The problem with that Bishakha is that no one can after say that this is the result of "MR". If I get together with 2 other MR people who happens to be in the same city I am, we can't call that a "Movement Roles" meeting. That would be a meetup to the best. _____ * *
*[image: Inline images 1]* *Béria Lima* * * * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.* *Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>** * ** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* On 27 February 2012 09:18, Bishakha Datta <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
