Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality I don't really think this is a triviality. Cents and single dollars of chapters are weighted and analyzed, FDC and GACs nitpicks and their goal is to assure that donor moneys is not wasted. We all know that there are issues on that and a lot of chapters had to work hard to be able to draw their budget, and receive their money. 40'000 $ for Wikimania travels are a lot, especially compared to the travel budget of chapters. Period. I would assume that WMF and the Board budgets should be reasonably proportional to chapters ones. Maybe I'm the only one, though. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
On 14 May 2013 08:12, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality I don't really think this is a triviality. I really do think it's an absolutely perfect example of what Parkinson was talking about. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
I don't think it is trivial either, and having a discussion is fine. However, the bigger discussion is perhaps more relevant - because AffCom is simply following WMF policy here, which is in place for many employees, board members (and others? not sure). So I think there are two relevant discussions to be had: First of all, whether there should be an AffCom meeting at all. Fair question of course. (analogous you could wonder if certain chapters should really send a representative to Wikimania from their budget, whether certain employees really should be there and whether all chapters should be present at the Chapters meeting - all fair discussions to be had in their time, too). The second relevant question is, in my opinion, whether the WMF travel policy is good, proportional etc. This policy has mostly received criticism from two sides - some think it is too elaborate, and WMF should get 'less luxury' (again fair discussion, but we should then focus on the whole question) - another criticism is that it should be equalized for all Wikimedia-sponsored trips, including individual engagement grants, trips to the chapters meeting etc. When this question was brought up last time, I believe it was Sue who mentioned that this would simply result in much less travel and participation. Again, a fair question. Personally, I feel that WMF Committee (and board) members should not be treated to a lower standard than staff members, simply because they are not being paid for their work. But maybe I'm the only one in thát opinion though... Lodewijk 2013/5/14 Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality I don't really think this is a triviality. Cents and single dollars of chapters are weighted and analyzed, FDC and GACs nitpicks and their goal is to assure that donor moneys is not wasted. We all know that there are issues on that and a lot of chapters had to work hard to be able to draw their budget, and receive their money. 40'000 $ for Wikimania travels are a lot, especially compared to the travel budget of chapters. Period. I would assume that WMF and the Board budgets should be reasonably proportional to chapters ones. Maybe I'm the only one, though. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org I don't think it is trivial either, and having a discussion is fine. However, the bigger discussion is perhaps more relevant - because AffCom is simply following WMF policy here, which is in place for many employees, board members (and others? not sure). So I think there are two relevant discussions to be had: First of all, whether there should be an AffCom meeting at all. Fair question of course. (analogous you could wonder if certain chapters should really send a representative to Wikimania from their budget, whether certain employees really should be there and whether all chapters should be present at the Chapters meeting - all fair discussions to be had in their time, too). The second relevant question is, in my opinion, whether the WMF travel policy is good, proportional etc. This policy has mostly received criticism from two sides - some think it is too elaborate, and WMF should get 'less luxury' (again fair discussion, but we should then focus on the whole question) - another criticism is that it should be equalized for all Wikimedia-sponsored trips, including individual engagement grants, trips to the chapters meeting etc. When this question was brought up last time, I believe it was Sue who mentioned that this would simply result in much less travel and participation. Again, a fair question. Personally, I feel that WMF Committee (and board) members should not be treated to a lower standard than staff members, simply because they are not being paid for their work. But maybe I'm the only one in thát opinion though... Lodewijk ps: I wanted to add to that, but hit 'send' too quickly: I am a member of the Affiliations Committee, and might be considered biased for that reason. 2013/5/14 Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality I don't really think this is a triviality. Cents and single dollars of chapters are weighted and analyzed, FDC and GACs nitpicks and their goal is to assure that donor moneys is not wasted. We all know that there are issues on that and a lot of chapters had to work hard to be able to draw their budget, and receive their money. 40'000 $ for Wikimania travels are a lot, especially compared to the travel budget of chapters. Period. I would assume that WMF and the Board budgets should be reasonably proportional to chapters ones. Maybe I'm the only one, though. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
On 14 May 2013 08:45, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: 2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org ... Personally, I feel that WMF Committee (and board) members should not be treated to a lower standard than staff members, simply because they are not being paid for their work. But maybe I'm the only one in thát opinion though... Lodewijk I am pleased to say that from day 1 of Wikimedia UK employing staff, our policy has been that precisely the same expenses policy, travel and hotel standard applies for staff and volunteers. The reason I helped create this policy a couple of years ago, is that anything else would separate the staff from volunteers at events in a visible and unnecessarily community divisive way, and potentially can cause problems with fulfilling our mission for access which must account for undeclared ability needs and diversity requirements. I consider this the *community norm*, rather than WMF's policies. In line with our shared values of openness, our Chief Executive, Trustees and our Operations are required by our finance policy to publish expenses on the public wiki, so I encourage you to email Jon Davies for the current summary should you wish to compare WMUK for the nature of staff expenses for travel and accomodation to other chapters or the WMF. You can find a summary of WMUK's financial policies and plans at https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Finances Should AffCom or any other group wish to benefit from WMUK policies or procedures, I would be happy to provide some advice as an unpaid volunteer. The UK Chapter has invested a lot in governance improvement. Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
40k for a single meetup can be justified if the results worth that much money. (I've already argued about this regarding Milan chapters meetup btw). Providing a more than basic travel and accomodation can be a way of appreciation as well for their work, what they do as volunteers, that should be calculated into the costs. Ain't these intrenational events' (not just this meetup's, but all events') success ratio being measured by some way already? The cost/benefit ratio [1] is a pretty basic (and extreme important) thing we like to calculate with here in Hungary about all of our activities. For example the number of articles created divided with the total costs of the article writing contest they've been created within gives a number we can work a lot with to improve cost-effectiveness. Seemingly very few chapters doing anything similar (or not in a visible way) AffCom already measures itself in some ways in their reports, but regarding other meetups, I've barely seen at least a basic followup or aftercare and especially not a detailed overall (measurement) report what is usually /at least in those commercial events I was involved with/ being published after about six month of the last day of the event, and gives a detailed summary of its pros and cons, dos and don'ts, successes and fails, overall impact (upon proactively collected feedbacks), etc. There were plenty of international events already this year (Brussels meeting about EU policies, Milan, London glam, Amsterdam hackathon that are coming in my mind right now from 2013, and this is just the first 4 month (only 1/3rd of the year) and not the full list!) most of them with no or very low visible results yet (ok they need some time to evolve, but regarding events in 2012, I barely read anything to remember nor any followups or summares, reports). Compared to the GLAM camp in the US recently, it seems definitely true. The latter looks like a very good example of a beneficial meetup, having a lot of potential and it seems there is a chance that it will be followed up by WMDC and other participating parties well after the event. Why to have a long term followup? To give a definite answer wheter those potentials actually resulted in anything at all (was there any real benefit) or it was just a very good mooded, fun and positive, but totally fruitless event (wasted money from the movement's POV) I see compared to 2012 costs going up without any visible rise in effectiveness or more worse, a decline in it. This is solely based upon what I can (or can not) read about them on meta and other places, like the comments here. Wikimania 2014 was the first event ever where this thing was taken seriously, but rather on the cost cutting side, than on the effectiveness improving side It would be great to see detailed measurements of these events, like how many new projects or international cooperations (or whatever it aims) were boosted/inspired by the given thematic meetup up until the next similar meetup. If that number is X, while the costs were Y, and X/Y does not look good, than you can start thinking how can you improve X without expanding Y (or even lowering it) to get a much friendly ratio, thus creating an even more fruitful (better quality) event next time. The best would be a detailed breakdown, like main goals, side goals, unexpected or extra things that that meeting had inspired/boosted/hosted/etc. Note, there ain't no such thing as free lunch [2] Cheers, Balázs PS: WMHU has 68k budget for 2013. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit%E2%80%93cost_ratio [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch 2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org I don't think it is trivial either, and having a discussion is fine. However, the bigger discussion is perhaps more relevant - because AffCom is simply following WMF policy here, which is in place for many employees, board members (and others? not sure). So I think there are two relevant discussions to be had: First of all, whether there should be an AffCom meeting at all. Fair question of course. (analogous you could wonder if certain chapters should really send a representative to Wikimania from their budget, whether certain employees really should be there and whether all chapters should be present at the Chapters meeting - all fair discussions to be had in their time, too). The second relevant question is, in my opinion, whether the WMF travel policy is good, proportional etc. This policy has mostly received criticism from two sides - some think it is too elaborate, and WMF should get 'less luxury' (again fair discussion, but we should then focus on the whole question) - another criticism is that it should be equalized for all Wikimedia-sponsored trips, including individual engagement grants, trips to the chapters meeting etc. When this question was brought up last time, I believe it was Sue who mentioned that this would simply result in much
[Wikimedia-l] Effectiveness of meetings (Was: Affcom ...)
I think this is very true, and we could perhaps improve our procedures and documentation in many ways. However, I do think it is important to realize that you're comparing apples with oranges here. The meeting in Brussels for example was on the topic of influencing legislative processes - a topic by definition long term and hard to measure. The goals there would be better (copyright) legislation than without these initiatives - and rather strategic. The bootcamp in DC was intended as a boost for volunteers, where they would get a lot of information and experience in a short time: capacity building. This is also long term, but much better to measure. And finally there's the hackathon, which is much more short-term focused (at least partially), and will have very concrete results (but probably zero measured in new articles created). What I think is most important, is that for every meeting we have, we identify desired outcomes. These outcomes can be very tangible, or intangible - but they should always be defined, and the agenda should be built around it. Based on these desired outcomes, you can estimate up front if the meeting is likely to be 'worth it'. If not, you can reduce the costs, increase the outcomes (different setup) or cancel all together. Finally, after the meeting a report (private or public - there should always be a report or documentation) should be produced and if possible published. In that report you should always return to these desired outcomes, and see if they were met - and how/why not. But even then on the strategy side of things meetings are always hard to estimate. Of course you're totally right that there are expectations towards participants of meetings. Not only because of the money invested, but also because of the attention of the other participants. I definitely have been in meetings where people literally fell asleep or played games during the meeting - and that is simply insulting to the other people in the room. So yeah, if that is your mindset, perhaps it is better not to go at all. But then I am assuming good faith, and think that everyone will be going to meetings with the best of intentions, and not simply to play tourist. Lodewijk 2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu 40k for a single meetup can be justified if the results worth that much money. (I've already argued about this regarding Milan chapters meetup btw). Providing a more than basic travel and accomodation can be a way of appreciation as well for their work, what they do as volunteers, that should be calculated into the costs. Ain't these intrenational events' (not just this meetup's, but all events') success ratio being measured by some way already? The cost/benefit ratio [1] is a pretty basic (and extreme important) thing we like to calculate with here in Hungary about all of our activities. For example the number of articles created divided with the total costs of the article writing contest they've been created within gives a number we can work a lot with to improve cost-effectiveness. Seemingly very few chapters doing anything similar (or not in a visible way) AffCom already measures itself in some ways in their reports, but regarding other meetups, I've barely seen at least a basic followup or aftercare and especially not a detailed overall (measurement) report what is usually /at least in those commercial events I was involved with/ being published after about six month of the last day of the event, and gives a detailed summary of its pros and cons, dos and don'ts, successes and fails, overall impact (upon proactively collected feedbacks), etc. There were plenty of international events already this year (Brussels meeting about EU policies, Milan, London glam, Amsterdam hackathon that are coming in my mind right now from 2013, and this is just the first 4 month (only 1/3rd of the year) and not the full list!) most of them with no or very low visible results yet (ok they need some time to evolve, but regarding events in 2012, I barely read anything to remember nor any followups or summares, reports). Compared to the GLAM camp in the US recently, it seems definitely true. The latter looks like a very good example of a beneficial meetup, having a lot of potential and it seems there is a chance that it will be followed up by WMDC and other participating parties well after the event. Why to have a long term followup? To give a definite answer wheter those potentials actually resulted in anything at all (was there any real benefit) or it was just a very good mooded, fun and positive, but totally fruitless event (wasted money from the movement's POV) I see compared to 2012 costs going up without any visible rise in effectiveness or more worse, a decline in it. This is solely based upon what I can (or can not) read about them on meta and other places, like the comments here. Wikimania 2014 was the first event ever where this thing was taken
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effectiveness of meetings (Was: Affcom ...)
I see a few misunderstanding here: I do not wish to compare them to each other, but to the previous one(s). At least I hope this is what I've written because this is what I was ment. So compare GLAM 2013 to GLAM 2012, and GLAM 2011, ..., compare Brussels meetup with previous similar thematic meetups and so forth. Create a breakdown about the costs and the benefits. Aimed at GLAM? then the main thing to measue how did it boost GLAM cooperations. Is there any initiative that had been picked up or created upon the inspiration they got there? If yes, how much? What types? What are their outcomes? Any other side goals (like international cooperations - like a new WLM participant who decided to join after discussions there)? Any other unexpected benefits? (like an out of the blue content donation from a participating G,L,A or M representative) etc. Easy to identify a dozen questions, plus if you start thinking it over, you'll find a dozen more that are as well pretty important, just not that much visible or in front. Count them and divide the total number with the total costs, and you'll get how much was invested in a single initiative there. If an idea was brought home by a chapter from that event (or the local ideas have been influenced by it), note even if locally it would cost almost nothing, on an absolute level, there is this cost/benefit ratio, both the chapter's and the event's, what you have to further divide it locally amongst the number of projects. If an example helps you, lets say you brought home 2 article writing contest ideas, both of them conducted and did cost nothing, except a few merchandise (total of 200USD) your travel and stay there should be added to the total costs, since without it, these would likely never been conducted at you. Hence the absolute numbers would include your flight and stay in London, divided equally in between the projects that meeting inspired. Got me? Balázs 2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org I think this is very true, and we could perhaps improve our procedures and documentation in many ways. However, I do think it is important to realize that you're comparing apples with oranges here. The meeting in Brussels for example was on the topic of influencing legislative processes - a topic by definition long term and hard to measure. The goals there would be better (copyright) legislation than without these initiatives - and rather strategic. The bootcamp in DC was intended as a boost for volunteers, where they would get a lot of information and experience in a short time: capacity building. This is also long term, but much better to measure. And finally there's the hackathon, which is much more short-term focused (at least partially), and will have very concrete results (but probably zero measured in new articles created). What I think is most important, is that for every meeting we have, we identify desired outcomes. These outcomes can be very tangible, or intangible - but they should always be defined, and the agenda should be built around it. Based on these desired outcomes, you can estimate up front if the meeting is likely to be 'worth it'. If not, you can reduce the costs, increase the outcomes (different setup) or cancel all together. Finally, after the meeting a report (private or public - there should always be a report or documentation) should be produced and if possible published. In that report you should always return to these desired outcomes, and see if they were met - and how/why not. But even then on the strategy side of things meetings are always hard to estimate. Of course you're totally right that there are expectations towards participants of meetings. Not only because of the money invested, but also because of the attention of the other participants. I definitely have been in meetings where people literally fell asleep or played games during the meeting - and that is simply insulting to the other people in the room. So yeah, if that is your mindset, perhaps it is better not to go at all. But then I am assuming good faith, and think that everyone will be going to meetings with the best of intentions, and not simply to play tourist. Lodewijk 2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu 40k for a single meetup can be justified if the results worth that much money. (I've already argued about this regarding Milan chapters meetup btw). Providing a more than basic travel and accomodation can be a way of appreciation as well for their work, what they do as volunteers, that should be calculated into the costs. Ain't these intrenational events' (not just this meetup's, but all events') success ratio being measured by some way already? The cost/benefit ratio [1] is a pretty basic (and extreme important) thing we like to calculate with here in Hungary about all of our activities. For example the number of articles created divided with the total costs of the article
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effectiveness of meetings (Was: Affcom ...)
I totally understand (or rather, I think I do). However, just like with any project, also such calculations would be subject to cost/benefit ratios. What information do you expect to win, and how much overhead does it create? It sounds great to be able to put a number on things, but up to a certain size, things will be mostly intangible anyway (enthusiasm, inspiration etc.) so you will have little valuable output of such measurements, while the costs are relatively high (they need to learn speak your measure language, they need to understand concepts, document thoroughly, measure etc.) and for small events that seems unreasonable to me to expect it from them - such as with the article writing contests in 'new' countries. However, this is of course different for large international events with many participants. Anyway, I am glad to hear you're not trying to compare different categories of events with each other. Lodewijk 2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu I see a few misunderstanding here: I do not wish to compare them to each other, but to the previous one(s). At least I hope this is what I've written because this is what I was ment. So compare GLAM 2013 to GLAM 2012, and GLAM 2011, ..., compare Brussels meetup with previous similar thematic meetups and so forth. Create a breakdown about the costs and the benefits. Aimed at GLAM? then the main thing to measue how did it boost GLAM cooperations. Is there any initiative that had been picked up or created upon the inspiration they got there? If yes, how much? What types? What are their outcomes? Any other side goals (like international cooperations - like a new WLM participant who decided to join after discussions there)? Any other unexpected benefits? (like an out of the blue content donation from a participating G,L,A or M representative) etc. Easy to identify a dozen questions, plus if you start thinking it over, you'll find a dozen more that are as well pretty important, just not that much visible or in front. Count them and divide the total number with the total costs, and you'll get how much was invested in a single initiative there. If an idea was brought home by a chapter from that event (or the local ideas have been influenced by it), note even if locally it would cost almost nothing, on an absolute level, there is this cost/benefit ratio, both the chapter's and the event's, what you have to further divide it locally amongst the number of projects. If an example helps you, lets say you brought home 2 article writing contest ideas, both of them conducted and did cost nothing, except a few merchandise (total of 200USD) your travel and stay there should be added to the total costs, since without it, these would likely never been conducted at you. Hence the absolute numbers would include your flight and stay in London, divided equally in between the projects that meeting inspired. Got me? Balázs 2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org I think this is very true, and we could perhaps improve our procedures and documentation in many ways. However, I do think it is important to realize that you're comparing apples with oranges here. The meeting in Brussels for example was on the topic of influencing legislative processes - a topic by definition long term and hard to measure. The goals there would be better (copyright) legislation than without these initiatives - and rather strategic. The bootcamp in DC was intended as a boost for volunteers, where they would get a lot of information and experience in a short time: capacity building. This is also long term, but much better to measure. And finally there's the hackathon, which is much more short-term focused (at least partially), and will have very concrete results (but probably zero measured in new articles created). What I think is most important, is that for every meeting we have, we identify desired outcomes. These outcomes can be very tangible, or intangible - but they should always be defined, and the agenda should be built around it. Based on these desired outcomes, you can estimate up front if the meeting is likely to be 'worth it'. If not, you can reduce the costs, increase the outcomes (different setup) or cancel all together. Finally, after the meeting a report (private or public - there should always be a report or documentation) should be produced and if possible published. In that report you should always return to these desired outcomes, and see if they were met - and how/why not. But even then on the strategy side of things meetings are always hard to estimate. Of course you're totally right that there are expectations towards participants of meetings. Not only because of the money invested, but also because of the attention of the other participants. I definitely have been in meetings where people literally fell asleep or played games during the meeting -
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effectiveness of meetings (Was: Affcom ...)
Theoratically every penny spent should be measured wheter it was spent well, or was wasted, including salaries. Ideally you could find out all the direct and indirect investment in a given program. Since the latter is extremely hard (or impossible) to measure, it is always an estimated extra cost. The emphasis here is not on the programs a meetup may trigger, but the meetup itself; its effectiveness. (it is a program itself) Regarding evalulation of programs through a meetup's perspective (if I understood your words correctly), there is no point going any deeper than the name of it, the type of it, and a note that it wasdone, in progress , failed or postponed as of the date of publishing. Details should be carefully adjusted for all questions you wish to answer. 90% of evaluating an event is actually done through surveys collected from participants on site (!) and after a given period (somewhere between three to six month), by evaluating the answers and feedbacks you collect _proactively_ (a.k.a. by asking) The rest 10% is an evaluation summary of the catering, the venue and the executing staff. Six month later a summary was published and an evaluation meetup was held before we started organizing the next similar event (what's content was heavily influenced by that that report). Cheers, Balázs 2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org I totally understand (or rather, I think I do). However, just like with any project, also such calculations would be subject to cost/benefit ratios. What information do you expect to win, and how much overhead does it create? It sounds great to be able to put a number on things, but up to a certain size, things will be mostly intangible anyway (enthusiasm, inspiration etc.) so you will have little valuable output of such measurements, while the costs are relatively high (they need to learn speak your measure language, they need to understand concepts, document thoroughly, measure etc.) and for small events that seems unreasonable to me to expect it from them - such as with the article writing contests in 'new' countries. However, this is of course different for large international events with many participants. Anyway, I am glad to hear you're not trying to compare different categories of events with each other. Lodewijk 2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu I see a few misunderstanding here: I do not wish to compare them to each other, but to the previous one(s). At least I hope this is what I've written because this is what I was ment. So compare GLAM 2013 to GLAM 2012, and GLAM 2011, ..., compare Brussels meetup with previous similar thematic meetups and so forth. Create a breakdown about the costs and the benefits. Aimed at GLAM? then the main thing to measue how did it boost GLAM cooperations. Is there any initiative that had been picked up or created upon the inspiration they got there? If yes, how much? What types? What are their outcomes? Any other side goals (like international cooperations - like a new WLM participant who decided to join after discussions there)? Any other unexpected benefits? (like an out of the blue content donation from a participating G,L,A or M representative) etc. Easy to identify a dozen questions, plus if you start thinking it over, you'll find a dozen more that are as well pretty important, just not that much visible or in front. Count them and divide the total number with the total costs, and you'll get how much was invested in a single initiative there. If an idea was brought home by a chapter from that event (or the local ideas have been influenced by it), note even if locally it would cost almost nothing, on an absolute level, there is this cost/benefit ratio, both the chapter's and the event's, what you have to further divide it locally amongst the number of projects. If an example helps you, lets say you brought home 2 article writing contest ideas, both of them conducted and did cost nothing, except a few merchandise (total of 200USD) your travel and stay there should be added to the total costs, since without it, these would likely never been conducted at you. Hence the absolute numbers would include your flight and stay in London, divided equally in between the projects that meeting inspired. Got me? Balázs 2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org I think this is very true, and we could perhaps improve our procedures and documentation in many ways. However, I do think it is important to realize that you're comparing apples with oranges here. The meeting in Brussels for example was on the topic of influencing legislative processes - a topic by definition long term and hard to measure. The goals there would be better (copyright) legislation than without these initiatives - and rather strategic. The bootcamp in DC was intended as a boost for volunteers, where they would
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
Bence, I appreciate AffCom work, and everyone of the the committee volunteers that doing a great job. But I really don't like the excuse of sticking to WMF's policy. Without having to start discussing the WMF's policy, I think AffCom should be mature enough to adopt a similar policy behavior as the chapters which they confirms and leading in the start-up steps. Even in DC, Berlin and Milan - the WMF's booked expensive hotel, while the chapters were mature enough to stay in others good hotels with much more fair prices. Again, this is not the time for criticism of the policy and it's not AffCom fault, but you as volunteers, as part of the community, I think should have the maturity to say Thanks for the option, but we prefer for the visibility and the fairness to book less expensive accommodation. BTW. 40,000$ it's about 25 scholarships we can give. Not saying AffCom don't need to attend Wikimania, but having much less fancy budget is always welcome. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Tomasz, On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Gregory Varnum wrote: I am not sure what you mean by none of the members being willing to comment. Our chair has responded several times on Meta and many others have responded to Odder via email about this. Let me just straighten this, Greg. Nobody has ever contacted me via e-mail about this except for the insults aimed at me after my first blog post on the matter — and you as an AffCom member should be especially aware of this, as the whole of AffCom was CC'd to every message that I received. I apologise if the tone of some of the e-mails you have received were harmful, and I am sorry for my involvement in that. I think it really came down to the fact that we were quite surprised at the time that as a committee member or adviser you did not feel able to raise the issue or issues that you were perceiving. This lack of trust or ability to communicate openly really saddened me. The hotel is in-line with WMF guidelines and as has been noted, we look to the staff to book those reservations and make appropriate cost-saving decisions. Which is opposite to what the Committee has been doing so far; for instance, during the last Committee meeting, the then-ChapCom members have been using the same accommodation as the rest of the conference participants — and that was a true a cost-saving decision. If I remember correctly, at the time the Committee did not have a budget and a number of details around fiscal responsibility ended up very complicated out of sheer goodwill (with certain chapters paying AffCom members' travel, Wikimedia Germany kindly offering to pay for those who had to stay only an extra night, and the WMF paying from the Board's budget for the rest) and the choice was probably made by me to stay with the chapter delegates as that was the default. In any case, with the dedicated budget we have taken steps to greater clarity and accountability and this involves making sure that the WMF pays for AffCom travel, and that in turn we follow WMF policy on reimbursement and choice of accommodation and in any other way they may prescribe for spending our budget. Technically and individually we could decide on anything that is cheaper than what is allowed by policy (e.g. shared accommodation, or different level of comfort), but those decisions would be made on the grounds of such factors as the accommodation choice of others with whom we would want to meet in off hours (including other AffCom or community members), medical reasons, or strong personal aversion to a particular lodging. I believe that the details of the travel policy of the WMF are up to the WMF to set and I don't think it is a good use of AffCom time to micromanage the WMF's travel budget. If the WMF did decide that from now on it would choose five-star hotels or only hostels with communal showers, would both be unfortunate, but AffCom would then follow that policy. This is regardless of whether personally I believe the WMF is making the best choices when it comes to choosing accommodation, it is simply not our role as AffCom to fix the WMF's travel policy, nor do I see much benefit in setting an example when in reality AffCom only makes up a fraction of WMF travellers (including those going to Wikimania). I am quite confident in the level of financial oversight the board and WMF staff provide in making sure our budget is reasonable in the context of WMF spending. I personally have spent a lot of time making sure our budget was not seen as unreasonable or bloated by the WMF. We have made the decision to spend on an annual meeting, scholarships for affiliates to be (for Wikimania and other events), start up grants, and travel in general to be represented at events and to visit affiliates – I think it would be more
[Wikimedia-l] Board candidates page: please set as a subject of translation
Hi all, Could anybody (maybe admin on meta) set recent changes of the board candidates page as a subject to translation, so that we can translate candidacies of Francis and Jeromy-Yu with the translation tool? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2013/Candidates --Takashi ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board candidates page: please set as a subject of translation
Hello. Meta now supports automatic conversion between different regional variants of standard Chinese. Can someone disable translation to zh-hans, zh-hant, zh-hk, and zh-tw? Otherwise we'll end up with 4 redundant translations. On 14 May 2013 17:38, Benjamin Chen bencmqw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, Before I saw the reply, I went ahead and tagged the page for translation, including Francis's statement. I have learnt and realised that it wasn't the best idea to translate that part just yet. Thanks Thehelpfulone, I've reverted that section. Sorry. The other parts of the two new statements are ready for translation. Regards, Benjamin Chen / [[User:Bencmq]] On 15 May, 2013, at 12:26 AM, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Takashi, Thanks for the reminder. I saw that Francis had his statement trimmed by Philippe in his capacity as a Board Election Committee member because it was over the character limit so decided not to mark it for translation until he had the opportunity to rewrite it, so as to not waste the valuable time of translators. I also waited to mark Jeromy's candidacy for translation as he was making a couple of changes the other day but just confirmed with him that he has finished making tweaks to his statement. If the election committee don't get round to it, I'll mark Jeromy's statement for translation later today but will follow up with Francis before making his statement for translation - I don't think it's fair for translators to translate a statement that could be considerably tweaked (and would need re-translating). --- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone On 14 May 2013, at 16:05, Takashi OTA supertakot+foundatio...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Could anybody (maybe admin on meta) set recent changes of the board candidates page as a subject to translation, so that we can translate candidacies of Francis and Jeromy-Yu with the translation tool? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2013/Candidates --Takashi ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effectiveness of meetings (Was: Affcom ...)
Le 14/05/2013 13:39, Lodewijk a écrit : (...) Based on these desired outcomes, you can estimate up front if the meeting is likely to be 'worth it'. If not, you can reduce the costs, increase the outcomes (different setup) or cancel all together. 2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org The second relevant question is, in my opinion, whether the WMF travel policy is good, proportional etc. This policy has mostly received criticism from two sides - some think it is too elaborate, and WMF should get 'less luxury' (again fair discussion, but we should then focus on the whole question) - another criticism is that it should be equalized for all Wikimedia-sponsored trips, including individual engagement grants, trips to the chapters meeting etc. When this question was brought up last time, I believe it was Sue who mentioned that this would simply result in much less travel and participation. Again, a fair question. this would simply result in much less travel !!! Well, less travel, not only cost control, could be a justifiable objective itself. I mean that to convert the donations to Wikimedia into burning vast amounts of under-taxed kerosene is definitely not an environmentally friendly and responsible way to run the Wikimedia movement. I personally went to the chapter meeting in Milan rather than insist on attending the next Wikimania in good part because I could get there by train. -- Mathias Damour 49 rue Carnot F-74000 Annecy 00 33 (0)4 57 09 10 56 00 33 (0)6 27 13 65 51 mathias.dam...@laposte.net http://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effectiveness of meetings (Was: Affcom ...)
I have sat through so many meetings that wasted time in various degrees that I thought of a football referee system where people could hold us yellow or red cards if they thought the meeting should be 'warned' or 'sent off'. More than two cards and the meeting gets abandoned or sorts itself out. On 14 May 2013 18:16, Mathias Damour mathias.dam...@laposte.net wrote: Le 14/05/2013 13:39, Lodewijk a écrit : (...) Based on these desired outcomes, you can estimate up front if the meeting is likely to be 'worth it'. If not, you can reduce the costs, increase the outcomes (different setup) or cancel all together. 2013/5/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org The second relevant question is, in my opinion, whether the WMF travel policy is good, proportional etc. This policy has mostly received criticism from two sides - some think it is too elaborate, and WMF should get 'less luxury' (again fair discussion, but we should then focus on the whole question) - another criticism is that it should be equalized for all Wikimedia-sponsored trips, including individual engagement grants, trips to the chapters meeting etc. When this question was brought up last time, I believe it was Sue who mentioned that this would simply result in much less travel and participation. Again, a fair question. this would simply result in much less travel !!! Well, less travel, not only cost control, could be a justifiable objective itself. I mean that to convert the donations to Wikimedia into burning vast amounts of under-taxed kerosene is definitely not an environmentally friendly and responsible way to run the Wikimedia movement. I personally went to the chapter meeting in Milan rather than insist on attending the next Wikimania in good part because I could get there by train. -- Mathias Damour 49 rue Carnot F-74000 Annecy 00 33 (0)4 57 09 10 56 00 33 (0)6 27 13 65 51 mathias.dam...@laposte.net http://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/**Utilisateur:Astirmayshttp://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board candidates page: please set as a subject of translation
Thanks Thehelpfulone and Benjamin, for your quick support! --Takashi On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Benjamin Chen bencmqw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, Before I saw the reply, I went ahead and tagged the page for translation, including Francis's statement. I have learnt and realised that it wasn't the best idea to translate that part just yet. Thanks Thehelpfulone, I've reverted that section. Sorry. The other parts of the two new statements are ready for translation. Regards, Benjamin Chen / [[User:Bencmq]] On 15 May, 2013, at 12:26 AM, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Takashi, Thanks for the reminder. I saw that Francis had his statement trimmed by Philippe in his capacity as a Board Election Committee member because it was over the character limit so decided not to mark it for translation until he had the opportunity to rewrite it, so as to not waste the valuable time of translators. I also waited to mark Jeromy's candidacy for translation as he was making a couple of changes the other day but just confirmed with him that he has finished making tweaks to his statement. If the election committee don't get round to it, I'll mark Jeromy's statement for translation later today but will follow up with Francis before making his statement for translation - I don't think it's fair for translators to translate a statement that could be considerably tweaked (and would need re-translating). --- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone On 14 May 2013, at 16:05, Takashi OTA supertakot+foundatio...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Could anybody (maybe admin on meta) set recent changes of the board candidates page as a subject to translation, so that we can translate candidacies of Francis and Jeromy-Yu with the translation tool? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2013/Candidates --Takashi ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
Hi, I think the question here should be more general, not for the particular case of AffCom only. We should really give a serious thought on whether such big expenditures are really worth the money or not. And it should encompass all the parties to the movement (volunteers, chapter members, WMF). Here, the choice of hotel really seems expensive. Though I didn't have any prior idea about hotel rent in Hong Kong, I searched on google for some good quality hotels in Tsim Sha Tsui area and found that there are many 4 star hotels (also highly rated) that have room rent within $110 to $150 range. Link: http://www.agoda.com/pages/agoda/default/DestinationSearchResult.aspx?asq=bs17wTmKLORqTfZUfjFABizf6xim3HxBNSprgOQXrVsxfdzWn0%2f0znqfDl5OpHpJEpI6UxJ3hIJhRGCSVK%2f54u4zfq8pkoaMpcy7sIc2UgCZdKAkRVT5G%2fOzan8m99LRyQrMqUm5cC3FKFKM4Rpinbn%2fmElm0M49SNeQL0KmHao%3dtick=635041800643 So, if there is option to save some movement money then why not! Thanks Tonmoy Ali Haidar Khan (tOnmOy) Treasurer Wikimedia Bangladesh ভাবুনতো এমন এক পৃথিবীর কথা, যেখানে প্রতিটি মানুষ সমস্ত জ্ঞান বাধাহীন ভাবে আদান প্রদান করতে পারবে। এটাই আমাদের অঙ্গীকার। On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: Bence, I appreciate AffCom work, and everyone of the the committee volunteers that doing a great job. But I really don't like the excuse of sticking to WMF's policy. Without having to start discussing the WMF's policy, I think AffCom should be mature enough to adopt a similar policy behavior as the chapters which they confirms and leading in the start-up steps. Even in DC, Berlin and Milan - the WMF's booked expensive hotel, while the chapters were mature enough to stay in others good hotels with much more fair prices. Again, this is not the time for criticism of the policy and it's not AffCom fault, but you as volunteers, as part of the community, I think should have the maturity to say Thanks for the option, but we prefer for the visibility and the fairness to book less expensive accommodation. BTW. 40,000$ it's about 25 scholarships we can give. Not saying AffCom don't need to attend Wikimania, but having much less fancy budget is always welcome. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Tomasz, On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Gregory Varnum wrote: I am not sure what you mean by none of the members being willing to comment. Our chair has responded several times on Meta and many others have responded to Odder via email about this. Let me just straighten this, Greg. Nobody has ever contacted me via e-mail about this except for the insults aimed at me after my first blog post on the matter — and you as an AffCom member should be especially aware of this, as the whole of AffCom was CC'd to every message that I received. I apologise if the tone of some of the e-mails you have received were harmful, and I am sorry for my involvement in that. I think it really came down to the fact that we were quite surprised at the time that as a committee member or adviser you did not feel able to raise the issue or issues that you were perceiving. This lack of trust or ability to communicate openly really saddened me. The hotel is in-line with WMF guidelines and as has been noted, we look to the staff to book those reservations and make appropriate cost-saving decisions. Which is opposite to what the Committee has been doing so far; for instance, during the last Committee meeting, the then-ChapCom members have been using the same accommodation as the rest of the conference participants — and that was a true a cost-saving decision. If I remember correctly, at the time the Committee did not have a budget and a number of details around fiscal responsibility ended up very complicated out of sheer goodwill (with certain chapters paying AffCom members' travel, Wikimedia Germany kindly offering to pay for those who had to stay only an extra night, and the WMF paying from the Board's budget for the rest) and the choice was probably made by me to stay with the chapter delegates as that was the default. In any case, with the dedicated budget we have taken steps to greater clarity and accountability and this involves making sure that the WMF pays for AffCom travel, and that in turn we follow WMF policy on reimbursement and choice of accommodation and in any other way they may prescribe for spending our budget. Technically and individually we could decide on anything that is cheaper than what is allowed by policy (e.g. shared accommodation, or different level of comfort), but those decisions would be made on the grounds of such factors as the accommodation choice of others with whom we would want to meet in off hours (including other AffCom or community members), medical
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
On 14 May 2013 20:53, Tonmoy Khan tonmoy...@gmail.com wrote: WMF). Here, the choice of hotel really seems expensive. Though I didn't have any prior idea about hotel rent in Hong Kong, I searched on google for some good quality hotels in Tsim Sha Tsui area and found that there are many 4 star hotels (also highly rated) that have room rent within $110 to All movement travellers will be provided with a sleeping bag and a map of bridges to sleep under. Last year's map, we don't want to spend too much. Everyone who has been arguing the fine details of hotel prices in this thread - this is precisely bikeshedding as described by Parkinson. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
Hi all, Thank you all for your kind suggestions on specific hotels. I would just like to reiterate what might have been lost under the pile of talk page messages, is that 1) technically, the WMF still has to approve the overall budget request that this meeting forms a part of, and while I don't expect that they wouldn't, we have not yet actually started executing any logistical arrangements (these would happen in co-ordination with the WMF and probably the Wikimania organizers for some of the other things we have in mind ) 2) this is a budget based on the hotel the WMF has chosen to our knowledge for its staff, and the $200 is the planning amount they used, and therefore we have used the same for the budget. As far as I am aware, actual costs in the chosen hotel based on a random internet search are lower at this moment (indeed, in the range some people have suggested), but I cannot predict whether the prices would go up if one tries to book many rooms or adds the price of internet and breakfast. These are the details I expect we will be discussing directly with the WMF's travel organizer who will probably end up recommending a specific hotel within the maximum price-range - it might not end up being the same used by WMF staff 3) despite the flexibility provided by the budget, a number of committee members have expressed the need to examine whether they could stay in accommodation shared by other attendees (be those hotels, or hostels). We will continue this discussion with the WMF and the Wikimania organizers, and more importantly, inside the committee to see what is possible and desired (we might end up staying at different places to be able to reach out to the most number of people). Similarly to the hotel budget having a bit of flexibility, we have added a buffer to the flight price estimates to make sure we can stay within budget, the final costs will most probably be well below those budgeted, but the budget is able to absorb unforeseen expenses. (As the budget is approved as part of the WMF annual plan, we do not have or do not feel to have much flexibility in reallocating spending from other lines if the meeting would turn out to be more expensive.) Again, I thank you all heartily for your helpful suggestions. I really appreciate everyone's desire to help and I do hope the WMF travel organizers are reading this thread, as it will ultimately be the task of them and AffCom to find a solution that stays within budget, is compatible with the travel policy and one that committee members are comfortable with to be effective in the meeting. In the long run, if the WMF doesn't amend its travel practices one can always join any of the WMF volunteer or staff communities that result in occasional travel as a perk and more often as a cost of doing their business effectively. Best regards, Bence On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Tonmoy Khan tonmoy...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I think the question here should be more general, not for the particular case of AffCom only. We should really give a serious thought on whether such big expenditures are really worth the money or not. And it should encompass all the parties to the movement (volunteers, chapter members, WMF). Here, the choice of hotel really seems expensive. Though I didn't have any prior idea about hotel rent in Hong Kong, I searched on google for some good quality hotels in Tsim Sha Tsui area and found that there are many 4 star hotels (also highly rated) that have room rent within $110 to $150 range. Link: http://www.agoda.com/pages/agoda/default/DestinationSearchResult.aspx?asq=bs17wTmKLORqTfZUfjFABizf6xim3HxBNSprgOQXrVsxfdzWn0%2f0znqfDl5OpHpJEpI6UxJ3hIJhRGCSVK%2f54u4zfq8pkoaMpcy7sIc2UgCZdKAkRVT5G%2fOzan8m99LRyQrMqUm5cC3FKFKM4Rpinbn%2fmElm0M49SNeQL0KmHao%3dtick=635041800643 So, if there is option to save some movement money then why not! Thanks Tonmoy Ali Haidar Khan (tOnmOy) Treasurer Wikimedia Bangladesh ভাবুনতো এমন এক পৃথিবীর কথা, যেখানে প্রতিটি মানুষ সমস্ত জ্ঞান বাধাহীন ভাবে আদান প্রদান করতে পারবে। এটাই আমাদের অঙ্গীকার। On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: Bence, I appreciate AffCom work, and everyone of the the committee volunteers that doing a great job. But I really don't like the excuse of sticking to WMF's policy. Without having to start discussing the WMF's policy, I think AffCom should be mature enough to adopt a similar policy behavior as the chapters which they confirms and leading in the start-up steps. Even in DC, Berlin and Milan - the WMF's booked expensive hotel, while the chapters were mature enough to stay in others good hotels with much more fair prices. Again, this is not the time for criticism of the policy and it's not AffCom fault, but you as volunteers, as part of the community, I think should have the maturity to say Thanks for the option, but we prefer for the visibility and the fairness to book less expensive accommodation.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
I think the point got lost that this is the budget (i.e. the maximum allotted), not the actual spending plan. It's highly probable that the actual costs will be something other than the maximum allowed amount. Perhaps we should restrain our outrage until then. Meanwhile, let's start another thread to discuss how the WMF splits meetings between mediums. I'm sure they have some sort of philosophy or policy for when IRC meetings, conference calls, video conferencing and face to face meetings are called for respectively. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket
On 14 May 2013 21:13, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: ... to be effective in the meeting. In the long run, if the WMF doesn't amend its travel practices one can always join any of the WMF volunteer or staff communities that result in occasional travel as a perk and more often as a cost of doing their business effectively. Sorry Bence, travel as a perk? No, for me airport security, cramped on a coach class flight and having to navigate public transport both ways, in order to find my economy hotel has never been a perk, more of a ruddy drawn out stressful punishment. Probably me, I obviously have a jaded old man's perspective compared to most unpaid volunteers in our community. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania, or other events done by a third party?
Hello everyone, Wikimedia Hungary has recieved an interesting sales pitch today if we can call a two liner that. One of the largest Hungarian travelling agency's department (or subsidiary?) for conference tourism have expressed interest in organizing a Wikimania in Budapest, Hungary in 2015 in cooperation with WMHU. (My understanding is that WMHU would be a content advisor or similar in it) They've expressed interest in individual workshops as well (of course). They've emailed us the bidding page for Wikimania 2015 [1] and the blog entry about the Program Evaluation Workshop that will be held in June in Budapest [2] (I guess) to underline their interest (and inadvertently highlight they're actively monitioring these events) I believe you already have the questions in your mind about this; here are my ones: 1) What if a third party applies to create an event? (like a workshop or Wikimania) It is not prohibited for a for profit company to create a bid, nor they have the necessity to consult or cooperate with any of the chapters (though it is almost certain that they'll get some wikip/medians to help with the content). There are many workshops and meetups where Wikipedia is being discussed or being the topic without having any wikim/pedians speaking or attending, but something like a workshop, or Wikimania would be an internal event (even if maximum possible outreach is the ultimate goal in the latter) 1/b) What if their bid is the best overall? Would they be allowed to execute it (a.k.a. being announced winners)? note these bids would not be coming from the local communities as they are coming now, but from outside. 1/c) What if such a bid comes from a country where is no chapter formed yet (or a non active or too small /or etc./ exists)? Given the fact that Wikimania is so far the best local outreach tool of the movement, creating one in a country with small, or struggling (for whatever reasons) communities/chapters could result in a huge boost of that community/chapter. (it would be nice to know btw the aftereffects of the previous Wikimanias on the organizing chapters if it was ever measured) 2) Could it be an option for future bidders to outsource some or (almost) all parts of the organization/catering/other tasks to a third party (outside of the movement) keeping only the content management to themselves ? The (future?) Wikimania Committee is in broader terms an officially not registered - internal - project company to help creating future Wikimanias in general. Feel free to add your questions, while answering mines and others' :) Cheers, Balázs [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015_bids [2] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/09/program-evaluation-workshop-budapest/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] 108 Wikipedias had their logo updated
As you may remember, in 2010 the Wikipedia puzzle logo was updated: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0 The localisation and update of logos has always been a volunteer-driven effort, organised mostly by Casey at the time. Building on his work,[1] in the last 6 months over 100 Wikipedias had their logo updated,[2] with the last batch yesterday. Like the 55 Wiktionaries in December,[3] many of those wikis have never had a localised before; the others were still using the v1 logo or had some other breach of the visual guidelines. Many thanks to all the translators and users checking the new logos, and to the tireless Odder who drew some 66 of those logos and uploaded even more in the process of doing so. Again, you can still help by adding translations and reporting errors on the coordination page.[1] Nemo [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Logos [2] 108 if I'm counting correctly. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=40285,44974,46589,48397 [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2012-December/002193.html ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] 108 Wikipedias had their logo updated
This is wonderful. Many thanks to all the volunteers involved! A. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: As you may remember, in 2010 the Wikipedia puzzle logo was updated: https://commons.wikimedia.**org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0 The localisation and update of logos has always been a volunteer-driven effort, organised mostly by Casey at the time. Building on his work,[1] in the last 6 months over 100 Wikipedias had their logo updated,[2] with the last batch yesterday. Like the 55 Wiktionaries in December,[3] many of those wikis have never had a localised before; the others were still using the v1 logo or had some other breach of the visual guidelines. Many thanks to all the translators and users checking the new logos, and to the tireless Odder who drew some 66 of those logos and uploaded even more in the process of doing so. Again, you can still help by adding translations and reporting errors on the coordination page.[1] Nemo [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Logoshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Logos [2] 108 if I'm counting correctly. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.** org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=40285,**44974,46589,48397https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=40285,44974,46589,48397 [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/**pipermail/translators-l/2012-** December/002193.htmlhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2012-December/002193.html __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] 108 Wikipedias had their logo updated
Awesome work, all! Note that I *strongly* encourage any logos not already available as SVG to update to an SVG version. Not only are SVGs generally more flexible and reusable because they can be scaled up, it'll also make it a *lot* easier to add a high-resolution version of your logo for visitors with Retina-density displays: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35337 -- brion On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: As you may remember, in 2010 the Wikipedia puzzle logo was updated: https://commons.wikimedia.**org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0 The localisation and update of logos has always been a volunteer-driven effort, organised mostly by Casey at the time. Building on his work,[1] in the last 6 months over 100 Wikipedias had their logo updated,[2] with the last batch yesterday. Like the 55 Wiktionaries in December,[3] many of those wikis have never had a localised before; the others were still using the v1 logo or had some other breach of the visual guidelines. Many thanks to all the translators and users checking the new logos, and to the tireless Odder who drew some 66 of those logos and uploaded even more in the process of doing so. Again, you can still help by adding translations and reporting errors on the coordination page.[1] Nemo [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Logoshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Logos [2] 108 if I'm counting correctly. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.** org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=40285,**44974,46589,48397https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=40285,44974,46589,48397 [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/**pipermail/translators-l/2012-** December/002193.htmlhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2012-December/002193.html __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
