Comments inline, Bishakha On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Harel, > > On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and > whose > > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly? > > No, that's why I've created > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29 > > > > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at the > > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying > from > > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a > > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other decision > > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the cost. > > That's why I've asked SJ about the budget. > I just looked at the minutes of our last IRC chat on 12 Feb - and this was what we agreed to by way of winding up Movement Roles: Minutes: "We agreed on these steps: 1. Engage in the new models and standards discussions on meta. - Identify concerns with the new models framework 2. Communicate what came out of our work - Summarize important MR work, and organize an overview linking to them (probably the MR main page) 3. Indicate a path for the future - Identify clusters of open topics to be carried forward, and parallel work taking place today. - Create a future roadmap, showing what group is responsible for working on each parts and follow-up area" Berlin was mentioned, but not specifically. Meaning, we agreed to meet in Berlin, but did not discuss the point raised here: funding group members specially to attend this meeting. Given that we are winding down, I too would personally be in favour of doing what's needed online before Berlin to wrap up MR, with a small 'tail' in Berlin. I also support this observation made on this list: Harel: "My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at the > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying from > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a > process that's basically approaching its final stage." So I too would be in favour of a small meeting on Thursday 29 March, the day before the official conference begins, with those who are present and can attend, or need minimum additional support to attend this - rather than bringing in individuals specially for this. Chapters Committee is having a meeting that day too, which may make it difficult for some to attend both a ChapCom meeting and a Movement Roles meeting on the same day. Best Bishakha
_______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
