Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a
novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with an
issue quite like this before.
Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as
significant):
1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a good
thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing, even
if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the
conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please compare
it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter.
2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings the
movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)
However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the
direction this is going:
3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
they are lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
Wikimania". Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?) Equally, I am not really
clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In
general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear there
isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
From the consultation showed lots of other people were
thinking X and Y
(though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't
thought
about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
Thanks,
Chris
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping
costs is a reasonable one
because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the
movement.
Some of us have the financial wherewithal to
attend "on our own dime",
but
many of our colleagues from around the world are
not in that position.
Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving the
value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for tens
of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively tiny
cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put its
own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more
example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside the
organization than it is on internal spending.
It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that the
conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was the
"give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of
Wikimania" and
option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect that if
there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option
many
would have selected it.
If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I don't
know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily
support that effort.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>