On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, 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. > > So just to reiterate, we are finalizing the recognition model for other entities, not only before the meeting, but now without the majority of the participants? ChapCom was proposed as the entity for recognition a month ago without prior discussion, at the time, it was suggested that it would be discussed within the group, and now it is being suggested, it is better to work with only those that are incidentally there. I'm not sure what is going on here. Issues about donor money and responsibility seem a bit unaligned with the realities. This group is discussing some major changes - a recognition model for non-chapters, a council, what roles would chapters and the foundation occupy, and so on. These recommendations might have a large impact on the future of not just chapters but other entities. I would think this is actually a much more worthwhile use of donor fund, than several other ongoing projects. I thought the lack of physical meetings was one of the main reason why activity within the group stalled. Lodewijk, I can't help but think, that not discussing it or reaching a consensus within the group first, and finalizing these, would also be met with as much criticism, not just from outside, but from the participants themselves. Harel, It is nice to see your spirit of inclusiveness as the program manager. I recall you suggested inviting some of the "other entities" we are discussing within the group, just last month. I have felt that certain things are being pushed through in a hurried fashion, and now, when we actually do need to hammer out the specifics, we are suggesting working with whoever is there. I completely disagree with Harel and Bishakha on this. As Anriudh said, I would really appreciate a direct answer on this soon. Most of us have other commitments and jobs, if the funding and the need for this meeting is in question, than please mention that next time someone questions the recommendations. Regards Theo
_______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
