On 18 Feb 2016 00:24, "Chris Schilling" <cschilling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> 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".
Hey Chris. I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with
Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment. It's true that I
along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this
consultation, and
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?)
It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for
Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the
reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
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.
I'm in full agreement. The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will
need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the
next year.
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.
For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the
discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
With thanks,
Jethro
[1] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_…
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> 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>
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF)>
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>
_______________________________________________
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>