[Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters, and to get an insight into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be done face-to-face. In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is for? Chris On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will) 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de: Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :) May I say? Please come by also at the conference. I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw) but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply Wrong(TM) to me. For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public, everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting (e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always have some bystanders (this includes the occasional I am painter, why I don't have my Wikipedia page?) and, to date, our assemblies have never being flooded by strangers :-). Moreover, for the sake of bias and over-representation I think that this will not be of much more impact than the fact of chosing to hold the event itself in Berlin. Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
On 02/04/2014, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters, and to get an insight into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be done face-to-face. In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is for? Chris This question neatly demonstrates the fundamental issue for me. I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the employees are being paid for their time rather than going as volunteers). If the key benefit claimed is to do social networking, it should be recognized that all the same faces will be at Wikimania London in 4 months, and socializing is part of the defined benefits of Wikimania. Considering the conference is a week away and it appears that flights and accommodation have been paid for, re-framing this as good news, rather than admitting it is a problem, appears to be replacing pragmatism with sophistry. Fae (writing from the grave) -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
Point of information and a comment: This year 2 members of the FDC will attend the conference as representatives of the FDC. The full FDC will not be attending any part of Wikimedia Conference this year because the date of the FDC meeting do not align with the conference. Next year if possible I would like to see the two events scheduled together again because I see value in having the full FDC do a panel discussion with all interested people, especially people from affiliated organizations. Plus it makes it easier for the Board of Trustees and the FDC to interact, especially the board observers to the FDC which need to attend both meetings. Sydney Poore Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2014, at 13:26, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: A good starting point for discussion is the written material already out there about the purpose of the event: *Wikimedia Conference 2014* is the annual meeting of all Wikimedia chaptershttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters , thematic organizationshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations and user groups https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups, board and staff members of the Wikimedia Foundationhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation as well as other committees to discuss the future of the Wikimedia movement in terms of collaboration, structures and organizational development. There has been a Future of Wikimedia Conference page on Meta for some time, although it has had limited input. Asaf Bartov wrote a little on the talk page about the purpose of the conference: - An opportunity for Wikimedia movement organizations to meet face-to-face and share ideas about projects and practices and to discuss any unresolved issues that may have come up during the past year. - A venue for one of the quarterly Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees meetings and an opportunity for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and Wikimedia movement organizations to meet and talk. - A venue for the Funds Dissemination Committee to meet to assess the funding proposals for Round 2 of the current year and provide recommendations on those proposals to the WMF Board. It may make more sense to continue the discussion on the meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
Hi, To provide some perspective. The Board of Trustees has traditionally had its Board meeting at the Wikimedia Conference. This year is the first year we decide to change that and have our board meeting a couple of weeks later so that we could actually attend the sessions and have more interaction with all the participants. Six of us will be going to Berlin because we feel that it is an incredible valuable conference. Lets be clear: this is a different event than Wikimania. It is a time to meet and discuss governance issues with those that have been entrusted with them in our movement, it is a time to exchange organisational experiences and a time to look forward to possibilities for that part of the movement that chooses to organise itself in chapters or thematic organisations. And although the audience is probably a subset of the Wikimania audience the smaller setup allows for different interactions etc. I have no opinion on the decision of certain organisations to send more people than expected, this is something that can be discussed for next year, and there will always be exceptions. But in general: these conferences, though expensive, really provide a place to learn how to be more effective with donor money rather than less through the sessions and the interaction. I am happy that many volunteers are able to invest their valuable time and am sure that they will get a great return on that investment (I notice that many chapters rotate participation throughout the years and that there are also familiar faces, and its great to see them both) I am grateful to the German Chapter for hosting us this year, and also to all the volunteers who are willing to donate their time to participate. Looking forward to seeing you all next week! Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees On 02 Apr 2014, at 19:15, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/04/2014, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters, and to get an insight into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be done face-to-face. In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is for? Chris This question neatly demonstrates the fundamental issue for me. I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the employees are being paid for their time rather than going as volunteers). If the key benefit claimed is to do social networking, it should be recognized that all the same faces will be at Wikimania London in 4 months, and socializing is part of the defined benefits of Wikimania. Considering the conference is a week away and it appears that flights and accommodation have been paid for, re-framing this as good news, rather than admitting it is a problem, appears to be replacing pragmatism with sophistry. Fae (writing from the grave) -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the employees are being paid for their time rather than going as volunteers). Just to be clear, I know what the benefits we will get out of it are, and I can tell you the direction that I would like the conference to take in future; I'm just wondering whether others have the same perception. This is not a new question, as Nathan has pointed out, and he is probably right to say it is best to continue it here; https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference Chris ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
Yes, finally the discussion we need! Pity that it happens only one week before the conference itself. My point of view: We have different types of conference: GLAMCamp, EduWiki, Wikimania, whatever. Beside Wikimania, which is quite a fruit salad of topics and themes and seen as *the* gathering of the global Wikimedia community, all of thoses confereces have quite a special, limited scope. I see the Wikimedia Conference as the highly political, meta level conference. This is the only meeting in the year where we can discuss governance, strategy, movement politics issues only, excluding all the programmatic work. As it is the only meeting of this type during the year, at least a part of the programme team tried to keep all the sessions in this meta scope. We felt a need for those topics, which can't be discussed at those other meetings. Obviously, it doesn't seem to be so clear for many people. Maybe the majority even thinks that we don't even need that type of conference. Who knows.., all discussion adressing this issue fizzled out in the last three past. However, please think about this! It's important. At the conference we'll have a special session about this, the session is called actually Future of the Wikimedia Conference. We need input from everyone to see how we should continue and what should happen next year. Best Cornelius Cornelius Kibelka Twitter: @jaancornelius Mobile:+351-91-9860232 (Vodafone PT) German number currently offline On 2 April 2014 19:16, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the employees are being paid for their time rather than going as volunteers). Just to be clear, I know what the benefits we will get out of it are, and I can tell you the direction that I would like the conference to take in future; I'm just wondering whether others have the same perception. This is not a new question, as Nathan has pointed out, and he is probably right to say it is best to continue it here; https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference Chris ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
I'm not sure that people think the conference is unnecessary; I think it has value. It is, however, the only one of all those listed for which almost everyone is explicitly excluded and cannot attend - even though I can think of several who have strong interest in movement governance and strategy. It's a heavily publicly discussed meeting to which 99.9998% of Wikimedians are unwelcome - and yes, that's the way it comes across. The movement has failed if the only way to participate in group discussions on movement governance is to (1) create a chapter or thorg, (2) become an executive or employee of one and (3) be granted authority to attend this conference. Those are very big hoops to jump through in order for non-aligned Wikimedians and movement participants/supporters to participate in the discussion. Risker/anne On 2 April 2014 14:32, Cornelius Kibelka jckibe...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, finally the discussion we need! Pity that it happens only one week before the conference itself. My point of view: We have different types of conference: GLAMCamp, EduWiki, Wikimania, whatever. Beside Wikimania, which is quite a fruit salad of topics and themes and seen as *the* gathering of the global Wikimedia community, all of thoses confereces have quite a special, limited scope. I see the Wikimedia Conference as the highly political, meta level conference. This is the only meeting in the year where we can discuss governance, strategy, movement politics issues only, excluding all the programmatic work. As it is the only meeting of this type during the year, at least a part of the programme team tried to keep all the sessions in this meta scope. We felt a need for those topics, which can't be discussed at those other meetings. Obviously, it doesn't seem to be so clear for many people. Maybe the majority even thinks that we don't even need that type of conference. Who knows.., all discussion adressing this issue fizzled out in the last three past. However, please think about this! It's important. At the conference we'll have a special session about this, the session is called actually Future of the Wikimedia Conference. We need input from everyone to see how we should continue and what should happen next year. Best Cornelius Cornelius Kibelka Twitter: @jaancornelius Mobile:+351-91-9860232 (Vodafone PT) German number currently offline On 2 April 2014 19:16, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the employees are being paid for their time rather than going as volunteers). Just to be clear, I know what the benefits we will get out of it are, and I can tell you the direction that I would like the conference to take in future; I'm just wondering whether others have the same perception. This is not a new question, as Nathan has pointed out, and he is probably right to say it is best to continue it here; https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference Chris ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFuture_of_the_Wikimedia_Conferencediff=5611433oldid=5611349 imo. Vince 2014-04-02 20:32 GMT+02:00 Cornelius Kibelka jckibe...@gmail.com: Yes, finally the discussion we need! Pity that it happens only one week before the conference itself. My point of view: We have different types of conference: GLAMCamp, EduWiki, Wikimania, whatever. Beside Wikimania, which is quite a fruit salad of topics and themes and seen as *the* gathering of the global Wikimedia community, all of thoses confereces have quite a special, limited scope. I see the Wikimedia Conference as the highly political, meta level conference. This is the only meeting in the year where we can discuss governance, strategy, movement politics issues only, excluding all the programmatic work. As it is the only meeting of this type during the year, at least a part of the programme team tried to keep all the sessions in this meta scope. We felt a need for those topics, which can't be discussed at those other meetings. Obviously, it doesn't seem to be so clear for many people. Maybe the majority even thinks that we don't even need that type of conference. Who knows.., all discussion adressing this issue fizzled out in the last three past. However, please think about this! It's important. At the conference we'll have a special session about this, the session is called actually Future of the Wikimedia Conference. We need input from everyone to see how we should continue and what should happen next year. Best Cornelius Cornelius Kibelka Twitter: @jaancornelius Mobile:+351-91-9860232 (Vodafone PT) German number currently offline On 2 April 2014 19:16, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the employees are being paid for their time rather than going as volunteers). Just to be clear, I know what the benefits we will get out of it are, and I can tell you the direction that I would like the conference to take in future; I'm just wondering whether others have the same perception. This is not a new question, as Nathan has pointed out, and he is probably right to say it is best to continue it here; https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference Chris ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking, nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be consensus about the purpose of the conference. And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from representatives to delegation, which fit the case better), but not the only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others. The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their decision on that is something which worries me more, I think. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters, and to get an insight into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be done face-to-face. In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is for? Chris On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will) 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de: Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :) May I say? Please come by also at the conference. I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw) but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply Wrong(TM) to me. For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public, everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting (e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always have some bystanders (this includes the occasional I am painter, why I don't have my Wikipedia page?) and, to date, our assemblies have never being flooded by strangers :-). Moreover, for the sake of bias and over-representation I think that this will not be of much more impact than the fact of chosing to hold the event itself in Berlin. Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference) and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of the attendee ratio have been put up on Meta. Following that, there have been discussions about which groups to invite (recognised, non-recognised), but not a single one about the number of attendees - although it has always been asked for input. Our main drive behind opening up was that we felt the 2(+1) rule is kind of outdated, and it makes sense to have people sent those representatives who they really believe need to be there. Either as a contributing or a profiting attendee, but of course focussing on the topics that are covered in the conference themes. This is also why my colleagues from the event team only opened the registration _after_ the rough outline of the programme has been published by the programme team. As for the broader topic about the purpose, scope and future of the WMCON, I think it does make sense to discuss this on-list (or better wiki) before the event. An exchange of arguments and possible solutions is welcome, those can be used to prepare for the session at WMCON. I am definitely glad that we now have this discussion and I like to hear more of people's thoughts. As for the broader, broader topic that for example Risker mentions above, I hope that the Chapters Dialogue will be able to provide insights and food for thought. The presentation at the WMCON and the extensive documentation that will be provided on-wiki afterwards, can help foster these discussions on those movement related issues. Again, I am glad that the pre-conference has now been initiated and that we can use the following days to get in the right mood for the conference weekend. Thanks and best regards, Nicole On 2 April 2014 22:18, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking, nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be consensus about the purpose of the conference. And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from representatives to delegation, which fit the case better), but not the only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others. The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their decision on that is something which worries me more, I think. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters, and to get an insight into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be done face-to-face. In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is for? Chris On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will) 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de: Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :) May I say? Please come by also at the conference. I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw) but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply Wrong(TM) to me. For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public, everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting (e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always have some bystanders (this includes the occasional I am painter, why I don't have my Wikipedia page?) and, to date, our assemblies have never being flooded by strangers :-). Moreover, for the sake of bias and over-representation I think that this will not be of much more impact than the fact of chosing to hold the event itself in Berlin. Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just around the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into consideration for future planning. Risker/Anne On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de wrote: Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference) and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of the attendee ratio have been put up on Meta. Following that, there have been discussions about which groups to invite (recognised, non-recognised), but not a single one about the number of attendees - although it has always been asked for input. Our main drive behind opening up was that we felt the 2(+1) rule is kind of outdated, and it makes sense to have people sent those representatives who they really believe need to be there. Either as a contributing or a profiting attendee, but of course focussing on the topics that are covered in the conference themes. This is also why my colleagues from the event team only opened the registration _after_ the rough outline of the programme has been published by the programme team. As for the broader topic about the purpose, scope and future of the WMCON, I think it does make sense to discuss this on-list (or better wiki) before the event. An exchange of arguments and possible solutions is welcome, those can be used to prepare for the session at WMCON. I am definitely glad that we now have this discussion and I like to hear more of people's thoughts. As for the broader, broader topic that for example Risker mentions above, I hope that the Chapters Dialogue will be able to provide insights and food for thought. The presentation at the WMCON and the extensive documentation that will be provided on-wiki afterwards, can help foster these discussions on those movement related issues. Again, I am glad that the pre-conference has now been initiated and that we can use the following days to get in the right mood for the conference weekend. Thanks and best regards, Nicole On 2 April 2014 22:18, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking, nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be consensus about the purpose of the conference. And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from representatives to delegation, which fit the case better), but not the only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others. The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their decision on that is something which worries me more, I think. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters, and to get an insight into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be done face-to-face. In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is for? Chris On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will) 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de: Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :) May I say? Please come by also at the conference. I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw) but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply Wrong(TM) to me. For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public, everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting (e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always have some bystanders (this includes the occasional I am painter, why I don't have my
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
Right, sorry, what I meant was that these arguments can be collected for the preparation of the Future of the WMCON session at WMCON itself, not for changing the current setting. Nicole On 2 April 2014 23:14, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just around the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into consideration for future planning. Risker/Anne On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de wrote: Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference) and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of the attendee ratio have been put up on Meta. Following that, there have been discussions about which groups to invite (recognised, non-recognised), but not a single one about the number of attendees - although it has always been asked for input. Our main drive behind opening up was that we felt the 2(+1) rule is kind of outdated, and it makes sense to have people sent those representatives who they really believe need to be there. Either as a contributing or a profiting attendee, but of course focussing on the topics that are covered in the conference themes. This is also why my colleagues from the event team only opened the registration _after_ the rough outline of the programme has been published by the programme team. As for the broader topic about the purpose, scope and future of the WMCON, I think it does make sense to discuss this on-list (or better wiki) before the event. An exchange of arguments and possible solutions is welcome, those can be used to prepare for the session at WMCON. I am definitely glad that we now have this discussion and I like to hear more of people's thoughts. As for the broader, broader topic that for example Risker mentions above, I hope that the Chapters Dialogue will be able to provide insights and food for thought. The presentation at the WMCON and the extensive documentation that will be provided on-wiki afterwards, can help foster these discussions on those movement related issues. Again, I am glad that the pre-conference has now been initiated and that we can use the following days to get in the right mood for the conference weekend. Thanks and best regards, Nicole On 2 April 2014 22:18, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking, nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be consensus about the purpose of the conference. And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from representatives to delegation, which fit the case better), but not the only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others. The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their decision on that is something which worries me more, I think. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters, and to get an insight into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be done face-to-face. In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is for? Chris On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will) 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de: Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :) May I say? Please come by also at the conference. I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw) but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply Wrong(TM) to me. For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)
I appreciate your clarification, Nicole - thanks. There is a certain irony in the fact that those who are making the argument that there should be some rethinking of the future of the WMCON are all (as best I can tell) people who will not be present. I hope that those who are present will be able to adequately voice ideas other than the status quo. Risker/Anne On 2 April 2014 17:17, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de wrote: Right, sorry, what I meant was that these arguments can be collected for the preparation of the Future of the WMCON session at WMCON itself, not for changing the current setting. Nicole On 2 April 2014 23:14, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just around the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into consideration for future planning. Risker/Anne On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de wrote: Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference) and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of the attendee ratio have been put up on Meta. Following that, there have been discussions about which groups to invite (recognised, non-recognised), but not a single one about the number of attendees - although it has always been asked for input. Our main drive behind opening up was that we felt the 2(+1) rule is kind of outdated, and it makes sense to have people sent those representatives who they really believe need to be there. Either as a contributing or a profiting attendee, but of course focussing on the topics that are covered in the conference themes. This is also why my colleagues from the event team only opened the registration _after_ the rough outline of the programme has been published by the programme team. As for the broader topic about the purpose, scope and future of the WMCON, I think it does make sense to discuss this on-list (or better wiki) before the event. An exchange of arguments and possible solutions is welcome, those can be used to prepare for the session at WMCON. I am definitely glad that we now have this discussion and I like to hear more of people's thoughts. As for the broader, broader topic that for example Risker mentions above, I hope that the Chapters Dialogue will be able to provide insights and food for thought. The presentation at the WMCON and the extensive documentation that will be provided on-wiki afterwards, can help foster these discussions on those movement related issues. Again, I am glad that the pre-conference has now been initiated and that we can use the following days to get in the right mood for the conference weekend. Thanks and best regards, Nicole On 2 April 2014 22:18, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking, nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be consensus about the purpose of the conference. And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from representatives to delegation, which fit the case better), but not the only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others. The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their decision on that is something which worries me more, I think. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters, and to get an insight into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be done face-to-face. In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is for? Chris On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will) 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de: Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening events at least. :) May I
