Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Chris "Jethro" Schilling]

>
> > 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a
> particularly
> > > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
> there
> > > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
> basis
> > > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing
> X".
> > > That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> > > Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and
> Z.
> > > From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
> > > (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
> > > about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
> >
> >
> > For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the
> > discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
>
> Yes please, that would be helpful!


Certainly!  The feedback our team reviewed from participants indicated a
few important factors supporting the conclusions in the consultation.  As
you and others have stated, the differences in the frequency of instances
of support or concern were not substantial, so this difference was only a
minor factor.

One prominent factor that arose supporting Option 3 was a general desire
for balance in support for for Wikimania and regional/thematic
conferences.  Participants supporting this option frequently expressed that
these conferences both have independent, but important value for the work
or projects in which they or others are engaged.   For instance, many
pointed to the importance of regional collaboration-- travel arrangements
and matters of communication (particularly non-English) are easier, local
needs of projects can be prioritized in programming, and there are
opportunities for people to form working groups.  At the same time,
participants recognized the value of meeting together as a unified
movement.  Participants also voiced one benefit we did not consider-- that
taking this balanced approach could be an opportunity for better
interaction between Wikimania and regional/thematic conferences:  e.g.
Wikimania could serve to initiate projects relevant for a subsequent
regional conference. Conversely, a regional/thematic conference could serve
as good preparation for engagement at Wikimania.

A second factor were concerns over the costs of Wikimania itself, though
the "what" varied between the cost of attending, travel, and cost to
"movement resources" overall.  Given the discussion on the discussion page
and mailing lists, there are clearly a diversity of views over whether
Wikimania should cost more or less, but it was clear from participant
feedback that there were concerns with the overall cost.  This was also
true for folks who supported an annual Wikimania.  (On a related note, I
also would have expected that a summary of this budget to have been
presented from the outset, and I apologize that our team did not have this
ready until recently.)

A third factor was about the accessibility and exclusivity of Wikimania.
Many participants reported that they and others in their communities have
routinely been unable to attend Wikimania.  Consequently, they feel they've
been denied important opportunities and conversations with fellow
contributors, and to the extent that regional/thematic conferences can be
made more accessible, the better.  Organizers also noted that a consequence
of an annual Wikimania is that there is less motivation to plan/organize
regional conferences, which harms local solidarity and understanding of
regional issues.

I hope these themes provide a bit more depth to the feedback and context
for the conclusions in the consultation.

Thanks,

Jethro

Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) 
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation


On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Hello Chris (or Jethro)! Thanks for taking time to reply.
>
> > Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> > >
> > broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> > > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?)
> >
> >
> > It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for
> > Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the
> > reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
>
> Great. I thought that table of issues was helpful, though wasn't quite
> clear whose it was  (so to speak). If the answer is "it's generally the
> view of the WMF staff working with this", that is good to know.
>
> > 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a
> particularly
> > > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
> there
> > > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
> basis
> > > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Chris Keating]

Hello Chris (or Jethro)! Thanks for taking time to reply.

> Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> >
> broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?)
>
>
> It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for
> Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the
> reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]

Great. I thought that table of issues was helpful, though wasn't quite
clear whose it was  (so to speak). If the answer is "it's generally the
view of the WMF staff working with this", that is good to know.

> 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
> > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
there
> > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
basis
> > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
> > That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> > Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
> > From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
> > (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
> > about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
>
>
> For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the
> discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.

Yes please, that would be helpful!

Chris

>
> [1] <
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_is_the_problem_you.27re_trying_to_solve.3F
> >
>
> [2] <
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes=next=15313641
> >
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Chris Keating]

On 18 Feb 2016 00:24, "Chris Schilling"  wrote:
>
> >
> > 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within
the
> > WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> > accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> > they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> > Wikimania".
>
>
> Hey Chris.  I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with
> Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment.  It's true that I
> along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this
> consultation, and
>
> Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> >
> broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?)
>
>
> It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for
> Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the
> reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
>
> Equally, I am not really
> > clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days.
> > In
> > general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> > are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
>
>
> I'm in full agreement.  The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will
> need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the
> next year.
>
> 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
> > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
there
> > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
basis
> > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
> > That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> > Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
> > From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
> > (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
> > about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
>
>
> For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the
> discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
>
> With thanks,
>
> Jethro
>
> [1] <
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_is_the_problem_you.27re_trying_to_solve.3F
> >
>
> [2] <
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes=next=15313641
> >
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a
> > novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with
an
> > issue quite like this before.
> >
> > Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as
> > significant):
> > 1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a
good
> > thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing,
even
> > if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the
> > conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please
compare
> > it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter.
> > 2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings
the
> > movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)
> >
> > However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the
> > direction this is going:
> > 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within
the
> > WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> > accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> > they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> > Wikimania". Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> > broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?) Equally, I am not
really
> > clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these
days. In
> > general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> > are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
> > 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a
particularly
> > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
there
> > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
basis
> > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
> > That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> > Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
> > From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
> > (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
> > about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Chris Schilling]

>
> 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
> WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> Wikimania".


Hey Chris.  I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with
Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment.  It's true that I
along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this
consultation, and we've done our best to present conclusions and make a
general plan based on the feedback we received.  Further complicating this
issue of ownership is the absence of this team's director (Siko Bouterse)
and her boss (Luis Villa), who have resigned.

With that said, I expect decisions around Wikimania in 2018 to be shaped by
outcomes in Esino Lario this year, in addition to the practical matter of
our budget.  I expect there will be opportunities for community members to
help further define what will happen in 2018 as well.

Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
>
broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?)


It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for
Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the
reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]

Equally, I am not really
> clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days.
> In
> general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.


I'm in full agreement.  The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will
need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the
next year.

4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
> strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear there
> isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
> that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
> That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
> From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
> (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
> about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.


For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the
discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.

With thanks,

Jethro

[1] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_is_the_problem_you.27re_trying_to_solve.3F
>

[2] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes=next=15313641
>

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a
> novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with an
> issue quite like this before.
>
> Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as
> significant):
> 1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a good
> thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing, even
> if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the
> conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please compare
> it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter.
> 2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings the
> movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)
>
> However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the
> direction this is going:
> 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
> WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> Wikimania". Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?) Equally, I am not really
> clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In
> general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
> 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
> strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear there
> isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
> that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
> That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> Wikimania Committee saying "The important 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you have been to as many Wikimania's as I have been, you will know
that it is exactly the interaction with staff that enables a lot of things.
They have the consistency (in time) to make a difference, they are embedded
in an organisation that has always cared about what it is that is said.
This does not imply that it is often that you can make a real difference,
typically things change gradually and, that is good.

When Wikimania is only for volunteers, I do not need to come (I am a
volunteer).
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 16 February 2016 at 14:48, Henning Schlottmann 
wrote:

> On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
>
> Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
> engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
> not as general participants.
>
> Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
>
> Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
> this volunteer event.
>
> Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
> experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
> and how to do it.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Andrew Lih]

Your comments are inaccurate, not useful, and completely antithetical to
our principles.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Henning Schlottmann 
wrote:

> On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
>
> Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
> engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
> not as general participants.
>
> Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
>
> Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
> this volunteer event.
>
> Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
> experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
> and how to do it.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Henning Schlottmann]

On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?

Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
not as general participants.

Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.

Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
this volunteer event.

Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
and how to do it.

Ciao Henning





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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Adam Wight]

Thank you for beginning this important discussion!  I have the same
concerns as
others, especially around how this consultation fits into the decision
making
process.  This sentence from the introduction makes it sound very serious
indeed--
maybe this was a misunderstanding? [1]

> The outcomes of this consultation will begin to be implemented starting
in 2018.

The participation was too low, the margin between "votes" too narrow, and
it seems
like a huge mistake to call this a "survey" but then synthesize the results
by tallying
the votes directly.  I can safely assume that the responses would have been
much
different if we had said from the outset that this was a binding,
democratic ballot.

The concerns raised with Option 3 (alternate years) touch on an issue so
central to
our work that I would personally interpret this as a blocker, a signal that
the plan
needs to be amended and put to another discussion before taking any steps
to implement:[2]

> ... some expressed that working relationships with individuals they are
> accustomed to seeing at Wikimania would be difficult to maintain if they
> could only meet every two years. Likewise, it may also be more difficult
> to initiate and maintain projects and initiatives where meetups at
> Wikimania are useful.

I have raved over the two Wikimanias I've had the chance to attend, they
stand out as
by far the most inspiring and engaging moments of my 3.5 years as a WMF
staffer.  In fact, I'd like to see many more such opportunities for staff,
editors and
other contributors to interact.  I would like to see the Wikimedia
Foundation spend
much more of its budget on directly supporting editors and promoting
community
growth (e.g. Teahouse, Wikipedia Library, Revscoring, Education Program),
and to
invest more in training for its staff, to help acculturate us to the
contributor community
and prevent an adversarial dynamic.

Problem 1 states that "it is difficult to know if Wikimania is meeting the
movement's
needs", but this survey isn't set up to answer that question.  Perhaps we
should try
to measure our success at meeting the movement's needs, and make projections
for how well these needs will be met under alternative scenarios, before
accidentally defunding something that might be working?  Anyway, cutting
back on
Wikimanias without a plan to provide a better substitute would be a huge
loss.

Love,
Adam

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_is_your_solution.3F
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes#Option_3_.28Alternate.29

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a
> novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with an
> issue quite like this before.
>
> Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as
> significant):
> 1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a good
> thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing, even
> if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the
> conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please compare
> it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter.
> 2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings the
> movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)
>
> However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the
> direction this is going:
> 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
> WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> Wikimania". Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?) Equally, I am not really
> clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In
> general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
> 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
> strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear there
> isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
> that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
> That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
> From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
> (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
> about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Isarra Yos]

Interestingly, having them every other year would make it potentially 
viable for an entirely new community group to start putting on their own 
wikimanias, essentially forking the process.


On 09/02/16 07:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
I positively HATE the notion that Wikimania will be once every other year.
It is easy enough to get in contact with local heroes. What Wikimania does
is bring people from the whole world together. Without Wikimania our
community is parochial. This is where our projects are weak in having a
global view.

I resent this conclusion forcefully.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 8 February 2016 at 23:53, Ellie Young  wrote:


The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation

on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better
serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
results and have prepared this report:


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes

I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.

Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
Thanks to all who participated!

Ellie

--
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
eyo...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[James Heilman]

Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years. Meeting
once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping it
smaller / capping  funding.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come? Who is not relevant enough. We
are a big movement and there is a reason for that. You care about health,
what about mental health? How do you learn the lessons from the Malayalam
source movement. There is more than we can do and you talk about capping
funding.. WHY
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 9 February 2016 at 16:25, James Heilman  wrote:

> Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years. Meeting
> once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping it
> smaller / capping  funding.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Risker]

Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the movement.
Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime", but
many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position.

Your point about sharing lessons is important. It would be good to put
significant focus on how to share lessons in ways that are significantly
less expensive and have the opportunity to reach a broader audience.
Wikimania, for all its good points, isn't necessarily the best way to share
a lot of these lessons.  It's very expensive for everyone, there's very
limited evidence that many of those lessons have been effectively utilized
by other similar groups, and the presentations and lessons may not hit the
most logical target audiences.

I've not expressed a particular opinion about any of the proposed
"Wikimania solutions" but I do believe that there is a real place for more
focused, specialized conferences such as Hackathons, Wikisource conference
and the CEE conference.  I also believe we have to work harder at capturing
lessons and sharing them in a more permanent way, such as the "learnings"
that many groups have created and shared with the assistance of Community
Engagement.  I'm sure we can think of more ways to share information that
doesn't involve people having to fly half-way around the world and spend
thousands of dollars.

Risker/Anne

On 9 February 2016 at 10:40, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come? Who is not relevant enough. We
> are a big movement and there is a reason for that. You care about health,
> what about mental health? How do you learn the lessons from the Malayalam
> source movement. There is more than we can do and you talk about capping
> funding.. WHY
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 16:25, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years.
> Meeting
> > once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping
> it
> > smaller / capping  funding.
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Nathan]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
> because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the movement.
> Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime", but
> many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position.


Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving the
value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for tens
of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively tiny
cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put its
own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more
example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside the
organization than it is on internal spending.

It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that the
conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was the
"give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of Wikimania" and
option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect that if
there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option many
would have selected it.

If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I don't
know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily
support that effort.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 2016-02-08 5:53 PM, Ellie Young wrote:

The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation


I will join my voice to the chorus expressing concern and dismay at the 
completely ridiculous interpretation of that minor discussion - it 
clearly does not resemble a mandate to make such a sweeping change to a 
movement-central event like this.


[Obvious disclaimer: I am the lead organizer of the 2017 edition of said 
event so clearly I am not unbiased]


I've never been a fan of the old bidding process - having been its 
victim in the past and seeing the large amount of wasted effort and 
demotivation it must necessarily generate - and I agree wholeheartedly 
that the *process* needs to be reexamined.  But even *that* 
reexamination requires more than a couple weeks on a talk page with a 
couple dozen people involved.


Something of the scope of the changes that consultation is claimed to 
warrant, however?  Farcical.


Wikimania is the beating heart of our movement.  We should be deploying 
efforts to be more inclusive and place it within reach of a larger 
segment of the community, not chopping it up.


-- Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Chris Keating]

Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a
novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with an
issue quite like this before.

Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as
significant):
1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a good
thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing, even
if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the
conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please compare
it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter.
2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings the
movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)

However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the
direction this is going:
3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
Wikimania". Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?) Equally, I am not really
clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In
general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear there
isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
(though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.

Thanks,

Chris

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
> > because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the
> movement.
> > Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime",
> but
> > many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position.
>
>
> Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving the
> value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for tens
> of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively tiny
> cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put its
> own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more
> example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside the
> organization than it is on internal spending.
>
> It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that the
> conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was the
> "give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of Wikimania" and
> option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect that if
> there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option many
> would have selected it.
>
> If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I don't
> know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily
> support that effort.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I positively HATE the notion that Wikimania will be once every other year.
It is easy enough to get in contact with local heroes. What Wikimania does
is bring people from the whole world together. Without Wikimania our
community is parochial. This is where our projects are weak in having a
global view.

I resent this conclusion forcefully.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 8 February 2016 at 23:53, Ellie Young  wrote:

> The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
> 
> on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
> unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better
> serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
> results and have prepared this report:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>
> I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
> 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
> movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
>
> Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
> >
> Thanks to all who participated!
>
> Ellie
>
> --
> Ellie Young
> Events Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
> eyo...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

[Ellie Young]

The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation

on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better
serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
results and have prepared this report:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes

I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.

Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page

Thanks to all who participated!

Ellie

-- 
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
eyo...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,