Hi everyone,
I would like to thank everyone who wasted few minutes to copy edit a
FDC proposal that wasn't theirs. You're crazy for doing so.
We love crazy.
We would like to thank Tony1, Claudia Garad, Cristian Cantoro, Mike
Peel and Petit Tigre (yes even a plush did edit our proposal, how cute
Fab, we are looking forward to working with you! Hopefully see you in
London soon.
All the best,
Daria
--
Daria Cybulska - Programme Manager, Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0994
+44 7803 505 170
On 2 April 2014 06:17, Lilit Tarkhanyan lilit.tarkhan...@wikimedia.am
wrote:
Congratulations, dear
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't
necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or
Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe
that funds received through the APG process
Hoi,
There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There
is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money
involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where
Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the
majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list my
view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that
regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at
I'm still a bit confused as to why you reported this to Arbcom (Wikipedia
in residence programs, paid editing, and general review of accounts are all
outside of their purview), or what they're supposedly looking at. This is
a community and WMF issue, and I do not see anything at all for Arbcom
I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big
criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of
the concept of the conference.
Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending in conferences - and we don't
limit the number of people who can come to
But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good
arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole
thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such
things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such
lists, but
I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement
members who would be interested in attending this conference, but it is
intended to be a very limited one. Several of the topics (Conflict of
Interest, Meet the Trustees, Lessons learnt on huge projects, How to
measure blood,
How about expanding its scope but alternating it with Wikimania, so one
every other year?
This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
On 2 April 2014 15:59, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement
members who
(my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will)
2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de:
Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
events at least. :)
May I say? Please come by also at the conference.
I understand
Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to
know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to
On 02/04/2014, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a
Point of information and a comment:
This year 2 members of the FDC will attend the conference as representatives of
the FDC. The full FDC will not be attending any part of Wikimedia Conference
this year because the date of the FDC meeting do not align with the conference.
Next year if
Hi,
To provide some perspective. The Board of Trustees has traditionally had its
Board meeting at the Wikimedia Conference. This year is the first year we
decide to change that and have our board meeting a couple of weeks later so
that we could actually attend the sessions and have more
I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as
the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the
conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in
sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the
employees are being
Yes, finally the discussion we need! Pity that it happens only one week
before the conference itself.
My point of view:
We have different types of conference: GLAMCamp, EduWiki, Wikimania,
whatever.
Beside Wikimania, which is quite a fruit salad of topics and themes and
seen as *the* gathering
I'm not sure that people think the conference is unnecessary; I think it
has value. It is, however, the only one of all those listed for
which almost everyone is explicitly excluded and cannot attend - even
though I can think of several who have strong interest in movement
governance and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFuture_of_the_Wikimedia_Conferencediff=5611433oldid=5611349
imo.
Vince
2014-04-02 20:32 GMT+02:00 Cornelius Kibelka jckibe...@gmail.com:
Yes, finally the discussion we need! Pity that it happens only one week
before the conference
What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already
scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week
before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking,
nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be consensus
about the
Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind
of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all
these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference)
and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of
the attendee ratio
While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the
attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just around
the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into
consideration for future planning.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole Ebber
Right, sorry, what I meant was that these arguments can be collected
for the preparation of the Future of the WMCON session at WMCON
itself, not for changing the current setting.
Nicole
On 2 April 2014 23:14, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't think this discussion should change
I appreciate your clarification, Nicole - thanks.
There is a certain irony in the fact that those who are making the argument
that there should be some rethinking of the future of the WMCON are all (as
best I can tell) people who will not be present. I hope that those who are
present will be
24 matches
Mail list logo
