What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name.
On 12 Sep 2014 00:57, "Risker" <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We do have a community centre. It's called Meta.
It may not be a very
elegant one, and there are definitely parts that can be improved, but it's
our virtual community centre.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 19:54, Richard Symonds <
richard.symonds(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
But we don't even have a bikeshed or a
community centre yet :-P
On 12 Sep 2014 00:52, "Risker" <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory <wmau.lists(a)chuq.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the
conference,
> but
> > I
> > >> find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that
assessment,
> but
> > >> clearly some others in this thread do.
> > >>
> > >
> > > What Pete said.
> > >
> > > We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such
as
> that
> > > it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble
> becoming
> > > official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best
> venues
> > > for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to
actually
> address or resolve that trouble that excluded
them in the first
place...
> >
> > ...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The
name,
at
> > least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems
less
> > > glaring in the process.
> > >
> > >
> > Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ...
> >
> > What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia
Conference?
> Or
> > MetaWiki Conference?
> >
> > It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the
> movement
> > going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event)
> that a
> > regular editor would get a lot out of it?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this
> proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum)
name.
It is
neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for
designated
members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay
for it to be what it is. But
let's call it what it is.
It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a
bikeshed
a
community centre.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>