in leadership activities at the chapter/thorg level are
not doing a lot of work on WMF projects. (That's a generalization, and
there are exceptions.) It may be that either this conference needs to be
refocused, or it needs to be split into two separate conferences. There is
definitely an audience out there for many of these same topics which is
being ignored completely.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 08:32, Jens Best <jens.best(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is
questionable with good
arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole
thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such
things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such
lists, but on the conference itself.
I for my case really would have liked to come, mainly for listening live
to
the discussions and get to know some people from
other chapters. And as I
this year live in the city where the conference takes place, it would
have
been possible with very few costs, too.
I really would like to see this aspect of the rules to be discussed on
this
year's event because I also think that more
people will represent the
bigger variety of the movement and still don't boost the event to a
happening where no serious discussion and fair international
decision-finding can be made because of overcrowding or
overrepresentation
of some chapters.
Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
events at least. :)
Best regards
Jens
2014-04-02 13:37 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri <itzik(a)infra.co.il>il>:
> 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > GerardM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia"
<
> > > > russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Gerard, et al
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > > > >> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > 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(a)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(a)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
> > > > >
> > > > >
http://wikimedia.de
> > > > >
> > > > > 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
--
Jens Best
Präsidium
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web:
http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best <http://goog_17221883>@wikimedia.de
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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies
Wikimedia UK is 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).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Visit