Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Gnangarra]

Agree with the comments thats hard to measure the value of a Wikimania, and
what an attendee will do with the experience. so here is my experience

My first Wikimania was 2012 in Washington DC, I was a little introspective
and embroiled in an ARBCOM case I shared a room with Richard Farmbrough
with whom I had a deep discussion about the case he gave me some amazing
advice about that process it literally reenergises my efforts...  While
doing so he recommended a session about QRpedia, a really interesting
project.  Two months later I'm back home and still editing when an
opportunity presents itself to propose a QRpedia project in Fremantle, that
produced the first Wikitown in Australia.  The Freopedia project as it
became known opened the door to another WikiTown project in Toodyay called
Toodyaypedia,  Next minute I'm nominated for a State Heritage award for the
work I've been doing through Wikipedia and the out reach projects that have
improved coverage of Western Australian History more doors start to open.
I'm on a roll really energised and its rubbing off on the local community
they willingly helping with every silly idea I try, so much so that I get
nominated to be a committee member(Vice President no less) of the local
chapter. London 2014 Wikimedia Australia pays for me to attend London where
I give back to the community my experiences and share my experiences about
WikiTowns/QRpedia(along with a few Tim Tams and Caramellow Koalas) in the
community village. Also while in London I got to attended a pre-wikimania
training session by WMUK that they offer to people doing outreach that was
a wonderful experience and helped me improve the way I do outreach here,[*side
thought:that should be taken on the road to every chapter who does or wants
to do outreach*].

I return even more enrgise and what to bring the Wikimania experience here
where more even more people can benefit directly rather than just through
my efforts. 2015 I'm presented with another opportunity to expand the
projects happening here this time writing in an Indigenous Australian
language and improving content about a subject area thats has been
inadeqautely covered for the first 10years of wikipedia.  Along come an
offer from WMF to attend Mexico I'm torn between my commitment to the
Noongar Language work which included a workshop that coincided with
Wikimania and the opportunity to attend my 3rd event, of course my
commitment to the local project took precidence. The cost of that was not
finding out about the changes to the Wikimania processes and spending a lot
of time putting together a bid for Wikimania in Perth.  The benefit of the
Noongarpedia project is that we now have the first Indigenous Australian
language in the incubator, with a number of other communities watching and
learning from our experiences, I just spent a week in Darwin which included
talking with people there and walking them through that project. Somewhere
in all of this I also became President of WMAu  and with it WMAu has had
its most successful period, I like to think some that is because of the
energy I have brought to the table from my experience at Wikimania.

One Australian once theorised about how WMF measures success and
highlighted that the value is not in the physical numbers but in the
intangible connections that are made, he even put forward a PEG proposal to
demostrate that its the personal relationships that matter and how you
build them that have the true impact.  Being isolated in Western Australia
made for the perfect ground to develop such a project ironically it was
declined because of the fact that the project lacked the generation of
numbers which would make success measurable.

We place too much emphasis on physical numbers to measure out comes yet we
all know that education is more than just numbers and community development
is about connections, energy and empowering others Wikimania does, that we
just need to find the right boxes to tick.

[conflict with Riskers response, apologies if I over lap]


On 10 July 2016 at 09:50, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Andrew and Leila,
>
> There are quite a few ways of looking at the numbers (which is one reason
> that I'm hoping for a thorough analysis.) Please note that I think that
> conferences should happen; I am asking if this is the status quo is the
> optimal way of spending these funds. There are other ways of using funds
> for conferences that could be explored.
>
> For example, if a Wikimania costs $600,000 and there are 1,000 attendees,
> that works out to a cost of $600 per attendee for 1000 people. Is that a
> wiser investment than spreading out the same funds among (hypothetically)
> 3,000 attendees at multiple national/regional conferences for an average
> expense of $200 per attendee? At this point I don't think any of us can
> answer that question.
>
> The Wikimania-going population, especially the people who go to many
> WIkimanias, are a vanishingly small percentage of the 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Risker]

Wikimania serves many purposes.  Some of those purposes can be served by
regional conferences, if they are properly broadcast or their information
is similarly made available to the community at large.  Other purposes are
served better by having a global gathering.  For example, one of my
personal objectives at this year's Wikimania was to talk to peers and seek
out candidates for the Board-appointed FDC seats; I was specifically
looking for women and/or non-Western candidates.  Being able to meet those
candidates in person and talk to them about the work of the FDC
means...well, at least one of them has posted a candidacy now.  These sorts
of connections are very difficult to make without the personal touch.  I
invariably learn more from people I'd meet nowhere else but Wikimania than
I do in any other forum.  Remember that it is much more difficult for
people to justify attendance at a conference in another region or country,
where the program is going to be geared to a local rather than
international audience, than it is to justify attending the global
conference.  It's not just about money. It's about developing the roots
that spread beyond the conference.  Many Wikimedians who have brought a
great deal to our broad community first made their connections with others
at Wikimania.  The Hackathon attached to Wikimania is often one of the most
valuable aspects of the conference - hackathons tend to "get things done",
actively develop skills in those creating tools and software that improves
our projects, and assists in integrating the editing and developer
communities.  (The developer team usually makes up the largest part of the
WMF staff contingent; I understand this year was an exception, and I will
be interested to know whether Hackathon participants thought it was as
effective.)

It is also the only "global" conference that any Wikimedian can attend.
Those who attend the Wikimedia Affiliates Conference, for example, are
there by invitation only, and specifically excluded if they are not part of
a formally recognized organization.  Many local or national conferences
will (quite reasonably) be conducted in the local language, which can
exclude effective participation from anyone outside that region.

I do entirely understand the point about costs to individuals, though: if
not sponsored or provided with some form of assistance, it's not cheap to
travel to another continent and pay for room and board on top of any
conference fee.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's any cheaper in
the big picture to have a bunch of regional conferences where WMF staff
have to keep traveling, or when we don't get the benefit that derives from
the Hackathons or other pre-conference activities.

Risker/Anne

On 9 July 2016 at 21:50, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Andrew and Leila,
>
> There are quite a few ways of looking at the numbers (which is one reason
> that I'm hoping for a thorough analysis.) Please note that I think that
> conferences should happen; I am asking if this is the status quo is the
> optimal way of spending these funds. There are other ways of using funds
> for conferences that could be explored.
>
> For example, if a Wikimania costs $600,000 and there are 1,000 attendees,
> that works out to a cost of $600 per attendee for 1000 people. Is that a
> wiser investment than spreading out the same funds among (hypothetically)
> 3,000 attendees at multiple national/regional conferences for an average
> expense of $200 per attendee? At this point I don't think any of us can
> answer that question.
>
> The Wikimania-going population, especially the people who go to many
> WIkimanias, are a vanishingly small percentage of the overall WIkimedia
> population. They tend to be active, but there are plenty of active
> Wikimedians such as myself who have never been to Wikimania, although I'd
> like to go next year. Does it make sense to spend so much money on such a
> small percentage of our community? There are reasons to think that the
> answer could be yes; for example, if Wikimania motivates highly active
> contributors and leaders to keep up the good work. However, it's not clear
> that similarly good effects couldn't be achieved on a broader scale by
> spreading the funds among more numerous smaller conferences.
>
> There is a good argument to be made that having lots of highly active
> contributors and project leaders from all over the world in the same place,
> and having WMF staff mix with them, is a good idea for purposes of
> improving communications and relationships. Generation of good PR press,
> and cross-pollination of ideas, are also important and I think that we
> should support those. However, similarly good outcomes might be achieved
> through multiple smaller conferences.
>
> I'm in favor of continuing to spend funds on conferences; what I think
> that none of us know is whether our current model of a single large
> conference is "better" than multiple national/regional 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Pine W]

Hi Andrew and Leila,

There are quite a few ways of looking at the numbers (which is one reason
that I'm hoping for a thorough analysis.) Please note that I think that
conferences should happen; I am asking if this is the status quo is the
optimal way of spending these funds. There are other ways of using funds
for conferences that could be explored.

For example, if a Wikimania costs $600,000 and there are 1,000 attendees,
that works out to a cost of $600 per attendee for 1000 people. Is that a
wiser investment than spreading out the same funds among (hypothetically)
3,000 attendees at multiple national/regional conferences for an average
expense of $200 per attendee? At this point I don't think any of us can
answer that question.

The Wikimania-going population, especially the people who go to many
WIkimanias, are a vanishingly small percentage of the overall WIkimedia
population. They tend to be active, but there are plenty of active
Wikimedians such as myself who have never been to Wikimania, although I'd
like to go next year. Does it make sense to spend so much money on such a
small percentage of our community? There are reasons to think that the
answer could be yes; for example, if Wikimania motivates highly active
contributors and leaders to keep up the good work. However, it's not clear
that similarly good effects couldn't be achieved on a broader scale by
spreading the funds among more numerous smaller conferences.

There is a good argument to be made that having lots of highly active
contributors and project leaders from all over the world in the same place,
and having WMF staff mix with them, is a good idea for purposes of
improving communications and relationships. Generation of good PR press,
and cross-pollination of ideas, are also important and I think that we
should support those. However, similarly good outcomes might be achieved
through multiple smaller conferences.

I'm in favor of continuing to spend funds on conferences; what I think that
none of us know is whether our current model of a single large conference
is "better" than multiple national/regional conferences.

Along the lines of Leila's suggestion, the idea of temporarily scaling up
WMF's support for national/regional (or thematic) conferences while keeping
Wikimania in place makes sense to me. That requires some willingness to
spend the funds for both types of events for a few years. It's a bit of an
expensive proposition though, and I'm wary of asking the WMF staff to spend
more time traveling to more conferences. I guess I'm cautiously in favor of
looking at this option if it's financially practical to scale up the
support for focused conferences while maintaining support for Wikimania.
Keep in mind that WMF Fundraising is worried about plateauing revenues, so
we're working in a world of resource constraints and trying to do the best
we can with what we've got.

I'm looking forward to hearing what Katherine and Christophe think. And
with that, I'm afraid that I must depart this thread to attend to other
matters. (: Thanks for the good conversation, everyone.

Pine

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>
>> I'd also be interested in projections of total attendance and costs
>> (including travel costs and staff time) for Wikimania vs. having more or
>> expanded national and regional conferences.
>>
>
> But then there is the benefit (which is not fully captured by attendance
> that) we need to take into account, too, and that's where the main problem
> starts. It's relatively easy to measure the costs of conferences, it's very
> hard to measure their benefit for a variety of reasons, one of which, in
> our context, is that it's hard to assign price-tag to many of the projects
> the community and beyond drive, even if you can clearly link them to
> Wikimania (which is a problem on its own). And that's already the easier
> part of the benefit analysis. It can get way more complicated if we want to
> assign a price-tag to how much it's worth for each of us to learn more
> about others.
>
> And now add to all the above, that you are suggesting that we do
> cost-benefit analysis for multiple conference models and compare them.
> Think about designing control experiments, considering the interactions
> between conferences (people who attend both vs. those who attend only one
> kind), etc.
>
> I would not go down the path of cost-benefit analysis for a conference
> such as Wikimania. We will loose too much time and money and still the
> analysis will have so many questionable components.
>
> ​What industry and academic conferences usually do when they're in doubt
> is that they become bold and start a new conference but keep the original
> one in place. If the new conference attracts more audience, to the extent
> that at some point organizing the original conference doesn't make sense
> (too few attendees, lower 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Leila Zia]

Hi Pine,

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:


> I'd also be interested in projections of total attendance and costs
> (including travel costs and staff time) for Wikimania vs. having more or
> expanded national and regional conferences.
>

But then there is the benefit (which is not fully captured by attendance
that) we need to take into account, too, and that's where the main problem
starts. It's relatively easy to measure the costs of conferences, it's very
hard to measure their benefit for a variety of reasons, one of which, in
our context, is that it's hard to assign price-tag to many of the projects
the community and beyond drive, even if you can clearly link them to
Wikimania (which is a problem on its own). And that's already the easier
part of the benefit analysis. It can get way more complicated if we want to
assign a price-tag to how much it's worth for each of us to learn more
about others.

And now add to all the above, that you are suggesting that we do
cost-benefit analysis for multiple conference models and compare them.
Think about designing control experiments, considering the interactions
between conferences (people who attend both vs. those who attend only one
kind), etc.

I would not go down the path of cost-benefit analysis for a conference such
as Wikimania. We will loose too much time and money and still the analysis
will have so many questionable components.

​What industry and academic conferences usually do when they're in doubt is
that they become bold and start a new conference but keep the original one
in place. If the new conference attracts more audience, to the extent that
at some point organizing the original conference doesn't make sense (too
few attendees, lower quality abstract submissions, major people in the
field moving to the new conference), then they gradually stop the original
conference. It seems that following that approach would be more beneficial
than questioning the usefulness of Wikimania without more extensively
trying the other conference/meet-up types first and in parallel to
Wikimania.
​

> If WMF and the community are going to spend that much money every year on
> an annual conference, with the majority of that money coming from donors
> who give small-dollar amounts, I think that we need to think carefully and
> thoroughly about how we plan the conference (or conferences) to align with
> the goals of our donors and what we tell our donors.
>

​Two points to take into account here:

* Wikimania is a major and mature conference and it's fair to compare it to
major academic conferences that I'm more familiar with. The cost of such
conferences is usually quite higher than Wikimania, if you consider roughly
the same attendance numbers. I would start worrying about the cost of
Wikimania only if the cost goes much higher than the industry standard.

* I wouldn't recommend reconsidering how we plan for our major conferences
based on what we tell our donors. We should define our needs and find a way
to fund them.

Leila
​
--
Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation


> Pine
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Deryck Chan  wrote:
>
>> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
>> worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
>>
>> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
>> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
>>
>> It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed as
>> to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what
>> demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution,
>> involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer /
>> not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences
>> and Wikimania.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>>
>> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
>> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be
>> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are
>> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the
>> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some
>> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future,
>> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as
>> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive
>> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The
>> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such
>> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent
>> to WMF.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jul 8, 2016 20:04, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>>
>>> My bad I forgot it already is on meta
>>> 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Andrew Lih]

Pine,

I’m going to echo Lodewijk here on emphasizing investing in the community
and also call into question the wisdom of portraying $600,000 of Wikimania
cost as being comparable to hiring four WMF engineers. If you think about
how much Wikipedia/Wikimedia’s brand equity is (most certainly in the
billions of dollars), or the overall budget of WMF (tens of millions of
dollars), a six figure amount to enable, maintain and inspire our volunteer
community to do more, it is an extreme bargain and an excellent return on
investment.

I had a conversation with Deror Avi of WM Israel, and he described how they
account for volunteer time as “in kind donations” for the purposes of their
chapter output and showing impact. If we do the same conservative
calculation with, say, 600 volunteers who attend Wikimania on scholarship
or organically, who might then “donate” 250 hours a year (~5 hours/week),
and consider that donated time worth, on average, about $20/hour (probably
too low), that works out to $3 million in returns. This is, of course, a
back of the napkin calculation. However, the order of magnitude is
significant. You’re roughly looking at a 5x return on what WMF spends to
stage Wikimania, and I’d argue with less conservative numbers, 10x is not
unreasonable.

This is not even taking into account the “pied piper” effect of training
and evangelism at Wikimania having a multiplier effect far beyond
individual training of attendees. It’s through Wikimania that folks like
Liam Wyatt have created and furthered the GLAM movement, or Vassia
Atanassova has infected people with 100 Wikidays, or people doing amazing
things wits Wikidata have been able to feed off each other.

Looking at it this way I’d argue, “How can we, in good conscience, *not*
spend $600,000 on our community?”

Perhaps one problem is that these types of benefits are so obvious to most
Wikimania attendees, but fairly unknown to those who haven’t been, or
rarely attend. If it’s useful, as someone on the Wikimania Committee, I’d
like to try to surface more experiences and opinions to get a better
overall picture of the net benefit of Wikimania for our movement. I’d
welcome any and all ideas on how we can best do that.

-Andrew


-Andrew Lih
Associate professor of journalism, American University
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: http://www.andrewlih.com
BOOK: The Wikipedia Revolution: http://www.wikipediarevolution.com
PROJECT: Wiki Makes Video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Agreed. I think that more data would be useful, including information such
> as what you highlighted here. I'd also be interested in projections of
> total attendance and costs (including travel costs and staff time) for
> Wikimania vs. having more or expanded national and regional conferences.
>
> There's a substantial financial cost to all of this. It looks like the
> cost for Wikimania 2016, including scholarships, was about $500,000
> excluding WMF and affiliate staff time, staff travel expenses, and expenses
> for those who paid their own flights. Ellie might be able to provide us
> with a better estimate of the total cost with those numbers included; my
> guess is that it was around $600,000, which is substantial. WMF might be
> able to hire four full-time engineers for a year for that amount. If WMF
> and the community are going to spend that much money every year on an
> annual conference, with the majority of that money coming from donors who
> give small-dollar amounts, I think that we need to think carefully and
> thoroughly about how we plan the conference (or conferences) to align with
> the goals of our donors and what we tell our donors. I believe that there
> is value in having face-to-face meetings and presentations; what isn't
> clear to me is whether the current Wikimania model should be continued or
> whether those funds would be better invested in regional and national
> conferences. I'm hoping that a careful analysis can be done that provides
> us some guidance about how to optimize our use of these financial resources.
>
> Pine
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Deryck Chan  wrote:
>
>> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
>> worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
>>
>> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
>> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
>>
>> It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed as
>> to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what
>> demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution,
>> involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer /
>> not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences
>> and Wikimania.
>>
>> [1]
>> 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Gnangarra]

That original survey was intrinsically flawed and show be totally thrown
out, the people who participated(myself included) were invited that list
was primarily constructed of people who had participated in a closed
discussion in Mexico which decided on Montreal by usurping the community
consulation process that existed yet left many to unknowingly follow that
process.  The questions gave no alternatives to the decisions of mexico.

Discussions at Wikimania are great except that the voices of those who cant
attend arent heard, its important that everyones voice is heard fairly.
You've all heard my voice before about how unfair the scholarship processes
are we saw again this year that unfairness to the region that is the third
highest source of funding.   Balancing that unfairness should mean that
Wikimania should be more accessible either via scholarships or via
locations .

Wikimania should be returned to the community in a public process not
decided behind closed doors.  The other unidentified benefits of hosting a
Wikimania is that having the Board, the ED and so many other recognisable
people in one place is that opportunity for the fundraising team to engage
with potential new sources of funds and other resources alongside the
community engagements.   It appears to me at least that the full potential
of hosting Wikimania hasnt been identified and until that happens its value
to the community isnt being realised.

On 10 July 2016 at 06:07, Lodewijk  wrote:

> Actually, I'm afraid it runs a bit deeper than who's represented in the
> group. The way the questions were set up are considered to be 'leading' and
> there was no choice between the outcome and the status quo. Maybe this is
> indeed obvious to all - and I'm happy if that is the case. But I cannot
> conclude that from your emails (the opposite is suggested actually), and
> also at the discussion in Esino I didn't get the impression everyone was
> aware of what those flaws exactly were. So hopefully superfluously -
> pointing it out again. Sorry if I get boring or obnoxious!
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-07-09 23:57 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan :
>
>> I think everybody on this thread agree that funding in-person conferences
>> is a crucial way to invest in our community ;)
>>
>> And I think most of us agree too that we now know the survey results were
>> unrepresentative of the actual distribution of community opinions. I'm
>> simply making suggestions about what we can learn from the imperfections.
>>
>> Deryck
>> On 9 Jul, 2016 9:49 pm, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Deryck, all,
>> >
>> > While you can agree or disagree on the usefulness of the letter, I
>> would like to make one point about the idealab survey. One thing that is
>> not pointed out clearly, is that there was a lot of criticism on the
>> methodology of that particular survey, and how the conclusions were drawn.
>> Please take a look at the talk page attached to that outcomes page that you
>> linked, and consider that much of the criticism wasn't even responded to. I
>> think Marc was kind but correct in his characterisation as 'clearly
>> flawed'. There was some useful data in there, but the conclusions that were
>> drawn, were a few bridges too far.
>> >
>> > Another thing that was mentioned in private conversations a lot, but
>> not in many public discussions is that Wikimania is and should be primarily
>> an investment in our community. Our community is by far our biggest asset.
>> Having a healthy community is essential, and it is important that different
>> communities learn from each other, exchange ideas and methods, interact.
>> Not just with the few neighboring languages, but also with those far away.
>> >
>> > You can investigate if this Wikimania structure if the most effective
>> way, but please lets not approach this from a 'cost cutting' perspective.
>> Lets not consider Wikimania as a cost, but as an investment in something
>> intangible, in infrastructure. The financial picture should be only a very
>> small part of the consideration - in my humble opinion. I'm not sure who
>> mentioned this at Wikimania (was it Dimi? Liam?) but if you compare the
>> amount of money we spend on community building, and how much big companies
>> spend on their staff happyness programmes, annual meetups and all - we're
>> probably not doing too bad. I would be much happier if we looked at this
>> from the perspective of the most effective way to have an international,
>> constructive, interactive and exchanging community.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Lodewijk
>> >
>> > 2016-07-09 21:50 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan :
>> >>
>> >> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
>> worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
>> >>
>> >> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
>> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
>> >>
>> >> 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Lodewijk]

Actually, I'm afraid it runs a bit deeper than who's represented in the
group. The way the questions were set up are considered to be 'leading' and
there was no choice between the outcome and the status quo. Maybe this is
indeed obvious to all - and I'm happy if that is the case. But I cannot
conclude that from your emails (the opposite is suggested actually), and
also at the discussion in Esino I didn't get the impression everyone was
aware of what those flaws exactly were. So hopefully superfluously -
pointing it out again. Sorry if I get boring or obnoxious!

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-07-09 23:57 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan :

> I think everybody on this thread agree that funding in-person conferences
> is a crucial way to invest in our community ;)
>
> And I think most of us agree too that we now know the survey results were
> unrepresentative of the actual distribution of community opinions. I'm
> simply making suggestions about what we can learn from the imperfections.
>
> Deryck
> On 9 Jul, 2016 9:49 pm, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Deryck, all,
> >
> > While you can agree or disagree on the usefulness of the letter, I would
> like to make one point about the idealab survey. One thing that is not
> pointed out clearly, is that there was a lot of criticism on the
> methodology of that particular survey, and how the conclusions were drawn.
> Please take a look at the talk page attached to that outcomes page that you
> linked, and consider that much of the criticism wasn't even responded to. I
> think Marc was kind but correct in his characterisation as 'clearly
> flawed'. There was some useful data in there, but the conclusions that were
> drawn, were a few bridges too far.
> >
> > Another thing that was mentioned in private conversations a lot, but not
> in many public discussions is that Wikimania is and should be primarily an
> investment in our community. Our community is by far our biggest asset.
> Having a healthy community is essential, and it is important that different
> communities learn from each other, exchange ideas and methods, interact.
> Not just with the few neighboring languages, but also with those far away.
> >
> > You can investigate if this Wikimania structure if the most effective
> way, but please lets not approach this from a 'cost cutting' perspective.
> Lets not consider Wikimania as a cost, but as an investment in something
> intangible, in infrastructure. The financial picture should be only a very
> small part of the consideration - in my humble opinion. I'm not sure who
> mentioned this at Wikimania (was it Dimi? Liam?) but if you compare the
> amount of money we spend on community building, and how much big companies
> spend on their staff happyness programmes, annual meetups and all - we're
> probably not doing too bad. I would be much happier if we looked at this
> from the perspective of the most effective way to have an international,
> constructive, interactive and exchanging community.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2016-07-09 21:50 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan :
> >>
> >> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
> worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
> >>
> >> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
> >>
> >> It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed
> as to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what
> demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution,
> involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer /
> not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences
> and Wikimania.
> >>
> >> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
> >>
> >> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be
> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are
> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the
> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some
> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future,
> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as
> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive
> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The
> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such
> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent
> to WMF.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Pine
> >>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
___

[Wikimania-l] "Friendly and inclusive", and Brexit at Wikimania

[Deryck Chan]

I apologise for the somewhat emotionally charged post. Please read to the
end and I promise my argument will come together...

Wikimania 2016 gave me more emotional hot air than any other previous
Wikimania except the one I organised (2013). But unusually, the hot air
didn't arise from disputes about Wikimedia chapter governance or conference
(dis)organisation. It was about Brexit.

(For the record, I thought Wikimania Esino was amazingly well-operated.)

Before Wikimania, I had already set out my attitude towards Brexit on a
Facebook note. I've reposted it on my user-space on the Wikimania 2016 wiki
so I won't repeat my arguments at length:

https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Deryck_Chan/The_reluctant_Remain_voter

The title of my post gives it away - I'm lukewarm towards Brexit.

At Wikimania, the topic of Brexit naturally brought itself up in many
mealtime conversations between me and Wikimaniacs from other EU countries.
My opinion on the matter often took conversations towards unhappy
disagreement, and I would feel excluded from subsequent conversation on the
same table.

I've never felt so rejected at Wikimania. Most heated debate at Wikimania I
was involved in took the form of "us vs. y'all", so as inflamed as a debate
may have been, there would be a "my side". But not this time. My unusual
perspective as a non-white British (and EU, until UK formally withdraws)
citizen meant that I had a perspective that was shared by very few others
at Wikimania. It was like "me vs everyone else".

I felt disenfranchised enough by the referendum debate itself as a
non-white citizen of the UK. I felt sad enough that I voted Remain but
Leave won. I wanted to share the little bit of hope I still had about the
future, on the day Leave was declared victorious, and wasn't appreciated.

I shared my feelings with Daria Cybulska (WMUK staff, Polish origin) and
she reminded me to be "sensitive" of other people in discussion... an
instruction I immediately fell foul of in that discussion, as I forgot that
the UK's withdrawal from the EU will mean fewer opportunities for people
with similar backgrounds to Daria, as much as the EU's protectionist
tendencies have been reducing the opportunities for people with similar
backgrounds to me.

Okay, enough Brexit chat. I promised my argument would come together.

In her Wikimania keynote, Katherine Maher said one of the things WMF would
prioritise in the next year is to make our communities a "friendly and
inclusive space".

I'm a six-time Wikimaniac; and in-person meetings are known to facilitate
more amicable debates than online discussions. But because of my unique
background, even I fell foul of the standards of sensitivity in
communication, and as a result felt unwelcome.

Now imagine someone from a far-flung corner of Wikimedia-sphere joining
Wikimania for the first time. Or a prospective new editor from a far-flung
corner of Earth clicking [edit] for the first time. When there's
disagreement in which the newcomer has a unique perspective, will they feel
included?

I don't claim to have the magic bullet. But thanks to Brexit happening
during Wikimania 2016, now I understand the sheer magnitude of the problem.
I feel encouraged that Katherine and the WMF are making it a leading
priority for the next year to foster a "friendly and inclusive" community
atmosphere.

I'm not sure which one is easier to solve: the political mess of today's
Europe, or the hostile mess of online communities. But for both, I shall
remain hopeful and do my part to make our communities better.

Deryck
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Lodewijk]

Hi Deryck, all,

While you can agree or disagree on the usefulness of the letter, I would
like to make one point about the idealab survey. One thing that is not
pointed out clearly, is that there was a lot of criticism on the
methodology of that particular survey, and how the conclusions were drawn.
Please take a look at the talk page attached to that outcomes page that you
linked, and consider that much of the criticism wasn't even responded to. I
think Marc was kind but correct in his characterisation as 'clearly
flawed'. There was some useful data in there, but the conclusions that were
drawn, were a few bridges too far.

Another thing that was mentioned in private conversations a lot, but not in
many public discussions is that Wikimania is and should be primarily an
investment in our community. Our community is by far our biggest asset.
Having a healthy community is essential, and it is important that different
communities learn from each other, exchange ideas and methods, interact.
Not just with the few neighboring languages, but also with those far away.

You can investigate if this Wikimania structure if the most effective way,
but please lets not approach this from a 'cost cutting' perspective. Lets
not consider Wikimania as a cost, but as an investment in something
intangible, in infrastructure. The financial picture should be only a very
small part of the consideration - in my humble opinion. I'm not sure who
mentioned this at Wikimania (was it Dimi? Liam?) but if you compare the
amount of money we spend on community building, and how much big companies
spend on their staff happyness programmes, annual meetups and all - we're
probably not doing too bad. I would be much happier if we looked at this
from the perspective of the most effective way to have an international,
constructive, interactive and exchanging community.

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-07-09 21:50 GMT+02:00 Deryck Chan :

> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
> worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
>
> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
>
> It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed as
> to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what
> demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution,
> involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer /
> not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences
> and Wikimania.
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>
> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be
> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are
> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the
> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some
> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future,
> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as
> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive
> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The
> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such
> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent
> to WMF.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> On Jul 8, 2016 20:04, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>
>> My bad I forgot it already is on meta
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Statements/Chapter_chairs_statement:_Wikimania_needs_to_be_arranged_every_year
>> Le 9 juil. 2016 4:50 AM, "Pine W"  a écrit :
>>
>> Thanks Christophe. I, for one, have had difficulty figuring out what is
>> going on with Wikimania in regards to varying decisions in different parts
>> of WMF and the community, so I look forward to the clarifications.
>>
>> Personally I am currently neutral on the decision of whether to have
>> annual Wikimanias, or alternate Wikimanias with years in which there is
>> emphasis on national or regional conferences. My hunch is that some
>> research about costs and benefits is needed so that we have reliable data
>> about a variety of scenarios before making a decision.
>>
>> Thanks again for working on this.
>>
>> To the board chairs: I would be interested in seeing that letter. In the
>> spirit of transparency, would you please publish it on Meta? As you know I
>> am an advocate for much more transparency from WMF, and I would like for
>> the affiliates to also to be transparent about governance matters such as
>> this one.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jul 8, 2016 19:18, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> The same question was raised to the board a few days ago by chairs 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Pine W]

Agreed. I think that more data would be useful, including information such
as what you highlighted here. I'd also be interested in projections of
total attendance and costs (including travel costs and staff time) for
Wikimania vs. having more or expanded national and regional conferences.

There's a substantial financial cost to all of this. It looks like the cost
for Wikimania 2016, including scholarships, was about $500,000 excluding
WMF and affiliate staff time, staff travel expenses, and expenses for those
who paid their own flights. Ellie might be able to provide us with a better
estimate of the total cost with those numbers included; my guess is that it
was around $600,000, which is substantial. WMF might be able to hire four
full-time engineers for a year for that amount. If WMF and the community
are going to spend that much money every year on an annual conference, with
the majority of that money coming from donors who give small-dollar
amounts, I think that we need to think carefully and thoroughly about how
we plan the conference (or conferences) to align with the goals of our
donors and what we tell our donors. I believe that there is value in having
face-to-face meetings and presentations; what isn't clear to me is whether
the current Wikimania model should be continued or whether those funds
would be better invested in regional and national conferences. I'm hoping
that a careful analysis can be done that provides us some guidance about
how to optimize our use of these financial resources.

Pine

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Deryck Chan  wrote:

> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
> worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
>
> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
>
> It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed as
> to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what
> demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution,
> involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer /
> not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences
> and Wikimania.
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>
> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be
> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are
> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the
> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some
> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future,
> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as
> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive
> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The
> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such
> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent
> to WMF.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> On Jul 8, 2016 20:04, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>
>> My bad I forgot it already is on meta
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Statements/Chapter_chairs_statement:_Wikimania_needs_to_be_arranged_every_year
>> Le 9 juil. 2016 4:50 AM, "Pine W"  a écrit :
>>
>> Thanks Christophe. I, for one, have had difficulty figuring out what is
>> going on with Wikimania in regards to varying decisions in different parts
>> of WMF and the community, so I look forward to the clarifications.
>>
>> Personally I am currently neutral on the decision of whether to have
>> annual Wikimanias, or alternate Wikimanias with years in which there is
>> emphasis on national or regional conferences. My hunch is that some
>> research about costs and benefits is needed so that we have reliable data
>> about a variety of scenarios before making a decision.
>>
>> Thanks again for working on this.
>>
>> To the board chairs: I would be interested in seeing that letter. In the
>> spirit of transparency, would you please publish it on Meta? As you know I
>> am an advocate for much more transparency from WMF, and I would like for
>> the affiliates to also to be transparent about governance matters such as
>> this one.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jul 8, 2016 19:18, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> The same question was raised to the board a few days ago by chairs of
>>> Wikimedia organizations asking Foundation's board to make sure there's a
>>> comprehensive decision on this very topic.
>>>
>>> The chairs letter wasn't public, I let them share it on meta or here if
>>> they want to :)
>>>
>>> First step, in my opinion, is to set expectations and define the scope
>>> (in the role of the 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Chris Keating]

So, to summarise the discussion (from Wikimania-l)

* The WMF is still coming to a view on whether it supports a 2018
Wikimania, but the issue is being considered by the Board and the ED. The
WMF don't consider the results of their consultation on the matter as
conclusive
* The Wikimania Committee have an ambition/intention to hold a 2018
Wikimania, but don't feel this is based solely on the sample of people who
showed up to the future of Wikimania session at Wikimania
* A number of chapters have expressed support for Wikimania remaining an
annual event, though also thinking that the programme design process needs
to be improved
* There is in fact some dialogue between the Wikimania Committe, the WMF
board, WMF staff, and the chapters

Have I got that right?

Thanks,

Chris

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Hoi,
>
> I was interested to read the minutes of the most recent Wikimania
> Committee meeting, which decided that Wikimania will be held annually from
> now on, and that it will be in sub-Saharan Africa (effectively meaning
> South Africa) in 2018.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/Minutes/2016-06-26
>
> Interestingly, I couldn't see any sign of the Committee's decision being
> informed by the WMF's consultation on the future of Wikimania, or anyone
> from the WMF's community engagement department being present.
>
> I have to say I'm a bit confused, not least about who actually makes the
> decision about how frequently Wikimania happens. Is anyone able to shed any
> more light on this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Andrew Lih]

Harry,

Since Wikimania-L is relatively low traffic, I believe it’s entirely
on-topic to discuss the support of Wikimania by chapters as long as it
doesn’t get too long winded. Plus, doesn’t Wikimedia-L get enough conflict
as it is? :)

Thanks.

-Andrew


-Andrew Lih
Associate professor of journalism, American University
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: http://www.andrewlih.com
BOOK: The Wikipedia Revolution: http://www.wikipediarevolution.com
PROJECT: Wiki Makes Video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Harry Mitchell  wrote:

> Can we argue about who signed what on Wikimedia-l or some other forum
> please? We get bogged down in enough silly arguments about Wikimania on
> this list, never mind silly arguments about governance of participants in
> silly arguments.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
>> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be
>> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are
>> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the
>> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some
>> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future,
>> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as
>> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive
>> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The
>> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such
>> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent
>> to WMF.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jul 8, 2016 20:04, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>>
>>> My bad I forgot it already is on meta
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Statements/Chapter_chairs_statement:_Wikimania_needs_to_be_arranged_every_year
>>> Le 9 juil. 2016 4:50 AM, "Pine W"  a écrit :
>>>
>>> Thanks Christophe. I, for one, have had difficulty figuring out what is
>>> going on with Wikimania in regards to varying decisions in different parts
>>> of WMF and the community, so I look forward to the clarifications.
>>>
>>> Personally I am currently neutral on the decision of whether to have
>>> annual Wikimanias, or alternate Wikimanias with years in which there is
>>> emphasis on national or regional conferences. My hunch is that some
>>> research about costs and benefits is needed so that we have reliable data
>>> about a variety of scenarios before making a decision.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for working on this.
>>>
>>> To the board chairs: I would be interested in seeing that letter. In the
>>> spirit of transparency, would you please publish it on Meta? As you know I
>>> am an advocate for much more transparency from WMF, and I would like for
>>> the affiliates to also to be transparent about governance matters such as
>>> this one.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> On Jul 8, 2016 19:18, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>>>
 Hi everyone,

 The same question was raised to the board a few days ago by chairs of
 Wikimedia organizations asking Foundation's board to make sure there's a
 comprehensive decision on this very topic.

 The chairs letter wasn't public, I let them share it on meta or here if
 they want to :)

 First step, in my opinion, is to set expectations and define the scope
 (in the role of the event but also in the ressources (both human and
 financial) we commit to the event.

 Katherine is working with the staff to provide groundings.

 Here is the answer I provided them with.

 

 Hi chairs!

 First of all, thank you with the email, the feedback is clearly useful
 and raises interesting point.

 Now, the Wikimania discussion definitly is on the table. Living by what
 we said during Wikimania, we, as WMF, will make sure we end up with a clear
 answer to your questions but also to the different points you raise.

 Wikimania is an important time in our movement, but as you said it also
 comes with costs and challenges that we have to adress. Katherine is going
 to meet in the coming days with the staff in charge of that topic to start
 that discussion within WMF and provide groundings for a comprehensive
 decision.

 We will try to be as diligent as possible on that topic, but I would
 ask you to keep in mind that as we're in a transition phase and that might
 take a little more time than you could expect.

 Again thank you for your email, I love the fact that he raises issues
 but also includes the challenges we have to take care 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Andrew Lih]

Attendee safety has always been, and will continue to be, a serious
consideration.

I will note that Wikimania has been held in Mexico, Egypt and Israel with
similar concerns for those locations. Those places all show up in the
Global Peace Index list of most dangerous countries, and we found ways to
hold successful conferences there. There is no guarantee that a South
Africa location would be without issues, but it does show that we are not
in unfamiliar territory when considering these types of risks.

Thanks.
-Andrew




-Andrew Lih
Associate professor of journalism, American University
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: http://www.andrewlih.com
BOOK: The Wikipedia Revolution: http://www.wikipediarevolution.com
PROJECT: Wiki Makes Video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Harry Mitchell  wrote:

> I find the idea of holding Wikimania in sub-Saharan Africa quite exciting.
> It would potentially be a very different sort of event, and it would have
> the chance to leave a lasting legacy. Speaking of South Africa, though, is
> it unfair of me to say to that the country has a reputation for lawlessness
> and violent crime? Is this something the powers that be will take into
> consideration?
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
>> Oh. Good point !
>>
>> The term "interest" referred to Wikimedia South Africa, which expressed
>> interest into etc.
>>
>> During Wikimania, various groups were approached by us (by Ellie). And
>> other groups approached us. To express their interest in holding Wikimania
>> in the future.
>>
>> For example, on Sunday evening, at Pizzeria 51, a few minutes before the
>> sky decided to fall on our heads, I was told Bangkok was interested for
>> 2020 !
>>
>> Florence
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 08/07/16 à 21:50, Lodewijk a écrit :
>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification, Florence. If I may ask another: the
>>> 'interest' expressed, does that refer to interest expressed by
>>> South-African Wikimedians, or by the Committee?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>> 2016-07-08 21:38 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard >> >:
>>>
>>> Le 08/07/16 à 16:01, Chris Keating a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>>
>>> I was interested to read the minutes of the most recent Wikimania
>>> Committee meeting, which decided that Wikimania will be held
>>> annually
>>> from now on, and that it will be in sub-Saharan Africa
>>> (effectively
>>> meaning South Africa) in 2018.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pointing out that the minutes do not say that it will be in
>>> sub-Saharan Africa. It says
>>>
>>> "The CfP should identify the priority given for that year to
>>> Sub-Saharan Africa, noting that there is expressed interest in
>>> hosting in the Republic of South Africa. "
>>>
>>> The difference is subtle, but there is a difference.
>>> The committee actually drafted an official announcement, which was
>>> supposed to be published quickly after the committee minutes.
>>> But we have been asked to refrain from publishing our announcement
>>> until after the WMF has been consulted on the matter.
>>>
>>> I am happy to disclose the sentence currently drafted for our (not
>>> yet published) announcement, which is
>>>
>>> "Considering this, the Committee has a mild preference for
>>> Sub-Saharan Africa for 2018, but is of course willing to look at
>>> proposals for hosting Wikimania 2018 in other locations. "
>>>
>>>
>>> Florence
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/Minutes/2016-06-26
>>>
>>> Interestingly, I couldn't see any sign of the Committee's
>>> decision being
>>> informed by the WMF's consultation on the future of Wikimania,
>>> or anyone
>>> from the WMF's community engagement department being present.
>>>
>>> I have to say I'm a bit confused, not least about who actually
>>> makes the
>>> decision about how frequently Wikimania happens. Is anyone able
>>> to shed
>>> any more light on this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> 
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Harry Mitchell]

I find the idea of holding Wikimania in sub-Saharan Africa quite exciting.
It would potentially be a very different sort of event, and it would have
the chance to leave a lasting legacy. Speaking of South Africa, though, is
it unfair of me to say to that the country has a reputation for lawlessness
and violent crime? Is this something the powers that be will take into
consideration?

Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
+44 (0) 7507 536 971
Skype: harry_j_mitchell

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Oh. Good point !
>
> The term "interest" referred to Wikimedia South Africa, which expressed
> interest into etc.
>
> During Wikimania, various groups were approached by us (by Ellie). And
> other groups approached us. To express their interest in holding Wikimania
> in the future.
>
> For example, on Sunday evening, at Pizzeria 51, a few minutes before the
> sky decided to fall on our heads, I was told Bangkok was interested for
> 2020 !
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 08/07/16 à 21:50, Lodewijk a écrit :
>
>> Thanks for the clarification, Florence. If I may ask another: the
>> 'interest' expressed, does that refer to interest expressed by
>> South-African Wikimedians, or by the Committee?
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> 2016-07-08 21:38 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard > >:
>>
>> Le 08/07/16 à 16:01, Chris Keating a écrit :
>>
>> Hoi,
>>
>> I was interested to read the minutes of the most recent Wikimania
>> Committee meeting, which decided that Wikimania will be held
>> annually
>> from now on, and that it will be in sub-Saharan Africa
>> (effectively
>> meaning South Africa) in 2018.
>>
>>
>> Pointing out that the minutes do not say that it will be in
>> sub-Saharan Africa. It says
>>
>> "The CfP should identify the priority given for that year to
>> Sub-Saharan Africa, noting that there is expressed interest in
>> hosting in the Republic of South Africa. "
>>
>> The difference is subtle, but there is a difference.
>> The committee actually drafted an official announcement, which was
>> supposed to be published quickly after the committee minutes.
>> But we have been asked to refrain from publishing our announcement
>> until after the WMF has been consulted on the matter.
>>
>> I am happy to disclose the sentence currently drafted for our (not
>> yet published) announcement, which is
>>
>> "Considering this, the Committee has a mild preference for
>> Sub-Saharan Africa for 2018, but is of course willing to look at
>> proposals for hosting Wikimania 2018 in other locations. "
>>
>>
>> Florence
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/Minutes/2016-06-26
>>
>> Interestingly, I couldn't see any sign of the Committee's
>> decision being
>> informed by the WMF's consultation on the future of Wikimania,
>> or anyone
>> from the WMF's community engagement department being present.
>>
>> I have to say I'm a bit confused, not least about who actually
>> makes the
>> decision about how frequently Wikimania happens. Is anyone able
>> to shed
>> any more light on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

[Harry Mitchell]

Can we argue about who signed what on Wikimedia-l or some other forum
please? We get bogged down in enough silly arguments about Wikimania on
this list, never mind silly arguments about governance of participants in
silly arguments.

Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
+44 (0) 7507 536 971
Skype: harry_j_mitchell

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be
> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are
> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the
> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some
> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future,
> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as
> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive
> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The
> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such
> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent
> to WMF.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> On Jul 8, 2016 20:04, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>
>> My bad I forgot it already is on meta
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Statements/Chapter_chairs_statement:_Wikimania_needs_to_be_arranged_every_year
>> Le 9 juil. 2016 4:50 AM, "Pine W"  a écrit :
>>
>> Thanks Christophe. I, for one, have had difficulty figuring out what is
>> going on with Wikimania in regards to varying decisions in different parts
>> of WMF and the community, so I look forward to the clarifications.
>>
>> Personally I am currently neutral on the decision of whether to have
>> annual Wikimanias, or alternate Wikimanias with years in which there is
>> emphasis on national or regional conferences. My hunch is that some
>> research about costs and benefits is needed so that we have reliable data
>> about a variety of scenarios before making a decision.
>>
>> Thanks again for working on this.
>>
>> To the board chairs: I would be interested in seeing that letter. In the
>> spirit of transparency, would you please publish it on Meta? As you know I
>> am an advocate for much more transparency from WMF, and I would like for
>> the affiliates to also to be transparent about governance matters such as
>> this one.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jul 8, 2016 19:18, "Christophe Henner"  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> The same question was raised to the board a few days ago by chairs of
>>> Wikimedia organizations asking Foundation's board to make sure there's a
>>> comprehensive decision on this very topic.
>>>
>>> The chairs letter wasn't public, I let them share it on meta or here if
>>> they want to :)
>>>
>>> First step, in my opinion, is to set expectations and define the scope
>>> (in the role of the event but also in the ressources (both human and
>>> financial) we commit to the event.
>>>
>>> Katherine is working with the staff to provide groundings.
>>>
>>> Here is the answer I provided them with.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Hi chairs!
>>>
>>> First of all, thank you with the email, the feedback is clearly useful
>>> and raises interesting point.
>>>
>>> Now, the Wikimania discussion definitly is on the table. Living by what
>>> we said during Wikimania, we, as WMF, will make sure we end up with a clear
>>> answer to your questions but also to the different points you raise.
>>>
>>> Wikimania is an important time in our movement, but as you said it also
>>> comes with costs and challenges that we have to adress. Katherine is going
>>> to meet in the coming days with the staff in charge of that topic to start
>>> that discussion within WMF and provide groundings for a comprehensive
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> We will try to be as diligent as possible on that topic, but I would ask
>>> you to keep in mind that as we're in a transition phase and that might take
>>> a little more time than you could expect.
>>>
>>> Again thank you for your email, I love the fact that he raises issues
>>> but also includes the challenges we have to take care of :)
>>>
>>> We'll get back to you as soon as possible to continue that discussion.
>>>
>>> Have all a really great day / night :)
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>> While I concur with Coren’s conclusion, I’ll try to neutrally report on
>>> the events at Wikimania which led to this result. :)
>>>
>>> Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Wikimania being yearly, and was asked to
>>> serve on the Wikimania Committee after Esino Lario. I was also the main
>>> moderator of the Wikimania 2016 session on the “Future of Wikimania.” These
>>> views are my own, and not anything official from the committee.
>>>
>>> Background: Many folks (I’d say a majority) who I talked to in Esino
>>> Lario early in the conference thought that the