On 2 June 2014 14:38, Jon Davies wrote:
> £2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me
> £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken
>
>
>
These things are hard to calculate. You could however get a Canon EF 180mm
f/3.5L Macro and a Tamron 150-600mm for that
Hoi.
The core mission of our projects is to share in the sum of all knowledge.
Gender gap and number of long time editors are, while important, a side
show. This was a conference with a specific public in mind and all about
chapters and their best practices. It is equally a side show. For diversit
Gerard,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Russavia,
> Do you remember like me reading why these people came to this conference?
> In that light, do your remarks provide us with any connection to these
> objectives? .Do you know the topics of the presentations given? Do you
In short, because that's what UK charity best practice, outlined in the
SORP, says we have to do when preparing accounts. Every charity in the UK
does this because our regulator believes it's the most transparent way of
doing things.
Basically, if people go as trustees, it's a governance cost. Oth
On 2 Jun 2014, at 13:27, Jon Davies wrote:
> So for trustee expenses: not all of the board went as trustees, as two (at
> least) were invited as speakers - reporting that as a trustee cost wouldn't
> be accurate. As to staff – I attended as the Chief Executive, but the other
> two staff were als
Russavia,
Do you remember like me reading why these people came to this conference?
In that light, do your remarks provide us with any connection to these
objectives? .Do you know the topics of the presentations given? Do you know
the topics of the conversations that happened inside and outside the
Jon,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jon Davies
wrote:
> £2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me
> £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken
>
And I can tell you that the conference hasn't resulted in a single new
long-term editor on our projects, did
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jon Davies
wrote:
> £2600 for everything. Got to get on! Don't want to get accused of hogging
> the lists!
>
>
Thanks Jon! Sorry for my confusion, appreciate the response. (And its a new
month, and a new posting limit!).
___
£2600 for everything. Got to get on! Don't want to get accused of hogging
the lists!
On 2 June 2014 14:48, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jon Davies
> wrote:
>
> > £2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me
> > £120 to come and tell me my dishwas
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jon Davies
wrote:
> £2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me
> £120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken
>
>
>
Perhaps I misunderstood - £2600 is the total for all WMUK expenditures for
all attendees? Or just your own? (An
£2600, our current estimate, seems good value. Some bloke is charging me
£120 to come and tell me my dishwasher is broken
On 2 June 2014 14:35, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Jon Davies
> wrote:
>
> > There is no intention to hide the costs to the chapter of the Chapter's
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Jon Davies
wrote:
> There is no intention to hide the costs to the chapter of the Chapter's
> involvement in the Wikiconference Berlin, but it is not a simple
> calculation.
>
> One person was asking for trustee expenses, others are asking how much we
> (WMUK) spen
There is no intention to hide the costs to the chapter of the Chapter's
involvement in the Wikiconference Berlin, but it is not a simple
calculation.
One person was asking for trustee expenses, others are asking how much we
(WMUK) spent on the entire conference (including staff, volunteers,
speake
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Russavia
wrote:
>
>
> I have read the links that you have provided and I find it totally
> unacceptable that an organisation can not provide costs for sending 8
> people on a junket to New York.
>
> When I have operated businesses in the real world, I have been able
Hoi,
No need to drop dead. What I want you to take is more positive role, I said
as much.. I want you to try the role of an elder statesman.. Their
influence is because of their positive comments and their insight and help
move things forward smoothly.
You may try to assume you had a humble role b
On 1 June 2014 10:53, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> charge and let others get on where you stopped being the "big" man ?
I was never the "big man". I have only ever been an unpaid volunteer
like everyone else.
> is a Dutch proverb.. "you attempt to rule from the grave" and people think
I am not goin
Hoi,
There are two types of cost. There is money and there is attention to
people. As far as I am concerned you are a previous big shot of the English
chapter and you did not get your way in everything or things moved on.
Apparently you have a big problem with that because you can not leave off.
Yo
Fae,
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Fæ wrote:
> On 2 April 2014 16:12, Jon Davies wrote:
> ...
> > This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
>
> I can now confirm that Wikimedia UK is not going to make a public
> report of the total costs of sending 8 people to the Wikimedia
> C
On 2 April 2014 16:12, Jon Davies wrote:
...
> This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
I can now confirm that Wikimedia UK is not going to make a public
report of the total costs of sending 8 people to the Wikimedia
Conference 2014. I doubt that Jon Davies' wish to reduce costs ca
(my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will)
2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best :
> 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
How about expanding its scope but alternating it with Wikimania, so one
every other year?
This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?
On 2 April 2014 15:59, Risker wrote:
> I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement
> members who would be interested i
I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement
members who would be interested in attending this conference, but it is
intended to be a very limited one. Several of the topics (Conflict of
Interest, Meet the Trustees, Lessons learnt on huge projects, How to
measure blood,
But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good
arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole
thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such
things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such
lists, but o
I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big
criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of
the concept of the conference.
Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending in conferences - and we don't
limit the number of people who can come to Wiki
Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the
majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list my
view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that
regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it'
Hoi,
There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There
is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money
involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where t
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't
necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or
Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe
that funds received through the APG process
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right, engagement
on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the
right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent more
then 2+1. There were few people wh
I agree with Nicole.
There is definitely a conversation to be had about the purpose of the
Wikimedia Conference and how the movement gets the most out of it.
That is quite a broad question, but once it is answered then there will be
a clear answer about how many people should or can be allowed to
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some
activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that
I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like
conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding
programme decisions, sch
Hoi,
Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best
expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not implicit
This is totally surprise for me. I checked the last years participation
lists, and none of the chapters sent more than 2+1 representatives. The
idea all this years was very simple: to keep the conference small as
possible in order to have effective discussions, and to allow all the
chapter to be eq
ia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014
On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies wrote:
...
> For the record we have people going for four reasons:
>
>- CEO and Chair as standard
>- Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations o
You are right - eight. as Chris is going as well. The reasons remain the
same.
On 31 March 2014 17:00, Fæ wrote:
> On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies wrote:
> ...
> > For the record we have people going for four reasons:
> >
> >- CEO and Chair as standard
> >- Two staff and one truste
On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies wrote:
...
> For the record we have people going for four reasons:
>
>- CEO and Chair as standard
>- Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
>of strength in the chapter.
>- Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actu
A few points.
There is no policy to restrict participation to three representatives.
Indeed, many chapters are sending more than three delegates as has been the
case in previous years.
For the record we have people going for four reasons:
- CEO and Chair as standard
- Two staff and one tru
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
> My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they
> spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this
> at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point her
On 31 March 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
...
> Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"?
> Thanks,
Thanks Gerard, I'll return to being dead and buried now.
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
Hoi,
Fae what I object to is assuming going to a conference with " too big" a
delegation is a waste of money by definition. In your reply you mention *
you were a chair of the chapter and, * you do not know Katherine Ruth.
Given that you were the chair of the chapter, you should be happy new
people
Please note that this year the invitation to the conference states
"Organizations
who would like to send more than two persons will have to book and pay for
all their travel and accommodation themselves." -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Registration -
There is no more a
2014-03-31 11:47 GMT+02:00 Fæ :
> This seems to not be the case
> looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive
> party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania representatives), significantly
> larger than any other Chapter or Thorg.
Well, the question then is "can WM-UK explain
On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary
> consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend
> because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out
> of kilter.
>
>
I don't think the costs are the issue here, neither if there is streaming
or not (and I don't think we need to have one. It's WMCconf, not Wikimania).
But we have strict rule - two representatives, 3 if you have ED. I also saw
that some chapters have more than that, and I really don't know why. If
Hoi,
When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary
consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend
because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out
of kilter.
Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a poin
On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the
> opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow
> you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right
> people go for the right re
On 03/31/2014 08:23 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> That seems niether all that surprising nor all that costly
Oh, D'oh! Wrong conference!
Ignore me, and move along. :-)
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscrib
On 03/31/2014 05:47 AM, Fæ wrote:
> with the UK sending a massive
> party of 8 people
That seems niether all that surprising nor all that costly; obviously
the cost of sending UK members to London will be considerably cheaper
than from anywhere else (and, indeed, some of those may well be local to
Hoi,
Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the
opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow
you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right
people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.
Cost is only one criteria t
Re: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014
I had thought that to ensure the cost of the conference was kept to a
healthy level that organizations would send no more than 2
representatives plus one optional guest. This seems to not be the case
looking at the proposed attendee lis
49 matches
Mail list logo
