Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gnangarra]

here is a short url created using Google URL shortner

https://goo.gl/pR1SAf

On 26 October 2017 at 10:49, Biyanto Rebin 
wrote:

> Dear Lodewijk,
>
> The link is broken too. Here is the the clickable link:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
> 2018/Eligibility_Criteria
>
>
> Cheers
>
> 2017-10-26 9:45 GMT+07:00 Lodewijk :
>
> > funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a
> different
> > place:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/
> > Eligibility_Criteria
> >
> > Hope more luck this time!
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time
> > fixing
> > > it:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
> > > 018/Eligibility_Criteria
> > >
> > >A.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > aside from the conversation about project/language communities –
> thanks
> > > for
> > > > the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page
> > for
> > > > the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > > > rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
> > > >
> > > > I have received some off-list questions about specific details for
> > > specific
> > > > affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page.
> In
> > > > case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> > > > off-list.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Cornelius
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Biyanto Rebin | Ketua Umum (*Chair*) 2016-2018
> Wikimedia Indonesia
> Surel: biyanto.re...@wikimedia.or.id
> 
>
> Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan:
> http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Biyanto Rebin]

Dear Lodewijk,

The link is broken too. Here is the the clickable link:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria


Cheers

2017-10-26 9:45 GMT+07:00 Lodewijk :

> funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a different
> place:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/
> Eligibility_Criteria
>
> Hope more luck this time!
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
>
> > Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time
> fixing
> > it:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
> > 018/Eligibility_Criteria
> >
> >A.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks
> > for
> > > the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page
> for
> > > the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > > rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
> > >
> > > I have received some off-list questions about specific details for
> > specific
> > > affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
> > > case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> > > off-list.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Cornelius
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

Biyanto Rebin | Ketua Umum (*Chair*) 2016-2018
Wikimedia Indonesia
Surel: biyanto.re...@wikimedia.or.id


Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan:
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Lodewijk]

funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a different
place:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/
Eligibility_Criteria

Hope more luck this time!

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time fixing
> it:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
> 018/Eligibility_Criteria
>
>A.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks
> for
> > the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page for
> > the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
> >
> > I have received some off-list questions about specific details for
> specific
> > affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
> > case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> > off-list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Cornelius
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Asaf Bartov]

Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time fixing
it:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
018/Eligibility_Criteria

   A.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks for
> the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page for
> the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
>
> I have received some off-list questions about specific details for specific
> affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
> case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> off-list.
>
> Best regards,
> Cornelius
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Berkman Klein Center: Will Wikipedia exist in, 20 years?

[Samuel Klein]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

> If you look at the video on Youtube[1], it says that its license is
>
indeed CC-BY (and indeed CC-BY 3.0 Unported, more info on this page[2])
>
> So, I think that this can be uploaded also on Commons without issue.
>

Yes!  Thanks Asaf for the upload.

Katherine's talk was a welcome update & provocation.  A few notes from the
afternoon discussion w/Berkman fellows that followed:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14QYg3iNWFIvWXkWALLxbYzuDS3Tj9faltJKwoHuhW1o/edit#

Sam.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

[Samuel Klein]

>
> (Oddly enough, I am more likely to read a Wikipedia article
> from beginning to end if I'm looking something up on the Kindle, while I'm
> reading a book.)
>

There's definitely some appetite for [WP-branded and -supported!] reading
and research devices tuned for this sort of work: hyperlinked referencing,
bookmarking, reading, annotating, and compiling into an overview of one's
thoughts while working through an original document [book, article,
encyclopedia article].


> I think it would be more interesting to spin off the existing
> > "Wikipedia Library" into its own international organization (or home
> > it with an existing one), tasked with giving free knowledge
> > contributors (including potentially to other free knowledge projects
> > like OSM) access to proprietary resources


Warmly agreed.  Related essential services: curating and organizing
proprietary resources, and transmogrifying them into reusable elements [cf.
ContentMine/FactMine].
A few narrow areas of this are covered by commercial services, but most are
not.

Sam.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

[Toby Negrin]

Hi everybody --

I just wanted to follow up quickly that this report has been published and
is available here:


> I know that some folks were wondering about all the consultation comments
> about features, interfaces, and product improvements that didn't get
> incorporated into the strategy. We knew from the beginning of the processes
> that we'd certainly get quite a few of these requests that were too
> specific to be integrated into long-term strategic thinking and planned
> accordingly to document them. The goal was to consider how they might be
> taken up by either Foundation staff or interested volunteer developers. As
> a result, we're publishing a “Features report” written by Suzie Nussel that
> summarizes these requests, and should be a useful starting point for
> specific improvements that could be addressed in the shorter term.


 The PDF version is at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Movement_
Strategy_2017_-_2017_Features_and_programs_(cycle_1).pdf

and the wiki version of the report is at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2017/Reports/
Features_and_Programs_report_summary

The Audiences team will be using this report as an input into future
product discussions and annual planning.

-Toby

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for the delay in chiming in. It's been a busy few weeks, and while I
> haven't made a public update about strategy in a while, work has been
> continuing! We've now closed Phase 1, and we're heading into Phase 2, in
> which our objective is to start thinking about how we make the strategic
> direction into a plan of action and implementation. It's an opportunity to
> create greater clarity about how we each understand the direction, how we
> might set goals against it, what we may need to change to achieve these
> goals, and how we can contribute -- as projects, communities, and
> individuals. I’ll be sending my next weekly update shortly but I wanted to
> acknowledge the contributions in this thread first.
>
> I've read through this entire thread, and I've agreed, disagreed, agreed
> again, and started emails only to see new ones come in and have to scrap my
> drafts. While I found myself often agreeing with Erik, I dig the challenges
> you all have put forward and appreciate the diversity of opinions. Some of
> our differences stem from the unique contexts of the groups and individuals
> responding and will result in differences in implementation in each
> community. Other differences, such as questioning the very concept of
> source credibility, will certainly require additional discussion. But
> regardless of where we end up, it has been a delight to follow such a rich,
> substantive conversation. This has been one of the best, and
> most thought-provoking, Wikimedia-l threads I've read in some time, and I
> hope that it is the first of many as we go into Phase 2 of the movement
> strategy process.
>
> A few more responses inline:
>
> 2017-10-04 11:19 GMT-07:00 Lodewijk :
> >
> > I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there
> is
> > too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I take
> > away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
> > knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
> > expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
> > our work is being put to good use.
>
> It's always helpful to read critique as a challenge to our logical
> assumptions. Lodewijk, I see where your interpretation comes from here, but
> it is vastly different than how I interpret from this statement. To the
> contrary, I wouldn’t say "service" and "brand" are mutually exclusive. I do
> think that Wikimedia should want to continue to be known as a destination
> for free knowledge, and we do want to increase brand awareness, especially
> in areas and contexts where we are not yet well (or not at all) known. Our
> brand (including our communities) and visibility are some of our most
> valuable assets as a movement, and it would be strategically unwise not to
> build on them for long-term planning.
>
> When I think about knowledge as a service, it means that we want this, *and
> much more*. It’s additive. We want to be who we are today, *and* we want to
> provide a service to other institutions. We want to use that brand and
> visibility to work with others in the ecosystem. We also want to be present
> in new experiences and delivery channels, in order to preserve the direct
> interface connection with Wikipedia's contributors and readers that we have
> on the web. I see this as essential - for our readers, it's about ensuring
> a core promise: that the chain of evidence for the information they seek is
> unbroken and transparent, from citation to edit. For our contributors, it's
> about extending ways to contribute as our digital interfaces evolve.
>
> We know from the Phase 1 research that many 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Berkman Klein Center: Will Wikipedia exist in, 20 years?

[Cornelius Kibelka]

You can download the Youtube machine-generated subtitles, but they are not
really good (in terms of spelling, etc.). If someone is eager to review
them, I'm happy to upload them.

Cheers
Cornelius

On 25 October 2017 at 16:39, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:32 PM mathieu stumpf guntz <
> psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:
>
> > Great, thank you Asaf.
> >
> > Would it possible (both technically and legally) to also transfer
> > subtitles? They would surely need some fixes, as it's automated (I guess)
> > transcription , but it would probably be less workload than a
> transcription
> > from scratch. If so, I would be happy to translate it to Esperanto — and
> > the more obscure French language. ;)
> >
> It would have been possible, had there been any subtitles. It seems the
> YouTube version at the moment contains only machine-generated subtitles,
> and those are not available in the same mechanism as human-generated
> subtitles, so the (wonderful) video2commons tool could not import them.
>
> Cheers,
>
>A.
>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Cornelius Kibelka
Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
for the Wikimedia Conference

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Hi all,

aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks for
the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page for
the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria

I have received some off-list questions about specific details for specific
affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
off-list.

Best regards,
Cornelius

On 25 October 2017 at 15:00, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is not that someone has nothing worthwhile to contribute, it is just
> that once you have interviewed a group that is of sufficient variety the
> likelyhood of hearing anything new will vanish. When too much information
> is gathered it becomes unwieldy as well and the discussion will peter out.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 14:24, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups
> you
> > will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
> > matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
> > what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
> > the selection process alone introduces some bias, creates a division and
> > implies someones opinion isnt worth considering.
> >
> > Starting some where is the important aspect, doing so in a manageable way
> > with the available resources is the only prudent way forward
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25 October 2017 at 19:19, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on
> > adding
> > > more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be
> > empowering
> > > but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
> > > seeking.
> > >
> > > So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
> > > selected group of people have to offer?
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> > > > Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
> > > >
> > > > I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> > > > weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> > > > about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> > > > good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> > > > so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > Hi Lodewijk,
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an
> > > agreement
> > > > > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia
> > > Conference
> > > > > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> > > > depend
> > > > > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy
> process,
> > > for
> > > > > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement
> > > organizations.
> > > > > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're
> talking
> > > > about
> > > > > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the
> > > conference
> > > > > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a
> > solution
> > > to
> > > > > the overall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards
> > > > > Cornelius
> > > > >
> > > > > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> > > > organizations
> > > > >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has
> > been
> > > > doing
> > > > >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case
> for
> > > most
> > > > >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> > > > groups,
> > > > >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we
> have
> > > > always
> > > > >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this
> context
> > > it
> > > > >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> > > > >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> > > > >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user
> > > group
> > > > >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users
> > that
> > > > likes
> > > > >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of
> the
> > > > >> community.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement
> diversifies,
> > > this
> > > > >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If your goal r

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Berkman Klein Center: Will Wikipedia exist in, 20 years?

[Asaf Bartov]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:32 PM mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Great, thank you Asaf.
>
> Would it possible (both technically and legally) to also transfer
> subtitles? They would surely need some fixes, as it's automated (I guess)
> transcription , but it would probably be less workload than a transcription
> from scratch. If so, I would be happy to translate it to Esperanto — and
> the more obscure French language. ;)
>
It would have been possible, had there been any subtitles. It seems the
YouTube version at the moment contains only machine-generated subtitles,
and those are not available in the same mechanism as human-generated
subtitles, so the (wonderful) video2commons tool could not import them.

Cheers,

   A.

>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is not that someone has nothing worthwhile to contribute, it is just
that once you have interviewed a group that is of sufficient variety the
likelyhood of hearing anything new will vanish. When too much information
is gathered it becomes unwieldy as well and the discussion will peter out.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 25 October 2017 at 14:24, Gnangarra  wrote:

> Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups you
> will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
> matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
> what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
> the selection process alone introduces some bias, creates a division and
> implies someones opinion isnt worth considering.
>
> Starting some where is the important aspect, doing so in a manageable way
> with the available resources is the only prudent way forward
>
>
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 19:19, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on
> adding
> > more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be
> empowering
> > but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
> > seeking.
> >
> > So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
> > selected group of people have to offer?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> > > Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
> > >
> > > I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> > > weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> > > about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> > > good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> > > so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Hi Lodewijk,
> > > >
> > > > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an
> > agreement
> > > > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia
> > Conference
> > > > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> > > depend
> > > > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process,
> > for
> > > > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement
> > organizations.
> > > > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> > > about
> > > > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the
> > conference
> > > > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a
> solution
> > to
> > > > the overall.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Cornelius
> > > >
> > > > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> > > organizations
> > > >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has
> been
> > > doing
> > > >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for
> > most
> > > >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> > > groups,
> > > >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> > > >>
> > > >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> > > always
> > > >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context
> > it
> > > >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> > > >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> > > >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user
> > group
> > > >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users
> that
> > > likes
> > > >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> > > >> community.
> > > >>
> > > >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies,
> > this
> > > >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> > > >>
> > > >> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either
> have
> > > to
> > > >> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other
> > people.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying
> goal
> > > is
> > > >> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is
> > not
> > > >> cutting it yet.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lodewijk
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon <
> jsed...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is
> not
> > > >> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and
> > > advantages,
> > > >> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, langua

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gnangarra]

Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups you
will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
the selection process alone introduces some bias, creates a division and
implies someones opinion isnt worth considering.

Starting some where is the important aspect, doing so in a manageable way
with the available resources is the only prudent way forward



On 25 October 2017 at 19:19, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on adding
> more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be empowering
> but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
> seeking.
>
> So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
> selected group of people have to offer?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> > Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
> >
> > I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> > weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> > about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> > good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> > so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
> >  wrote:
> > > Hi Lodewijk,
> > >
> > > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an
> agreement
> > > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia
> Conference
> > > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> > depend
> > > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process,
> for
> > > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement
> organizations.
> > > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> > about
> > > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the
> conference
> > > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution
> to
> > > the overall.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Cornelius
> > >
> > > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> > organizations
> > >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been
> > doing
> > >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for
> most
> > >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> > groups,
> > >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> > >>
> > >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> > always
> > >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context
> it
> > >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> > >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> > >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user
> group
> > >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that
> > likes
> > >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> > >> community.
> > >>
> > >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies,
> this
> > >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> > >>
> > >> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have
> > to
> > >> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other
> people.
> > >>
> > >> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal
> > is
> > >> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is
> not
> > >> cutting it yet.
> > >>
> > >> Lodewijk
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> > >> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and
> > advantages,
> > >> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> > >> >
> > >> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages
> and
> > >> > topics to varying degrees.
> > >> >
> > >> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> > >> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative
> > in
> > >> an
> > >> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> > >> > representative.
> > >> >
> > >> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates
> > gain
> > >> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new
> roles
> > >> and
> > >> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> > >> >
> > >> > Seddon
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Nicole Ebber]

Chris,

As Cornelius wrote, this conversation will be a part of phase 2
discussions which are supposed take place in many different places,
on- and offline. We won't just put the cart before the horse. I
envision the movement strategy process to also offer space for
conversations about how strategic, decision making processes and
platforms for the movement could look in the future. The outcomes of
these conversations can then inform how goals, structures and
representation for a conference like WMCON can look like in the
future.

Hope this helps,
Nicole



On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating  wrote:
> So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
>
> I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
>  wrote:
>> Hi Lodewijk,
>>
>> One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
>> upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
>> in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also depend
>> on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
>> example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
>> By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking about
>> 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
>> for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
>> the overall.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Cornelius
>>
>> On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  wrote:
>>
>>> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
>>> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
>>> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
>>> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
>>> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>>>
>>> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
>>> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
>>> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
>>> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
>>> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
>>> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
>>> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
>>> community.
>>>
>>> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
>>> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>>>
>>> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
>>> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>>>
>>> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
>>> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
>>> cutting it yet.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
>>> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
>>> > the affiliate model has become very different.
>>> >
>>> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
>>> > topics to varying degrees.
>>> >
>>> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
>>> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
>>> an
>>> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
>>> > representative.
>>> >
>>> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
>>> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
>>> and
>>> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>>> >
>>> > Seddon
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
>>> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
>>> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
>>> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
>>> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
>>> > >
>>> > > Michael
>>> > >
>>> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
>>> > chapters
>>> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
>>> > > > language communities to be under

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on adding
more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be empowering
but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
seeking.

So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
selected group of people have to offer?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
>
> I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
>  wrote:
> > Hi Lodewijk,
> >
> > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
> > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
> > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> depend
> > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
> > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
> > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> about
> > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
> > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
> > the overall.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Cornelius
> >
> > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> >
> >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> organizations
> >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been
> doing
> >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
> >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> groups,
> >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> >>
> >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> always
> >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
> >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
> >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that
> likes
> >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> >> community.
> >>
> >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
> >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> >>
> >> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have
> to
> >> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
> >>
> >> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal
> is
> >> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
> >> cutting it yet.
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> >> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and
> advantages,
> >> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> >> >
> >> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> >> > topics to varying degrees.
> >> >
> >> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> >> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative
> in
> >> an
> >> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> >> > representative.
> >> >
> >> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates
> gain
> >> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
> >> and
> >> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> >> >
> >> > Seddon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose
> has
> >> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> >> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not
> as
> >> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> >> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> >> > >
> >> > > Michael
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> >> > chapters
> >> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we
> want
> >> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
> >> user
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Chris Keating]

So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?

I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)

Chris

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
 wrote:
> Hi Lodewijk,
>
> One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
> upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
> in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also depend
> on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
> example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
> By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking about
> 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
> for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
> the overall.
>
> Best regards
> Cornelius
>
> On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  wrote:
>
>> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
>> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
>> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
>> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
>> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>>
>> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
>> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
>> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
>> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
>> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
>> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
>> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
>> community.
>>
>> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
>> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>>
>> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
>> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
>> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
>> cutting it yet.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
>> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
>> > the affiliate model has become very different.
>> >
>> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
>> > topics to varying degrees.
>> >
>> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
>> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
>> an
>> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
>> > representative.
>> >
>> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
>> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
>> and
>> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>> >
>> > Seddon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
>> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
>> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
>> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
>> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
>> > >
>> > > Michael
>> > >
>> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
>> > chapters
>> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
>> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
>> user
>> > > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
>> > > > representatives if they must be represented.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Isaac.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
>> > always
>> > > :)
>> > > >
>> > > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
>> > > organized
>> > > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
>> > movement.
>> > > In
>> > > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
>> > same
>> > > > location - with some overlap in pro

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Hi Lodewijk,

One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also depend
on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking about
10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
the overall.

Best regards
Cornelius

On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  wrote:

> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>
> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> community.
>
> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>
> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>
> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
> cutting it yet.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> >
> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> > topics to varying degrees.
> >
> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
> an
> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> > representative.
> >
> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
> and
> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> > chapters
> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
> user
> > > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > > > representatives if they must be represented.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Isaac.
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
> > always
> > > :)
> > > >
> > > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> > > organized
> > > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
> > movement.
> > > In
> > > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
> > same
> > > > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was
> quite
> > a
> > > > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> > > >
> > > > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a
> > goal.
> > > If
> > > > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> > > structure
> > > > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation
> > for
> > > > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > > > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> > > >
> > > > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would
> > be
> > > to
> > > > fill certain gaps