Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gnangarra]

Pete

We realise what the foundation was thinking in its response, I wasnt
looking to be negative about the  reasonings rather just pointing out that
the community has already gone the path of a National event, and we'll be
doing so again.

The problem isnt just the connections within our community they always need
improving, the issue we face is that our community is physically isolated
from the rest of the global community as well that is as critical for its
future development as anything. Wikimanias are still the best way to share
information across the whole of the community every project that I have run
here in Australia has been as a result of the information I learnt while
attending Wikimanias, I must say that I learnt alot thanks to WMUK when I
was in London for the Wikimania both practical and how important the
personal connections we make within the community are.

Having experienced that I want to get that same opportunity to Australia
given how few of our contributors get the chance to attend them even more
so given that no one from Australia was given the opportunity to connect in
Mexico where this decision was taken is even more distasteful.

On 10 October 2015 at 09:06, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> I'm not sure what you mean by "knocked back," Gnangarra, but the WMF
> response to that grant proposal looks thoughtful and aimed at finding a
> viable solution at some point in the future.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Australia_2015#WMF_comments
>
> Andy Mabbett, your perspective is a valuable one. I agree that Wikimania in
> its existing form may not be of central importance to the movement, and I
> do think that treating it as such has the potential to unnecessarily
> elevate the emotional pitch of some of these discussions.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why not organise WikiOz, or WikiOceana?
> > > ​​
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ​We tried that
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Australia_2015
> > a​nd
> > was knocked back for the funding needed to make it happen.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ​be fon​
> > >
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > Vice President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pete Forsyth]

I'm not sure what you mean by "knocked back," Gnangarra, but the WMF
response to that grant proposal looks thoughtful and aimed at finding a
viable solution at some point in the future.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Australia_2015#WMF_comments

Andy Mabbett, your perspective is a valuable one. I agree that Wikimania in
its existing form may not be of central importance to the movement, and I
do think that treating it as such has the potential to unnecessarily
elevate the emotional pitch of some of these discussions.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> > Why not organise WikiOz, or WikiOceana?
> > ​​
> >
> >
>
> ​We tried that
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Australia_2015
> a​nd
> was knocked back for the funding needed to make it happen.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > ​be fon​
> >
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> Vice President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gnangarra]

>
>
>
> Why not organise WikiOz, or WikiOceana?
> ​​
>
>

​We tried that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_AU/Wikiconference_Australia_2015
a​nd
was knocked back for the funding needed to make it happen.


>
> --
> ​be fon​
>
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Andy Mabbett]

On 6 October 2015 at 01:56, Gnangarra  wrote:

> the wording is unhappy because I'm unhappy with the process and
> there is nothing public about Montreal even being on the radar for
> Wikimania

I can understand your frustration, and to a degree share it.

Perhaps its time to take a sideways step, and not let Wikimania be
such a big thing? As I type, WikiConUSA is running, and earlier this
year I was honoured to be invited to speak at WikiArabia's first such
event.

The OSM community also has both an international event (State of the
Map; not held this year) and regional equivalents (State of the Map
US; State of the Map Scotland, etc)

Perhaps the future for the Wikimedia movement is national or
continent- focussed events, with more occasional Wikimanias? Flying
speakers in, if need be, but addressing a more local audience, many of
whom would not get to attend Wikimania?

Why not organise WikiOz, or WikiOceana?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Florence Devouard]

Le 04/10/15 21:03, Fæ a écrit :

On 4 October 2015 at 18:48, Pavel Richter  wrote:
...

Let's face some truths here:
5. Dear Wikimania Committee: Your communication of thi
s whole thing
sucked
, big time.
Consider yourself scolded. Move on.


BACKGROUND

Well, yes Pavel, of course "we" are going to move on. It's the old
overused mantra of every time there is a blunder "it's in the past
community, move along now". The problem is we should be able to also
*see* measurable non-subjective changes and improvement to the way
things are done, increasing transparency and putting the volunteer at
the center of decision making, even if resources and most of the work
are paid positions.

I really liked the early reply and effective apology by Florence:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079256.html

But I found the response by the current Chair of the committee
unconvincing. The attempt to change thread title and move to a far
less subscribed email group, shows how the strategy is a quick
political "nothing to see here" rather than leadership that shows
active learning and openness:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079273.html

CONCLUSION

It would be super if Florence would consider temporarily taking over as
Chair, or starting a public process to ensure some new faces in the
next few months, including a change of the Chairman. This would show
the Committee recognizes this was a real serious failure which should
see proportionate changes of roles on the Committee. If everything
stays exactly the same for the next six months, then this would show
the Committee is more interested in protecting itself, than ensuring
that the unpaid volunteer and community consensus is central to the
way this process *should* be seen to work, and in line with the
original mandate for the Committee itself.


Hello

I appreciate the thought Fae. But I must face my own limitations :)
I already struggle to keep up with my current commitments. It would not 
be wise and fair to anyone interested and/or impacted in that process to 
do that.


However, I do recognize that the lack of responsiveness of the Chair is 
an issue. I will bring this to the table at next meeting. It may also be 
that new faces be necessary. Since there will be an open discussion on 
Wikimania in a few weeks, I suggest that this point be raised and that 
any interested volunteer... raises his/her hand (that person should be a 
seasoned wikimedian and should not be a newbie with regards to Wikimania 
please).



Ant



P.S. were I the current Chair, I think I would publicly apologise to
Montreal before stepping down. The way this has been stitched up
behind closed doors is probably an very unfair way for their hosting
of Wikimania to be seen to start off. Most unfortunate.

Thanks,
Fae






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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Joseph Fox]

My argument to that is that eventually we'd be in the situation where no
bids are viable. The proposed rotation system would hopefully provide
enough prep time to alleviate that.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 at 16:07 Gnangarra  wrote:

> On 7 October 2015 at 22:54, Joseph Fox  wrote:
>
> > Any way one tries to obtain a representative sample of something, it's
> > never going to be totally representative. We are a massive, massive
> > community, and I'm really not sure direct democracy works in this
> instance.
> > This isn't a problem with Wikimania selection but rather with politics.
> >
> > What would be best: A group of users selecting locations for an annual
> > conference, a jury that is voted in, or just putting the conference
> > locations up for a general vote among the community? I for one would
> rather
> > a small collection of people who have experience with Wikimania, and what
> > makes for a good conference, make the final call—elected or otherwise.
> >
>
> ​thats what we had people suggested places and put together a proposal as
> to why their location.  A jury was selected, the bids where then discussed
> and further developed in depth at the end the jury chose the best
> available​. It took from September to December for the public process,
> those who really wanted the event spent time preparing for the process.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I feel this conversation is getting somewhat tangled at this point.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > --
> ​Gnangarra
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gnangarra]

On 7 October 2015 at 22:54, Joseph Fox  wrote:

> Any way one tries to obtain a representative sample of something, it's
> never going to be totally representative. We are a massive, massive
> community, and I'm really not sure direct democracy works in this instance.
> This isn't a problem with Wikimania selection but rather with politics.
>
> What would be best: A group of users selecting locations for an annual
> conference, a jury that is voted in, or just putting the conference
> locations up for a general vote among the community? I for one would rather
> a small collection of people who have experience with Wikimania, and what
> makes for a good conference, make the final call—elected or otherwise.
>

​thats what we had people suggested places and put together a proposal as
to why their location.  A jury was selected, the bids where then discussed
and further developed in depth at the end the jury chose the best
available​. It took from September to December for the public process,
those who really wanted the event spent time preparing for the process.




>
> I feel this conversation is getting somewhat tangled at this point.
>
> Joe
>
> --
​Gnangarra
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You may, but you will only get a subset of the people who have an opinion
going there. Common sense also dictates that you have to see the limit of
what you propose in the sense of who you will reach.

I for one read this thread and will not go to Meta.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 7 October 2015 at 16:35, Steinsplitter Wiki 
wrote:

> You can post on VP that there is such a poll on :m:
>
> Common sense.
>
> > From: richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
> > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:39:11 +0100
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> >
> > Steinsplitter, with respect (and I mean that!), I don't think a poll on
> > meta would be enough. For something this big, either we get the views of
> > the community as a whole - including those who don't read meta - or we
> come
> > up with another way (eg a committee). A small poll on meta would not be
> > representative enough.
> >
> > Richard Symonds
> > Wikimedia UK
> > 0207 065 0992
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> 4LT.
> > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> >
> > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> >
> > On 7 October 2015 at 12:04, Steinsplitter Wiki <
> steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > A small poll on meta would be enough.
> > >
> > > > From: josephfoxw...@gmail.com
> > > > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:14:59 +
> > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> Signpost
> > > >
> > > > If you want the views of everyone on every project... then yes, I do.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 20:14 MF-Warburg 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000
> people?
> > > > > Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox"  >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > > > > > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized.
> They no
> > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > care about the community, even if there is huge community
> consensus
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the
> > > > > > community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While I agree it's important to sort things with the community
> (since
> > > > > that
> > > > > > is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting
> that
> > > it's
> > > > > > easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people
> > > rather
> > > > > > than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am disappointed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> > > > > > > > From: nawr...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> > > Signpost
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that
> > > Montreal
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret
> > > process
> > > > > that
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Joseph Fox]

Any way one tries to obtain a representative sample of something, it's
never going to be totally representative. We are a massive, massive
community, and I'm really not sure direct democracy works in this instance.
This isn't a problem with Wikimania selection but rather with politics.

What would be best: A group of users selecting locations for an annual
conference, a jury that is voted in, or just putting the conference
locations up for a general vote among the community? I for one would rather
a small collection of people who have experience with Wikimania, and what
makes for a good conference, make the final call—elected or otherwise.

I feel this conversation is getting somewhat tangled at this point.

Joe

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 at 15:48 MF-Warburg  wrote:

> Are you familiar with Board elections? Those where seats are elected by the
> community??
> Am 07.10.2015 16:41 schrieb "Richard Symonds" <
> richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk>:
>
> > True, but not everyone reads the VP on each project: take Wikidata for
> > example. There are a fair few people who don't read it at all! A mass
> > message would be better, an email or banner to people better still - but
> it
> > depends on who exactly you want the opinion of! "Community" is a big term
> > :-)
> >
> > Richard Symonds
> > Wikimedia UK
> > 0207 065 0992
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> 4LT.
> > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> >
> > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> >
> > On 7 October 2015 at 15:35, Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You can post on VP that there is such a poll on :m:
> > >
> > > Common sense.
> > >
> > > > From: richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
> > > > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:39:11 +0100
> > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> > Signpost
> > > >
> > > > Steinsplitter, with respect (and I mean that!), I don't think a poll
> on
> > > > meta would be enough. For something this big, either we get the views
> > of
> > > > the community as a whole - including those who don't read meta - or
> we
> > > come
> > > > up with another way (eg a committee). A small poll on meta would not
> be
> > > > representative enough.
> > > >
> > > > Richard Symonds
> > > > Wikimedia UK
> > > > 0207 065 0992
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
> > and
> > > > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
> > Registered
> > > > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London
> EC2A
> > > 4LT.
> > > > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > > > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
> > (who
> > > > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> > > >
> > > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> > control
> > > > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> > > >
> > > > On 7 October 2015 at 12:04, Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A small poll on meta would be enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: josephfoxw...@gmail.com
> > > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:14:59 +
> > > > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> > > Signpost
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want the views of everyone on every project... then yes, I
> > do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 20:14 MF-Warburg  >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you really believe the community consists of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[MF-Warburg]

Are you familiar with Board elections? Those where seats are elected by the
community??
Am 07.10.2015 16:41 schrieb "Richard Symonds" <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk>:

> True, but not everyone reads the VP on each project: take Wikidata for
> example. There are a fair few people who don't read it at all! A mass
> message would be better, an email or banner to people better still - but it
> depends on who exactly you want the opinion of! "Community" is a big term
> :-)
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
>
> On 7 October 2015 at 15:35, Steinsplitter Wiki <
> steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You can post on VP that there is such a poll on :m:
> >
> > Common sense.
> >
> > > From: richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
> > > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:39:11 +0100
> > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> Signpost
> > >
> > > Steinsplitter, with respect (and I mean that!), I don't think a poll on
> > > meta would be enough. For something this big, either we get the views
> of
> > > the community as a whole - including those who don't read meta - or we
> > come
> > > up with another way (eg a committee). A small poll on meta would not be
> > > representative enough.
> > >
> > > Richard Symonds
> > > Wikimedia UK
> > > 0207 065 0992
> > >
> > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
> and
> > > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
> Registered
> > > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> > 4LT.
> > > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
> (who
> > > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> control
> > > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> > >
> > > On 7 October 2015 at 12:04, Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A small poll on meta would be enough.
> > > >
> > > > > From: josephfoxw...@gmail.com
> > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:14:59 +
> > > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> > Signpost
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want the views of everyone on every project... then yes, I
> do.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 20:14 MF-Warburg 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000
> > people?
> > > > > > Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox" <
> josephfoxw...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > > > > > > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized.
> > They no
> > > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > care about the community, even if there is huge community
> > consensus
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask
> the
> > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While I agree it's im

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Richard Symonds]

True, but not everyone reads the VP on each project: take Wikidata for
example. There are a fair few people who don't read it at all! A mass
message would be better, an email or banner to people better still - but it
depends on who exactly you want the opinion of! "Community" is a big term
:-)

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 7 October 2015 at 15:35, Steinsplitter Wiki 
wrote:

> You can post on VP that there is such a poll on :m:
>
> Common sense.
>
> > From: richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
> > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:39:11 +0100
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> >
> > Steinsplitter, with respect (and I mean that!), I don't think a poll on
> > meta would be enough. For something this big, either we get the views of
> > the community as a whole - including those who don't read meta - or we
> come
> > up with another way (eg a committee). A small poll on meta would not be
> > representative enough.
> >
> > Richard Symonds
> > Wikimedia UK
> > 0207 065 0992
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> 4LT.
> > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> >
> > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> >
> > On 7 October 2015 at 12:04, Steinsplitter Wiki <
> steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > A small poll on meta would be enough.
> > >
> > > > From: josephfoxw...@gmail.com
> > > > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:14:59 +
> > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> Signpost
> > > >
> > > > If you want the views of everyone on every project... then yes, I do.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 20:14 MF-Warburg 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000
> people?
> > > > > Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox"  >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > > > > > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized.
> They no
> > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > care about the community, even if there is huge community
> consensus
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the
> > > > > > community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While I agree it's important to sort things with the community
> (since
> > > > > that
> > > > > > is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting
> that
> > > it's
> > > > > > easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people
> > > rather
> > > > > > than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am disappointed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> > > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

You can post on VP that there is such a poll on :m:

Common sense.

> From: richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:39:11 +0100
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> 
> Steinsplitter, with respect (and I mean that!), I don't think a poll on
> meta would be enough. For something this big, either we get the views of
> the community as a whole - including those who don't read meta - or we come
> up with another way (eg a committee). A small poll on meta would not be
> representative enough.
> 
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
> 
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> 
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> 
> On 7 October 2015 at 12:04, Steinsplitter Wiki 
> wrote:
> 
> > A small poll on meta would be enough.
> >
> > > From: josephfoxw...@gmail.com
> > > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:14:59 +0000
> > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> > >
> > > If you want the views of everyone on every project... then yes, I do.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 20:14 MF-Warburg  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000 people?
> > > > Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox" :
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > > > > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized. They no
> > > > > longer
> > > > > > care about the community, even if there is huge community consensus
> > > > about
> > > > > > something.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the
> > > > > community.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While I agree it's important to sort things with the community (since
> > > > that
> > > > > is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting that
> > it's
> > > > > easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people
> > rather
> > > > > than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am disappointed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> > > > > > > From: nawr...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> > Signpost
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that
> > Montreal
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret
> > process
> > > > that
> > > > > > > completed this past August. [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new
> > > > method
> > > > > > > before it was a done deal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~Nathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Richard Symonds]

Steinsplitter, with respect (and I mean that!), I don't think a poll on
meta would be enough. For something this big, either we get the views of
the community as a whole - including those who don't read meta - or we come
up with another way (eg a committee). A small poll on meta would not be
representative enough.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 7 October 2015 at 12:04, Steinsplitter Wiki 
wrote:

> A small poll on meta would be enough.
>
> > From: josephfoxw...@gmail.com
> > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:14:59 +
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> >
> > If you want the views of everyone on every project... then yes, I do.
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 20:14 MF-Warburg  wrote:
> >
> > > Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000 people?
> > > Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox" :
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > > > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized. They no
> > > > longer
> > > > > care about the community, even if there is huge community consensus
> > > about
> > > > > something.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the
> > > > community.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > While I agree it's important to sort things with the community (since
> > > that
> > > > is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting that
> it's
> > > > easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people
> rather
> > > > than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?
> > > >
> > > > Joe
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am disappointed
> > > > >
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> > > > > > From: nawr...@gmail.com
> > > > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by
> Signpost
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that
> Montreal
> > > > has
> > > > > > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret
> process
> > > that
> > > > > > completed this past August. [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new
> > > method
> > > > > > before it was a done deal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~Nathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > 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, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

A small poll on meta would be enough.

> From: josephfoxw...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:14:59 +
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> 
> If you want the views of everyone on every project... then yes, I do.
> 
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 20:14 MF-Warburg  wrote:
> 
> > Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000 people?
> > Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox" :
> >
> > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized. They no
> > > longer
> > > > care about the community, even if there is huge community consensus
> > about
> > > > something.
> > > >
> > > > Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the
> > > community.
> > > >
> > >
> > > While I agree it's important to sort things with the community (since
> > that
> > > is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting that it's
> > > easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people rather
> > > than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I am disappointed
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> > > > > From: nawr...@gmail.com
> > > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal
> > > has
> > > > > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process
> > that
> > > > > completed this past August. [1]
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new
> > method
> > > > > before it was a done deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Nathan
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > 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, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > <
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Gregory Varnum  wrote:
> Given that enWP alone has 123,540 active editors as of this morning,[1] it’s 
> not exactly a stretch…

What percentage of those are credible stakeholders in Wikimania?

How many are going to be eligible for Wikimania scholarships?

How many will attend a Wikimania?

Obviously a relative constant percentage will be attendees due to it
being very affordable to attend from their home.
This is an argument for ensuring the host cities are very
geographically diverse, but factoring in the size of the 'casual'
editor community who is likely to attend for this reason.

So, probably the most important question, depending on whether
Wikimania is to be a community event (which is up for debate)...

How many would fly to another country at their own expense to attend Wikimania?

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gregory Varnum]

Given that enWP alone has 123,540 active editors as of this morning,[1] it’s 
not exactly a stretch…

-greg

[1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias


> On Oct 6, 2015, at 3:14 PM, MF-Warburg  wrote:
> 
> Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000 people?
> Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox" :
> 
>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
>> steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
>>> 
>>> Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized. They no
>> longer
>>> care about the community, even if there is huge community consensus about
>>> something.
>>> 
>>> Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the
>> community.
>>> 
>> 
>> While I agree it's important to sort things with the community (since that
>> is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting that it's
>> easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people rather
>> than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I am disappointed
>>> 
>>>> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
>>>> From: nawr...@gmail.com
>>>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
>>>> 
>>>> Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal
>> has
>>>> been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
>>>> completed this past August. [1]
>>>> 
>>>> It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
>>>> before it was a done deal.
>>>> 
>>>> ~Nathan
>>>> 
>>>> [1]
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
>>>> ___
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> 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, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Joseph Fox]

If you want the views of everyone on every project... then yes, I do.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 20:14 MF-Warburg  wrote:

> Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000 people?
> Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox" :
>
> > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> > steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized. They no
> > longer
> > > care about the community, even if there is huge community consensus
> about
> > > something.
> > >
> > > Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the
> > community.
> > >
> >
> > While I agree it's important to sort things with the community (since
> that
> > is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting that it's
> > easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people rather
> > than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am disappointed
> > >
> > > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> > > > From: nawr...@gmail.com
> > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> > > >
> > > > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal
> > has
> > > > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process
> that
> > > > completed this past August. [1]
> > > >
> > > > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new
> method
> > > > before it was a done deal.
> > > >
> > > > ~Nathan
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[MF-Warburg]

Do you really believe the community consists of several 100.000 people?
Am 06.10.2015 21:01 schrieb "Joseph Fox" :

> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized. They no
> longer
> > care about the community, even if there is huge community consensus about
> > something.
> >
> > Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the
> community.
> >
>
> While I agree it's important to sort things with the community (since that
> is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting that it's
> easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people rather
> than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?
>
> Joe
>
>
> >
> > I am disappointed
> >
> > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> > > From: nawr...@gmail.com
> > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> > >
> > > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal
> has
> > > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
> > > completed this past August. [1]
> > >
> > > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
> > > before it was a done deal.
> > >
> > > ~Nathan
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Joseph Fox]

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 17:27 Steinsplitter Wiki 
wrote:

> To be honest: I am not surprised at all.
>
> Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized. They no longer
> care about the community, even if there is huge community consensus about
> something.
>
> Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the community.
>

While I agree it's important to sort things with the community (since that
is the lifeblood of the projects), are you seriously suggesting that it's
easier to gauge the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people rather
than make a decision in a smaller committee, secret or otherwise?

Joe


>
> I am disappointed
>
> > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> > From: nawr...@gmail.com
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> >
> > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
> > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
> > completed this past August. [1]
> >
> > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
> > before it was a done deal.
> >
> > ~Nathan
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

> I trust in a small number of capable and active people trusted with a
> concrete task.

Seriously? I trust the community. 

Imho the community has more trust then a small group of functionary's.


Apart from that, i agree with Steffen Prößdorf (thanks for posting your 
concerns).

--Stein

> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:33:01 +0200
> From: zvand...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> 
> 2015-10-05 18:16 GMT+02:00 Nathan :
> 
> > The WCA council was a bureaucratic mess that seemed almost doomed from its
> > inception. I think the comparison is inapt.
> >
> 
> No, there was hardly any "bureaucracy", the problem was that Council
> members did not met their tasks, did not show up at votings etc.
> 
> I trust in a small number of capable and active people trusted with a
> concrete task. That is realistic, that works. People get along the
> best and come to the best results when everybody knows about what is
> expected from them.
> 
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

To be honest: I am not surprised at all.

Wikimedia Foundation is becoming moor and moor centralized. They no longer care 
about the community, even if there is huge community consensus about something. 

Why is there a secret committee needed? It is easier to ask the community.

I am disappointed

> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:13:13 -0400
> From: nawr...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost
> 
> Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
> been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
> completed this past August. [1]
> 
> It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
> before it was a done deal.
> 
> ~Nathan
> 
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gnangarra]

On 6 October 2015 at 15:15, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Theoretically you are right, you COULD restart the process for a next year.
> That is quite a professional attitude. Ask yourself, is that the kind of
> effort you can ask of volunteers.. Be reasonable. It is too much effort for
> what benefit ?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
>
​Its not something you ask volunteers to do as such, its something that the
volunteers choose to do.  You go into it being optimistic of your chances
otherwise you wouldnt even be there knowing that its a fair transparent
selection process negates much of disappointment in missing out.

 Yes you can take what you've learnt and try again later, since 2008 Perth
& 2009 Brisbane bids it was very apparent that costs were an issue this
further compounded by the A$ being worth more than the US$, in the last 6
months that changed dramatically some of the underlying factors that added
to costs have also shifted. Accommodation is readily available, airfares
are down because the boom that triggered all of that is over supply is high
and demand is falling which means  Australia has a window of opportunity a
fix 3 year cycle remember that in fairness its doubtful that a region will
see two consecutive Wikimanias even at 3 years apart on rotation thats a 15
year cycle between opportunities for each supposed region yet North America
and Western Europe have a guaranteed opportunity every three years, you
dont build capacity, capabilities or create incentives when the cycle is
one opportunity in 15 years. Theres absolutely no ability to factor in once
off circumstances without cause more disharmony

Ultimately that core of local community volunteers on the ground willingly
engaged in the Event planning from the beginning is a critical factor that
this shift is over looking, its something that someone sitting in an office
in San Francisco can never replicate.



-- 
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Theoretically you are right, you COULD restart the process for a next year.
That is quite a professional attitude. Ask yourself, is that the kind of
effort you can ask of volunteers.. Be reasonable. It is too much effort for
what benefit ?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 6 October 2015 at 01:18, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> >I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's
> >just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's
> >benefit!  I really wish that communications and timing had been better
> >so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no
> >doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are
> >desirable and your willingness to host is now known).
> >
> >I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very
> >early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already
> >fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting
> >having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and,
> >I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone
> >location played a part).  It's clear to me the steering committee
> >dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started
> >working on bids in time to communicate with you.
> >
> >That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the
> >very reason why the process needed changing.  Even if three teams bid
> >for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work
> >that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long
> >talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit
> >of loosing in a bidding process.  I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the
> >leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement
> >because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been
> >even worse.
>
> This reads a bit strangely to me. You seem to suggest that bids can be
> worked on for many years: in this case, saying that planning for Montreal
> started in 2010 for an eventual 2017 bid. However, you continue on to
> write that it's wasted effort if a bid fails in a particular year.
> Wouldn't failed bids be re-usable in subsequent years?
>
> My guess is that sponsors and venues are capable of understanding a
> bidding process, so long as it's appropriately communicated to them.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gnangarra]

Everyone knows that when bidding there is a lot of work to be done that may
not produce your desired result, its also common for there to be multiple
bids.  Something that is being missed is that the bidding process isnt a
waste of effort, in creating a bid you also create contacts and connections
that will serve the community into the future.

Yes Ziko the wording is unhappy because I'm unhappy with the process and
there is nothing public about Montreal even being on the radar for
Wikimania,  A 2011 bid isnt on the radar for selection  just like
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Perth isnt on the radar
either.



On 6 October 2015 at 07:18, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> >I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's
> >just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's
> >benefit!  I really wish that communications and timing had been better
> >so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no
> >doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are
> >desirable and your willingness to host is now known).
> >
> >I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very
> >early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already
> >fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting
> >having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and,
> >I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone
> >location played a part).  It's clear to me the steering committee
> >dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started
> >working on bids in time to communicate with you.
> >
> >That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the
> >very reason why the process needed changing.  Even if three teams bid
> >for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work
> >that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long
> >talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit
> >of loosing in a bidding process.  I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the
> >leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement
> >because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been
> >even worse.
>
> This reads a bit strangely to me. You seem to suggest that bids can be
> worked on for many years: in this case, saying that planning for Montreal
> started in 2010 for an eventual 2017 bid. However, you continue on to
> write that it's wasted effort if a bid fails in a particular year.
> Wouldn't failed bids be re-usable in subsequent years?
>
> My guess is that sponsors and venues are capable of understanding a
> bidding process, so long as it's appropriately communicated to them.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[MZMcBride]

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's
>just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's
>benefit!  I really wish that communications and timing had been better
>so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no
>doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are
>desirable and your willingness to host is now known).
>
>I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very
>early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already
>fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting
>having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and,
>I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone
>location played a part).  It's clear to me the steering committee
>dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started
>working on bids in time to communicate with you.
>
>That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the
>very reason why the process needed changing.  Even if three teams bid
>for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work
>that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long
>talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit
>of loosing in a bidding process.  I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the
>leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement
>because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been
>even worse.

This reads a bit strangely to me. You seem to suggest that bids can be
worked on for many years: in this case, saying that planning for Montreal
started in 2010 for an eventual 2017 bid. However, you continue on to
write that it's wasted effort if a bid fails in a particular year.
Wouldn't failed bids be re-usable in subsequent years?

My guess is that sponsors and venues are capable of understanding a
bidding process, so long as it's appropriately communicated to them.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Carlos M. Colina]

El 05/10/2015 a las 04:18 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:

Pavel, with all do respect, I HIGHLY doubt there’s anything to celebrate here.

+1


While I agree that the Wikimania process is broken, no one would’ve thought 
that the way we’d go about fixing that process would be handing that process 
over to a small group of people who can easily say “Oh!  This doesn’t 
work—let’s throw it out.”  For goodness’ sake, James claimed they talked to 
people—our question then is who did they talk to?  They certainly didn’t talk 
to us, and there DEFINITELY was no discussion taking place on Meta or anywhere 
else!

A lot of work was poured into the Manila and Perth bids, and at least for us 
here in Manila, we’re doing so because it was suggested (by Ellie, 
nonetheless!) to do so for the 2017 bid process.  If you seriously, seriously 
think that we will stand idly by and see this process be rammed down our 
throats while at the same time being advised that all our work is meaningless 
at this point, you’ve really got to be kidding us.
With all due respect to the Montreal team, AFAIK the place where "the 
community" looks for information about future bids for Wikimania is 
Meta. So far, I could see only Perth and Bali.  Well, until James 
deleted what was posted there reflecting this decision -and the best 
part is the edit reason: */Correct this to not lie. Oy./*


So yeah, if you think your idea of meaningful change is top-down diktat by a 
group of people who say “Enough is enough!” but without considering not just 
the open nature of our movement and the inherent need for discussion to take 
place before such drastic moves are taken, then I’m sorry, but this is utter 
hypocrisy.  You can’t have your cake by saying that we should value open 
communication between stakeholders in a movement like Wikimedia, and at the 
same time eat it too by saying that top-down decision making is acceptable when 
a process is broken.

Simply, rename the whole thing to Wikimedia, Inc. and problem solved. 
That way you can /fuck the community /because TBH, you just don't care.



--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."

Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
www.wikimedia.org.ve 

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Ziko van Dijk]

2015-10-05 18:16 GMT+02:00 Nathan :

> The WCA council was a bureaucratic mess that seemed almost doomed from its
> inception. I think the comparison is inapt.
>

No, there was hardly any "bureaucracy", the problem was that Council
members did not met their tasks, did not show up at votings etc.

I trust in a small number of capable and active people trusted with a
concrete task. That is realistic, that works. People get along the
best and come to the best results when everybody knows about what is
expected from them.

Kind regards
Ziko

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Josh Lim]

Hi Marc,

> Wiadomość napisana przez Marc A. Pelletier  w dniu 
> 05.10.2015, o godz. 23:03:
> 
> I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very
> early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already
> fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting
> having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and,
> I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone
> location played a part).  It's clear to me the steering committee
> dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started
> working on bids in time to communicate with you.
> 
> That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the
> very reason why the process needed changing.  Even if three teams bid
> for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work
> that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long
> talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit
> of loosing in a bidding process.  I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the
> leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement
> because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been
> even worse.


Wow, the more I’m disappointed at this ball being "dropped".  Heck, I can’t 
possibly describe the exasperation I feel at this new revelation coming from 
you as to when the Steering Committee reached out to you guys.

The Manila team was asked to consider planning for a Wikimania 2017 bid as 
early as January this year—less than a month after the announcement was made 
that Esino Lario won the bid for Wikimania 2016.  To hear that they reached out 
to you before anyone else knew—heck, to find out that this happened behind our 
backs even, speaks of the duplicitousness the Committee has acted with when it 
came to making a decision as critical as this.

I’m not mad at you guys, and I’d like to think that Montréal can pull it off.  
But I am definitely mad at the Committee not just for dropping the ball, but 
for having us here in Manila run under the impression that everything will be 
the same as last year, only to have the wool pulled over our eyes with this 
decision.

Josh

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com  | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
http://about.me/josh.lim 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Josh Lim]

Hi Marc,

> Wiadomość napisana przez Marc A. Pelletier  > w dniu 05.10.2015, o godz. 23:03:
> 
> I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very
> early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already
> fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting
> having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and,
> I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone
> location played a part).  It's clear to me the steering committee
> dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started
> working on bids in time to communicate with you.
> 
> That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the
> very reason why the process needed changing.  Even if three teams bid
> for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work
> that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long
> talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit
> of loosing in a bidding process.  I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the
> leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement
> because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been
> even worse.


Wow, the more I’m disappointed at this ball being "dropped".  Heck, I can’t 
possibly describe the exasperation I feel at this new revelation coming from 
you as to when the Steering Committee reached out to you guys.

The Manila team was asked to consider planning for a Wikimania 2017 bid as 
early as January this year—less than a month after the announcement was made 
that Esino Lario won the bid for Wikimania 2016.  To hear that they reached out 
to you before anyone else knew—heck, to find out that this happened behind our 
backs even, speaks of the duplicitousness the Committee has acted with when it 
came to making a decision as critical as this.

I’m not mad at you guys, and I’d like to think that Montréal can pull it off.  
But I am definitely mad at the Committee not just for dropping the ball, but 
for having us here in Manila run under the impression that everything will be 
the same as last year, only to have the wool pulled over our eyes with this 
decision.

Josh

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com  | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
http://about.me/josh.lim 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Nathan]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

>
> I think that this is a very unhappy wording; there is nothing wrong
> with the bid or the city by itself. As much as I find the wasted
> effort scandalous, it is not the fault of our friends from Montreal.
>
> About the process of the past weeks since Wikimania in Mexico I cannot
> say much, I have not been involved, and I don't want to judge about
> something I don't know much about.
>
> What I know about is that "the community" does not exist as an organ.
> How to make decisions "by the community"? Hold a referendum for every
> little question that arises in an organizing committee? Even in the
> WCA Council we saw how months were wasted for clear decisions that in
> other contexts had been made in a couple of days.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
The WCA council was a bureaucratic mess that seemed almost doomed from its
inception. I think the comparison is inapt.

To reduce the level of criticism and resistance, the Wikimania committee
merely needed to conduct its deliberations partly in the open and follow
the typical steps of consulting with the community. Make a page, float some
ideas, listen to feedback, incorporate as much of it as possible, and then
make a decision. Many people commenting here would not have taken the
opportunity to be involved in that process, but would have been comforted
that it existed.

And not for nothing, but a lot of the ideas in the threads of yesterday and
today were interesting and worthwhile; the benefit of consulting with the
broader community is that problems and opportunities are both more likely
to surface than in a closed, hierarchical decision making process.

It still is not apparent that the Wikimania committee even sought or
acquired the endorsement and permission of the WMF or the Board to make
such a major change in the host site selection process. The committee seems
to have become characterized by its secrecy and disregard for public input,
which is quite a reversal from its past history.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Steffen Prößdorf]

Absolutely right.
And the sentence "The revolution will not be community-approved." is the 
most stupid thing I ever read.
When "the government" make significant changes, it has nothing in common 
with "a revolution". A revolution starts and is led by "the ordinary 
people" and is illegal per definition.
So, if the WMF wants to rule the world without community approving, it's 
just the opposite of "a revolution"! I rather would call it "Coup d'état"./



/
Am 04.10.2015 um 23:37 schrieb MF-Warburg:

What a nonsense. With that justification, any random troll who dislikes the
Wikimania location selection process (or anything else) can show up and
"volunteer the revolution" which must then be implemented (because they
said so!!).
Am 04.10.2015 22:31 schrieb "Pavel Richter" :


2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :


Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take
that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they
thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about
corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an

entire

roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable
future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.

This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community
approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how
these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge -
because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I

missed

a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who
should be on this committee.

Regards
Theo


​Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their
mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my
book.

The revolution will not be community-approved.

Pavel




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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Ziko van Dijk]

> On 15-10-05 05:26 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>> I think we are stuck with Montreal and to change now isnt going address the
>> problems this decision has created
>

I think that this is a very unhappy wording; there is nothing wrong
with the bid or the city by itself. As much as I find the wasted
effort scandalous, it is not the fault of our friends from Montreal.

About the process of the past weeks since Wikimania in Mexico I cannot
say much, I have not been involved, and I don't want to judge about
something I don't know much about.

What I know about is that "the community" does not exist as an organ.
How to make decisions "by the community"? Hold a referendum for every
little question that arises in an organizing committee? Even in the
WCA Council we saw how months were wasted for clear decisions that in
other contexts had been made in a couple of days.

Kind regards
Ziko

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Steffen Prößdorf]

It would be a step called professionalisation, too, if the WMF would use 
the amount of money they collected and still collecting and pay for 
writers and content. For sure it would be more professional. But it 
would not be the Wikipedia project thousands of volunteers work for anymore.


And that's the same point I see for Wikimania.

Steffen


Am 05.10.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Balázs Viczián:

As long as the "cabal" who "took full control" of Wikimania is capable of
fully organizing it (or able to set up an organizing team anywhere in the
world), I think this is nothing else but a step called: professionalisation.

Actually if it works well, it can bring this event to regions and places
where otherwise it could not be made (i.e. lack of or insufficient or
unreliable local volunteer manpower / no local org / whatever ) reducing
the location problem only to logistics, thus widening the possibilities
greatly.

I would love to see a fix event organizer team, let it be volunteer based
(like the CEE meeting, which was a success) or paid staff (like WMDE has).

Balázs

2015-10-05 15:53 GMT+02:00 Steffen Prößdorf :


Am 04.10.2015 um 20:06 schrieb Ilario Valdelli:


On 04.10.2015 19:48, Pavel Richter wrote:


2015-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard :

Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit :

Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix
that ?



So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion
that the
current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think
the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and
the committee did something that we
​see ​
not often enough in Wikimedia-land: *they made a decision*.


This is good.

But I think that the main point to fix is that a decision is valid as
soon it is communicated.

At the moment it does not seem that the local communities were
informed in order to know that the process was broken.

Kind regards



This fits in quite a number of decisions. Better no one can say that
Wikimania isn't a community event anymore, but a Foundation event instead
of.

Why asking anyone else?

Fuck the community, who cares?



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Balázs Viczián]

As long as the "cabal" who "took full control" of Wikimania is capable of
fully organizing it (or able to set up an organizing team anywhere in the
world), I think this is nothing else but a step called: professionalisation.

Actually if it works well, it can bring this event to regions and places
where otherwise it could not be made (i.e. lack of or insufficient or
unreliable local volunteer manpower / no local org / whatever ) reducing
the location problem only to logistics, thus widening the possibilities
greatly.

I would love to see a fix event organizer team, let it be volunteer based
(like the CEE meeting, which was a success) or paid staff (like WMDE has).

Balázs

2015-10-05 15:53 GMT+02:00 Steffen Prößdorf :

> Am 04.10.2015 um 20:06 schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
>
>> On 04.10.2015 19:48, Pavel Richter wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard :
>>>
>>> Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit :
 Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix
 that ?

>>>
>>>
>>> So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion
>>> that the
>>> current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think
>>> the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and
>>> the committee did something that we
>>> ​see ​
>>> not often enough in Wikimedia-land: *they made a decision*.
>>>
>>
>> This is good.
>>
>> But I think that the main point to fix is that a decision is valid as
>> soon it is communicated.
>>
>> At the moment it does not seem that the local communities were
>> informed in order to know that the process was broken.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
> This fits in quite a number of decisions. Better no one can say that
> Wikimania isn't a community event anymore, but a Foundation event instead
> of.
>
> Why asking anyone else?
>
> Fuck the community, who cares?
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-10-05 05:26 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
> I think we are stuck with Montreal and to change now isnt going address the
> problems this decision has created

I... am obviously in a delicate situation responding to this thread, and
specifically to that particular statement; but I think it's worth saying
this:

I am *very* aware of how much effort and work (in planning, making
contacts, approaching sponsors and suppliers, building a team, etc)
preparing for a Wikimania bid is.

I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's
just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's
benefit!  I really wish that communications and timing had been better
so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no
doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are
desirable and your willingness to host is now known).

I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very
early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already
fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting
having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and,
I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone
location played a part).  It's clear to me the steering committee
dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started
working on bids in time to communicate with you.

That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the
very reason why the process needed changing.  Even if three teams bid
for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work
that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long
talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit
of loosing in a bidding process.  I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the
leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement
because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been
even worse.

I am, of course, disapointed that *any* effort has been wasted by other
community volunteers, but I very much look forward the a future
Wikimania in either place.

I hope we'll see you in Montreal with no hard feelings - you will be
welcome here.

-- Marc-André Pelletier / Coren


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Steffen Prößdorf]

Am 04.10.2015 um 20:06 schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

On 04.10.2015 19:48, Pavel Richter wrote:

2015-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard :


Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit :
Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix
that ?



So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion
that the
current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think
the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and
the committee did something that we
​see ​
not often enough in Wikimedia-land: *they made a decision*.


This is good.

But I think that the main point to fix is that a decision is valid as
soon it is communicated.

At the moment it does not seem that the local communities were
informed in order to know that the process was broken.

Kind regards



This fits in quite a number of decisions. Better no one can say that 
Wikimania isn't a community event anymore, but a Foundation event 
instead of.


Why asking anyone else?

Fuck the community, who cares?


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gnangarra]

I think we are stuck with Montreal and to change now isnt going address the
problems this decision has created,  no matter how the poor situation thats
been created is remedied every outcome will be a poisoned challis.  There
are measures IMHO that the WMF should take to ensure the people who created
this mess are held to account for it.

The only way forward now is to return to the community for its input on how
to take the Wikimania location/rotation process for 2018 onwards into a
workable solution that wont  cause further disillusionment within the
community


note: I say this as the co-ordinator of the Perth 2017 bid

On 5 October 2015 at 16:29, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> I would not comment the possibility of the community to manage a Wikimania.
>
> The community is the main stakeholder of Wikimedia, and as main stakeholder
> everything should be focused on the community.
>
> In the other hand I really think that the current trend of Wikimania is not
> *sustainable* neither for the community nor for the WMF staff.
>
> The staff can manage Wikimania but using a lot of resources, and it's not
> sustainable.
>
> The current position of the Wikimania's committee, even if bold, goes in
> the right direction to have a more sustainable Wikimania with a long term
> program of setup.
>
> The main concern is that this position should have been communicated more
> efficiently and should have been introduced to the community earlier.
>
> The community is not a stupid body, it's the body of Wikimedia.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Pavel Richter 
> wrote:
>
> > 2015-10-04 22:42 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk :
> >
> > > Of course it is the committee to have its say about Wikimania.
> > >
> > > If I understand it well, the main problem was that the bid period was
> > > from August to November 2015, and some groups were working on their
> > > bids. They feel that they could have saved a lot of work if they had
> > > known before.
> > >
> >
> > ​Yes, I agree, Ziko. And I do not take it lightly. As I said,
> > communications was really, really bad here. So WMF would be well advised
> o
> > invite everyone who worked on a bid to Montreal 2017, all costs covered.
> > And maybe Lila would be well advised to call the good folks who prepared
> a
> > bid as well.
> >
> > BUT: That is not the main point. The main point is that Wikimedia now has
> > replaced a broken process. And we should celebrate that. (And if it turns
> > out that the new process does not work, than it will be changed again.
> > Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say:
> > Enough is enough).​
> >
> >
> > ​Pavel​
> >
> >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2015-10-04 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fæ :
> > > > The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
> > > >
> > > > Never.
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> > > > On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to
> > > take
> > > >> > that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is
> broken,
> > > they
> > > >> > thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set
> > > about
> > > >> > corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed
> an
> > > >> entire
> > > >> > roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near
> > > foreseeable
> > > >> > future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't
> > > community
> > > >> > approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why
> and
> > > how
> > > >> > these people got on this committee, or how long they will be
> > > in-charge -
> > > >> > because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge.
> Maybe I
> > > >> missed
> > > >> > a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to
> > who
> > > >> > should be on this committee.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Regards
> > > >> > Theo
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
> > > >> They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And
> > their
> > > >> mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in
> > my
> > > >> book.
> > > >>
> > > >> The revolution will not be community-approved.
> > > >>
> > > >> Pavel
> > > >>
> > > >> > ___
> > > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > >> >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Pavel Richter
> > > >> Mobile: +49-

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Ilario Valdelli]

I would not comment the possibility of the community to manage a Wikimania.

The community is the main stakeholder of Wikimedia, and as main stakeholder
everything should be focused on the community.

In the other hand I really think that the current trend of Wikimania is not
*sustainable* neither for the community nor for the WMF staff.

The staff can manage Wikimania but using a lot of resources, and it's not
sustainable.

The current position of the Wikimania's committee, even if bold, goes in
the right direction to have a more sustainable Wikimania with a long term
program of setup.

The main concern is that this position should have been communicated more
efficiently and should have been introduced to the community earlier.

The community is not a stupid body, it's the body of Wikimedia.

Kind regards



On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Pavel Richter  wrote:

> 2015-10-04 22:42 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk :
>
> > Of course it is the committee to have its say about Wikimania.
> >
> > If I understand it well, the main problem was that the bid period was
> > from August to November 2015, and some groups were working on their
> > bids. They feel that they could have saved a lot of work if they had
> > known before.
> >
>
> ​Yes, I agree, Ziko. And I do not take it lightly. As I said,
> communications was really, really bad here. So WMF would be well advised o
> invite everyone who worked on a bid to Montreal 2017, all costs covered.
> And maybe Lila would be well advised to call the good folks who prepared a
> bid as well.
>
> BUT: That is not the main point. The main point is that Wikimedia now has
> replaced a broken process. And we should celebrate that. (And if it turns
> out that the new process does not work, than it will be changed again.
> Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say:
> Enough is enough).​
>
>
> ​Pavel​
>
>
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> > 2015-10-04 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fæ :
> > > The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
> > >
> > > Never.
> > >
> > > Fae
> > > On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter"  wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to
> > take
> > >> > that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken,
> > they
> > >> > thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set
> > about
> > >> > corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
> > >> entire
> > >> > roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near
> > foreseeable
> > >> > future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
> > >> >
> > >> > This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't
> > community
> > >> > approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and
> > how
> > >> > these people got on this committee, or how long they will be
> > in-charge -
> > >> > because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
> > >> missed
> > >> > a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to
> who
> > >> > should be on this committee.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards
> > >> > Theo
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
> > >> They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And
> their
> > >> mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in
> my
> > >> book.
> > >>
> > >> The revolution will not be community-approved.
> > >>
> > >> Pavel
> > >>
> > >> > ___
> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
> > >>
> > >> Pavel Richter
> > >> Mobile: +49-151-19645755
> > >> Mail: m...@pavelrichter.de
> > >> Twitter: @pavel 
> > >> Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> 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
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Josh Lim]

> On 5 Oct 2015, at 05:03, Pavel Richter  wrote:
> 
> BUT: That is not the main point. The main point is that Wikimedia now has
> replaced a broken process. And we should celebrate that. (And if it turns
> out that the new process does not work, than it will be changed again.
> Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say:
> Enough is enough).​


Pavel, with all do respect, I HIGHLY doubt there’s anything to celebrate here.

While I agree that the Wikimania process is broken, no one would’ve thought 
that the way we’d go about fixing that process would be handing that process 
over to a small group of people who can easily say “Oh!  This doesn’t 
work—let’s throw it out.”  For goodness’ sake, James claimed they talked to 
people—our question then is who did they talk to?  They certainly didn’t talk 
to us, and there DEFINITELY was no discussion taking place on Meta or anywhere 
else!

A lot of work was poured into the Manila and Perth bids, and at least for us 
here in Manila, we’re doing so because it was suggested (by Ellie, 
nonetheless!) to do so for the 2017 bid process.  If you seriously, seriously 
think that we will stand idly by and see this process be rammed down our 
throats while at the same time being advised that all our work is meaningless 
at this point, you’ve really got to be kidding us.

So yeah, if you think your idea of meaningful change is top-down diktat by a 
group of people who say “Enough is enough!” but without considering not just 
the open nature of our movement and the inherent need for discussion to take 
place before such drastic moves are taken, then I’m sorry, but this is utter 
hypocrisy.  You can’t have your cake by saying that we should value open 
communication between stakeholders in a movement like Wikimedia, and at the 
same time eat it too by saying that top-down decision making is acceptable when 
a process is broken.

Regards,

Josh

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com  | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
http://about.me/josh.lim 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Theo10011]

I see the talk page on Meta for this committee hasn't been updated since
2013. I copied James' update to the talk page. I am going to oppose there
and ask anyone else interested in reverting this decision to comment on
meta[1]. This needs consensus, but more so, a choice, that was never given
to the larger community.

This committee can be dissolved if needed, or another one can be set up in
its place.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015, Pavel Richter  wrote:
>
> ​Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
> They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their
> mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my
> book.
>

This is a ludicrous proposition to even defend. The outcome, as you might
have noticed isn't being supported or endorsed by the majority. This is not
a solution, it is another problem, worse than that it is going against the
grain by taking an open process and making it closed. By your logic, I can
claim this new solution is a bigger problem, some of us here are objecting
to it and we can tackle it by dissolving the committee? Or how about I
apply the same logic to everyone donating to WMDE - recognize a problem,
tackle it, communicate with the concerned parties and not even tell you
about it, because I "showed up and volunteered". The whole logic here is
indeed, non sense as MF-W put it.

First, there is no consensus the current process is a problem. Second, if
there is, James is and has been chiefly responsible for the entire process,
ergo, the problem. Now, the new initiative is to give James complete
control to decide things in private without discussion, deliberation or so
much as a notification to the wider community.


>
> The revolution will not be community-approved.


Actually a revolution by definition, would have to be majority/community
led and hence, community-approved. What we have now is a small group of
connected individuals in a clique, who make large decisions for everyone.
That would be an Oligarchy, and I for one, am tired of seeing the same
people make these horrendous decisions.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015, Pavel Richter  wrote:
>
> Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say:
> Enough is enough).​


You clarified my point further.

Regards
Theo

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_Committee#Oppose
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[MF-Warburg]

What a nonsense. With that justification, any random troll who dislikes the
Wikimania location selection process (or anything else) can show up and
"volunteer the revolution" which must then be implemented (because they
said so!!).
Am 04.10.2015 22:31 schrieb "Pavel Richter" :

> 2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :
>
> >
> > Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take
> > that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they
> > thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about
> > corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
> entire
> > roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable
> > future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
> >
> > This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community
> > approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how
> > these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge -
> > because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
> missed
> > a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who
> > should be on this committee.
> >
> > Regards
> > Theo
> >
>
> ​Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
> They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their
> mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my
> book.
>
> The revolution will not be community-approved.
>
> Pavel
>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
>
> Pavel Richter
> Mobile: +49-151-19645755
> Mail: m...@pavelrichter.de
> Twitter: @pavel 
> Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pavel Richter]

2015-10-04 22:42 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk :

> Of course it is the committee to have its say about Wikimania.
>
> If I understand it well, the main problem was that the bid period was
> from August to November 2015, and some groups were working on their
> bids. They feel that they could have saved a lot of work if they had
> known before.
>

​Yes, I agree, Ziko. And I do not take it lightly. As I said,
communications was really, really bad here. So WMF would be well advised o
invite everyone who worked on a bid to Montreal 2017, all costs covered.
And maybe Lila would be well advised to call the good folks who prepared a
bid as well.

BUT: That is not the main point. The main point is that Wikimedia now has
replaced a broken process. And we should celebrate that. (And if it turns
out that the new process does not work, than it will be changed again.
Hopefully not by consensus, but by a small group of people who just say:
Enough is enough).​


​Pavel​


> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> 2015-10-04 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fæ :
> > The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
> >
> > Never.
> >
> > Fae
> > On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter"  wrote:
> >
> >> 2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to
> take
> >> > that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken,
> they
> >> > thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set
> about
> >> > corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
> >> entire
> >> > roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near
> foreseeable
> >> > future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
> >> >
> >> > This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't
> community
> >> > approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and
> how
> >> > these people got on this committee, or how long they will be
> in-charge -
> >> > because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
> >> missed
> >> > a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who
> >> > should be on this committee.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Theo
> >> >
> >>
> >> Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
> >> They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their
> >> mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my
> >> book.
> >>
> >> The revolution will not be community-approved.
> >>
> >> Pavel
> >>
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Pavel Richter
> >> Mobile: +49-151-19645755
> >> Mail: m...@pavelrichter.de
> >> Twitter: @pavel 
> >> Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> 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
> > 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,

Pavel Richter
Mobile: +49-151-19645755
Mail: m...@pavelrichter.de
Twitter: @pavel 
Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Ziko van Dijk]

Of course it is the committee to have its say about Wikimania.

If I understand it well, the main problem was that the bid period was
from August to November 2015, and some groups were working on their
bids. They feel that they could have saved a lot of work if they had
known before.

Kind regards
Ziko



2015-10-04 22:38 GMT+02:00 Fæ :
> The ends should be used as the justification of the means.
>
> Never.
>
> Fae
> On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter"  wrote:
>
>> 2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :
>>
>> >
>> > Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take
>> > that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they
>> > thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about
>> > corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
>> entire
>> > roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable
>> > future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
>> >
>> > This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community
>> > approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how
>> > these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge -
>> > because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
>> missed
>> > a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who
>> > should be on this committee.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Theo
>> >
>>
>> Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
>> They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their
>> mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my
>> book.
>>
>> The revolution will not be community-approved.
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
>>
>> Pavel Richter
>> Mobile: +49-151-19645755
>> Mail: m...@pavelrichter.de
>> Twitter: @pavel 
>> Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Fæ]

The ends should be used as the justification of the means.

Never.

Fae
On 4 Oct 2015 21:31, "Pavel Richter"  wrote:

> 2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :
>
> >
> > Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take
> > that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they
> > thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about
> > corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an
> entire
> > roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable
> > future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
> >
> > This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community
> > approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how
> > these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge -
> > because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I
> missed
> > a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who
> > should be on this committee.
> >
> > Regards
> > Theo
> >
>
> ​Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
> They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their
> mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my
> book.
>
> The revolution will not be community-approved.
>
> Pavel
>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
>
> Pavel Richter
> Mobile: +49-151-19645755
> Mail: m...@pavelrichter.de
> Twitter: @pavel 
> Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pavel Richter]

2015-10-04 21:55 GMT+02:00 Theo10011 :

>
> Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take
> that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they
> thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about
> corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an entire
> roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable
> future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.
>
> This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community
> approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how
> these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge -
> because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I missed
> a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who
> should be on this committee.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>

​Theo, you argue process, I argue outcome.
They faced a problem, they tackled it, they made a decission. And their
mandate? They *showed up and volunteered*. That is enough mandate in my
book.

The revolution will not be community-approved.

Pavel

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



-- 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,

Pavel Richter
Mobile: +49-151-19645755
Mail: m...@pavelrichter.de
Twitter: @pavel 
Blog: blog.pavelrichter.de
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Theo10011]

Hi

I think we are all jumping ahead about the committee's status first of all.
It's mandate was never to make such broad changes. If you would read the
talk page on meta from 2010 on this issue, there are comments there from me
and others where the envisioned goal of this committee was to facilitate
the jury and develop expertise for wikimania, no one thought it was going
to change the jury process. This is a huge leap that was made by broadening
the mandate and most people here are accepting it, as an established fact -
It is not.


On Sun, Oct 4, 2015, Florence Devouard  wrote:
>
> There are roughly three components on the Wikimania committee.
> One component is WMF staff.
> One component is former and future Wikimania organizers.
> One component is community members.
>

Those components aren't that distinguishable. If ellie was the only liaison
for WMF on the committee acting in a passive capacity, it would be one
thing. But someone like James, actually fits in to all 3 roles. It's his
position as chair that also complicates the situation.


> WMF staff does not have the same obligations and standards than the other
> members.
>
> The rather unique situation of this committee is that... whilst it should
> include much community input... for most years (not all), Wikimania is
> actually mostly funded by WMF and beyond funding, some WMF staff put quite
> a bit of work in it. To say it bluntly, most of the time, without WMF
> input, Wikimania would simply not happen. This is no criticism to local
> teams (without them, Wikimania would not occur either), but a simple
> statement. WMF is a key stakeholder. What is the consequence of that from a
> committee member perspective ?
>
> In my opinion, the consequence to that is that community members on the
> committee do not feel that they "own" this committee. It "does" feel like
> being invited on a Wikimedia Foundation committee. And as such, it feels
> like a sort of special attention/listening should be given to WMF staff
> members on that committee. And when things go ashtray... we hesitate being
> bold. It is not about forgetting.
>

I understand WMF being a key stakeholder. But I'd differ here about who
feels a sense of ownership. I really have the opinion that James is over
reaching. He used to start with a call for jury, run the process year after
year, then formed this committee, of which he is the chair, and now wants
to remove the jury process all together for a list of places he would like
wikimania to happen.

I would also venture to guess that the board and Lila, are probably the
least involved in these decisions about where Wikimania should happen for
the next 5 years.


> Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix that ?
>

I never suggested head rolling. To be absolutely blunt, I think James
should stand down from his own capacity and let someone else take over the
process and committee. Or give the community the option to choose which way
it prefers.


On Sun, Oct 4, 2015, Pavel Richter  wrote:
>
>
> So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the
> current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think
> the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and
> the committee did something that we
> ​see ​
> not often enough in Wikimedia-land: *they made a decision*.
> ​A decision they were tasked to take: Think and decide on the next
> Wikimania host, and on the process to find one. Nobody ever said that their
> job was only to execute a set of old guidlines and processes (which, I
> guess, were never "community approved" but rather were around just for a
> long, long time).
>

Those are some pretty broad leaps Pavel. They were never tasked to take
that decision. They came to a conclusion that the process is broken, they
thought to do away with the process, they picked a winner, and set about
corresponding with them, without telling anyone. Then, developed an entire
roadmap of where they want to see Wikimania next for the near foreseeable
future. All of this was never tasked to them in the first place.

This committee isn't "community approved", their mandate isn't community
approved. Its members weren't elected, in fact, I don't know why and how
these people got on this committee, or how long they will be in-charge -
because someone certainly seems to think they are in-charge. Maybe I missed
a call or notification asking to join or approve or comment as to who
should be on this committee.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Michał Buczyński]

Hello All.

Ballsy and sincere mail Pavel, thank you for that and I understand your
points, however as a longstanding wikiperson actually volunteering and a
believer in the open participatory model which built Wikiprojects, I need
to respond and disagree with you in some parts.

> I don't see that anything needs fixing here. So, what happened? 
> The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the current ​
> ​process to select the next 
> Wikimania host is broken (and I think the committee was right ​ ​
> about that). So something needed to happen - and the committee did 
> something that we see ​ ​ not often enough in Wikimedia-land: 
> 
> they made a decision. ​A decision they were tasked to ​ ​ take:
> Think and decide on the next Wikimania host, and on the process to find one.


1. Except clearly at least one com member is unhappy with the process, the
com was somewhat unaware of actual candidates, the decision is suspended,
the change of the game terms was not communicated to anyone in public (not
to mention major stakeholders like Chapters sponsoring Wikimania attendees)
and the whole process is completely not transparent. We are not even sure
if WMF in general (Staff? Board?) supports it.

Fun fact: we have this website thing to document processes and inform
others, they call it Meta. 8-)
And taking a look into https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2017_bids
you don't even see any Montreal. Or info about the major change in the
process.

OTOH, you could see there encouragements to submit bids.

Fun fact #2: this page has been marked as historical by JForester only
minutes ago which looks like a panic management.

> 3\. "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see
> how you make 'em: laws and sausages" 
> (Leo McGarry, The West Wing, "Five Votes Down"). 

Actually, it was Bismarck.

> And there is one thing Wikimedians in this world could not 
> care less​ about​: How the next host for Wikimania is found. Let's
> applaud the great people of the Wikimania 
> 
> Committee that they took on that task, came up with a great decision for
> 2017 AND implemented a new
> (even so not perfect) process ​while they were at it.

Well, some seem to care, at least on these lists or fb (see Josh or Perth
people).

And others care for general transparency and community involvement which
seem to be noticably deteriorating, see the issues with strategic plan. Not
that I require a multilevel RFCs, general venue elections and whatnots but
at least simple message would be more than great to not waste time of the
potential bidders.

I might be wrong but I think that volunteer-driven organizations should be
careful to respect their volunteers. Here I think the ball was somewhere
dropped. I imagine someone actually wanted to off-load the volunteers and
make their lives much better, improve the spending etc. etc., but the
communication failed at some point.

Regarding the community consultation, I feel there are some more people
than "old-timers" of en.wp and de.wp, and what is more these talks are read
by much more people. In many cases I think they were found crucial by WMF
staff as well although I do agree we could improve here, people are often
overburdened and we are running circles.
But it would be very sad to turn into a yet another bureaucracy.

Tl;dr I agree with you that making decisions is important and WMF is the
major stakeholder, but I would put more value into making things fair and
transparent, otherwise people get angry and the decisions are more prone to
fault.

Warm Regards,
michał "aegis maelstrom" buczyński

P.S. Sorry for the editting, some mail client issue.



Dnia 4 października 2015 20:03 Pavel Richter 
napisał(a):

> 2015-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard :
> 
> 
> Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit :
> 
> 
> Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix
> that
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> I don't see that anything needs fixing here. So, what happened? The
> Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the current ​ ​
> process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think the
> committee was right ​ ​ about that). So something needed to happen -
> and the committee did something that we see ​ ​ not often enough in
> Wikimedia-land: they made a decision. ​A decision they were tasked to
> ​ ​ take: Think and decide on the next Wikimania host, and on the
> process to find one. Nobody ​ ​ ever said that their job was only to
> execute a set of old guidlines and processes (which, I ​ ​ guess,
> were never "community approved" but rather were around just for a long,
> long time). ​So, they abandoned the process, came up with a new one,
> and decided who would host ​ ​ Wikimania in 2017 (Montreal seems a
> great choice, btw - I mean, a bilingual city has some ​ ​ great
> opportunities for us, right?).​ ​Whats wrong with that? Nothing!
> Let's face some truths here: 1\. ​Wikimania has become well too big to
> be ru

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Fæ]

On 4 October 2015 at 18:48, Pavel Richter  wrote:
...
> Let's face some truths here:
>5. Dear Wikimania Committee: Your communication of thi
>s whole thing
>sucked
>, big time.
>Consider yourself scolded. Move on.

BACKGROUND

Well, yes Pavel, of course "we" are going to move on. It's the old
overused mantra of every time there is a blunder "it's in the past
community, move along now". The problem is we should be able to also
*see* measurable non-subjective changes and improvement to the way
things are done, increasing transparency and putting the volunteer at
the center of decision making, even if resources and most of the work
are paid positions.

I really liked the early reply and effective apology by Florence:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079256.html

But I found the response by the current Chair of the committee
unconvincing. The attempt to change thread title and move to a far
less subscribed email group, shows how the strategy is a quick
political "nothing to see here" rather than leadership that shows
active learning and openness:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079273.html

CONCLUSION

It would be super if Florence would consider temporarily taking over as
Chair, or starting a public process to ensure some new faces in the
next few months, including a change of the Chairman. This would show
the Committee recognizes this was a real serious failure which should
see proportionate changes of roles on the Committee. If everything
stays exactly the same for the next six months, then this would show
the Committee is more interested in protecting itself, than ensuring
that the unpaid volunteer and community consensus is central to the
way this process *should* be seen to work, and in line with the
original mandate for the Committee itself.

P.S. were I the current Chair, I think I would publicly apologise to
Montreal before stepping down. The way this has been stitched up
behind closed doors is probably an very unfair way for their hosting
of Wikimania to be seen to start off. Most unfortunate.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Ilario Valdelli]

On 04.10.2015 19:48, Pavel Richter wrote:

2015-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard :


Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit :
Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix that ?



So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the
current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think
the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and
the committee did something that we
​see ​
not often enough in Wikimedia-land: *they made a decision*.


This is good.

But I think that the main point to fix is that a decision is valid as 
soon it is communicated.


At the moment it does not seem that the local communities were informed 
in order to know that the process was broken.


Kind regards

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pavel Richter]

(Sorry, the layout of my last mail was horrible, so here it is again,
hopefully better to read:)

2015-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard :

> Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit :
>
> Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix that ?
>
> ​
I don't see that anything needs fixing here.

So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the
current
​ ​
process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think the
committee was right
​ ​
about that). So something needed to happen - and the committee did
something that we see
​ ​
not often enough in Wikimedia-land: they made a decision. ​A decision they
were tasked to
​ ​
take: Think and decide on the next Wikimania host, and on the process to
find one. Nobody
​ ​
ever said that their job was only to execute a set of old guidlines and
processes (which, I
​ ​
guess, were never "community approved" but rather were around just for a
long, long time).

​So, they abandoned the process, came up with a new one, and decided who
would host
​ ​
Wikimania in 2017 (Montreal seems a great choice, btw - I mean, a bilingual
city has some
​ ​
great opportunities for us, right?).​

​Whats wrong with that? Nothing!

Let's face some truths here:


   1. ​Wikimania has become well too big to be run by volunteers. EVERY
   Wikimania since Danzig (at least) happened only because the WMF jumped in
   at one point of time to rescue the whole event. That is not to say that
   volunteers did not do a great job for Wikimania - but the job proved to be
   too big for volunteers, for at least five times in a row. So it was right
   to abandon the current process and replace it with something new.
   2. The new process has a lot of problems build in - I think, for
   example, that the decision to exclude major parts of the world from
   Wikimanias (except for every third year, when regions are "up to grabs)​,
   is​ ​wrong. BUT: We now have at least 18 MONTHS to fix this (and possible
   other problems) - thanks to the bold decision of the Wikimania committee.
   3. "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see
   how you make 'em: laws and sausages" (Leo McGarry, The West Wing, "Five
   Votes Down"). And there is one thing Wikimedians in this world could not
   care less​ about​: How the next host for Wikimania is found. Let's applaud
   the great people of the Wikimania Committee that they took on that task,
   came up with a great decision for 2017 AND implemented a new (even so not
   perfect) process ​while they were at it.​
   4. I think with a lot of things in Wikimedia-land, we need MORE bold
   decisions (by whomever)​, and LESS "community consultation"​ that only
   leads to some old-timers in en.WP and de.WP voice their anger and concerns,
   but rarely solves the problem that needs solving.​
   5. ​
   Dear Wikimania Committee: Your communication of thi​s whole thing ​
   sucked​, big time.​ Consider yourself scolded. Move on.


Cheers,

Pavel​


>
> [1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee#Purpose_and_process
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> Yes and no. Considering that I've been waiting for months for answers to
>>> questions about the WMF Annual Plan, I would say that there is much room
>>> for improvement in communications.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the WMF Comms department itself seems to more or less
>>> ok, and I personally think we'll of WMF's chief communications officer.
>>>
>>> So, some good points, and some room to improve. I agree that the status
>>> quo
>>> has been this way for awhile and it would be good to see across-the-board
>>> communications SLAs.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> On Oct 4, 2015 12:18 AM, "Mathias Damour" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 04/10/2015 05:36, Craig Franklin a écrit :

 I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community"
> seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet
>
 there
>>>
 doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see
>
 here.
>>>
 A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated
>
 is
>>>
 clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at
>
 all.
>>>

>
 I wouldn't say that the WMF communication is simply bad, it is pretty
 professional.

 It may rather be that an open communication and keeping control on the
 greater part of the decisions (or even conducting the users of the

>>> projets
>>>
 themself, as an average internet company does), are "two tendancies that
 are not fully compatible" (to borrow Florence's words).

 --
 Mathias Damour
 [[User:Astirmays]]

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pavel Richter]

2015-10-04 17:42 GMT+02:00 Florence Devouard :

> Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit :
> Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix that ?
>


I don't see that *anything* needs fixing here.


So, what happened? The Wikimania committee came to the conclusion that the
current process to select the next Wikimania host is broken (and I think
the committee was right about that). So something needed to happen - and
the committee did something that we
​see ​
not often enough in Wikimedia-land: *they made a decision*.
​A decision they were tasked to take: Think and decide on the next
Wikimania host, and on the process to find one. Nobody ever said that their
job was only to execute a set of old guidlines and processes (which, I
guess, were never "community approved" but rather were around just for a
long, long time).


​So, t
hey abandoned the process, came up with a new one, and decided who would
host Wikimania in 2017 (Montreal seems a great choice, btw - I mean, a
bilingual city has some great opportunities for us, right?).​

​Whats wrong with that? Nothing!

Let's face some truths here:


   1.

   ​Wikimania has become well too big to be run by volunteers. EVERY
   Wikimania since Danzig (at least) happened *only* because the WMF jumped
   in at one point of time
   ​ to rescue
   the whole event. That is not to say that volunteers did not do a great
   job for Wikimania - but the job proved to be too big for volunteers, for at
   least five times in a row. So it was right to abandon the current process
   and replace it with something new.

   2.

   The new process has a lot of problems build in - I think, for example,
   that the decision to exclude major parts of the world from Wikimanias
   (except for every third year, when regions are "up to grabs)​
   ​,
   is
   ​ ​
   wrong. BUT: We now have at least 18 MONTHS to fix this (and possible
   other problems) - thanks to the bold decision of the Wikimania committee.

   3.

   "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how
   you make 'em: laws and sausages"
   ​ ​
   (Leo McGarry, The West Wing, "Five Votes Down"). And there is one thing
   Wikimedians in this world could not care less
   ​ about​
   : How the next host for Wikimania is found. Let's applaud the great
   people of the Wikimania Committee that they took on that task, came up with
   a great decision for 2017 AND implemented a new (even so not perfect)
   process
   ​while they were at it.​

   4.

   I think with a lot of things in Wikimedia-land, we need MORE bold
   decisions
   ​ (by whomever)​
   , and LESS "community consultation"
   ​ that only leads to some old-timers in en.WP and de.WP voice their
   anger and concerns, but rarely solves the problem that needs solving.​

   5. Dear Wikimania Committee: Your communication of thi
   ​s whole thing ​
   sucked
   ​, big time.​
   Consider yourself scolded. Move on.

​Cheers,

Pavel

>
>
> [1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee#Purpose_and_process
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> Yes and no. Considering that I've been waiting for months for answers to
>>> questions about the WMF Annual Plan, I would say that there is much room
>>> for improvement in communications.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the WMF Comms department itself seems to more or less
>>> ok, and I personally think we'll of WMF's chief communications officer.
>>>
>>> So, some good points, and some room to improve. I agree that the status
>>> quo
>>> has been this way for awhile and it would be good to see across-the-board
>>> communications SLAs.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> On Oct 4, 2015 12:18 AM, "Mathias Damour" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 04/10/2015 05:36, Craig Franklin a écrit :

 I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community"
> seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet
>
 there
>>>
 doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see
>
 here.
>>>
 A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated
>
 is
>>>
 clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at
>
 all.
>>>

>
 I wouldn't say that the WMF communication is simply bad, it is pretty
 professional.

 It may rather be that an open communication and keeping control on the
 greater part of the decisions (or even conducting the users of the

>>> projets
>>>
 themself, as an average internet company does), are "two tendancies that
 are not fully compatible" (to borrow Florence's words).

 --
 Mathias Damour
 [[User:Astirmays]]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Florence Devouard]

Le 04/10/15 16:15, Theo10011 a écrit :

I thought the mandate of this committee was to facilitate and coordinate
bidding, set up policy and best practices. The page on Meta still mention
the same as its purpose[1].

When did a committee intended to facilitate an already established, open
process make the leap to downright owning the process and instead, doing
away with it all together? We went from an open jury system to finalizing
things behind closed doors in a physical meeting that seemingly the same
people attend regularly.

It's downright patronizing to hear plans about rotating wikimania from
Europe (excluding eastern Europe for some reason?), to North america and
the "rest of the world". This seems more like someone picking holiday
destinations, talking about countries, entire continents and rest of the
world, in a manner so cavalier.

It's constantly mentioned that the open bidding process is unwieldy and too
cumbersome. While that may be true for the bidding teams, it's still an
open, accessible process that gives everyone the same chance. The entire
idea of the committee was to move the process away from a single
individual's initiative to a group, not make the same individual chair who
just does away with the entire process and decides things on a whim.

Lastly, I don't think this is the usual WMF communication shortfall. This
is more of a committee issue, with its quasi-official status, they took
some liberty with the entire process and their own stated purpose, made
some sweeping changes and forgot to tell anyone, for months. The foundation
could have been as out of the loop as the rest of us.


Theo



There are roughly three components on the Wikimania committee.
One component is WMF staff.
One component is former and future Wikimania organizers.
One component is community members.

WMF staff does not have the same obligations and standards than the 
other members.


The rather unique situation of this committee is that... whilst it 
should include much community input... for most years (not all), 
Wikimania is actually mostly funded by WMF and beyond funding, some WMF 
staff put quite a bit of work in it. To say it bluntly, most of the 
time, without WMF input, Wikimania would simply not happen. This is no 
criticism to local teams (without them, Wikimania would not occur 
either), but a simple statement. WMF is a key stakeholder. What is the 
consequence of that from a committee member perspective ?


In my opinion, the consequence to that is that community members on the 
committee do not feel that they "own" this committee. It "does" feel 
like being invited on a Wikimedia Foundation committee. And as such, it 
feels like a sort of special attention/listening should be given to WMF 
staff members on that committee. And when things go ashtray... we 
hesitate being bold. It is not about forgetting.


So... two examples...

1) early October, Io stated that we should really push the announcement; 
Ellie answered that Canada organizer was on an unplanned leave and that 
she would prefer to work more on the Canada case before any 
announcement; And here it goes... no announcement.


2) last message on the committee list was, on the 2nd, Ellie saying that 
"James F. is the owner of the process document announcement" and "I do 
think we should post something today if at all possible".
Uh. I answered "yes please, post". What happened ? Nothing. James F. has 
not sent ANY message to the committee till the 21th of August (that 
is... 6 or 7 weeks ago ?) I have no idea why. Maybe there is a good 
reason. But did any members of the committee feel free to publish 
anything whilst James is the Chair and Ellie wants more time ? Well, 
obviously not.


Good thing the google docs were public, right ?

You are correct. This is not a "Wikimedia Foundation communication" by 
large shortfall. This is more of the committee. And this is because it 
is "too official" a committee.


Now, beside head rolling... (uh, ouch :)) what do you suggest to fix that ?

Anthere



[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee#Purpose_and_process

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Pine W  wrote:


Yes and no. Considering that I've been waiting for months for answers to
questions about the WMF Annual Plan, I would say that there is much room
for improvement in communications.

On the other hand, the WMF Comms department itself seems to more or less
ok, and I personally think we'll of WMF's chief communications officer.

So, some good points, and some room to improve. I agree that the status quo
has been this way for awhile and it would be good to see across-the-board
communications SLAs.

Pine
On Oct 4, 2015 12:18 AM, "Mathias Damour" 
wrote:


Le 04/10/2015 05:36, Craig Franklin a écrit :


I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community"
seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet

there

doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see

here.

A ne

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Gnangarra]

On 4 October 2015 at 15:17, Mathias Damour 
wrote:

> Le 04/10/2015 05:36, Craig Franklin a écrit :
>
>> I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community"
>> seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet there
>> doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see here.
>> A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated is
>> clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at all.
>>
>
> I wouldn't say that the WMF communication is simply bad, it is pretty
> professional.
>

​The communication team are good, but this isnt the fault of the
communication team but rather the Wikimania Committee. Its outright
disgusting and heads should roll for the last ten-twelve years Wikimania
bidding and process have been in one place on meta, and even now this place
continue to imply that nothing has changed. A month before the whole
process starts it get shelved in secret for a new process.  The people
involved on the Wikimania Committee know a bid starts months before the
actual bidding process opens.

As for the process
In returning to North America within two years, it will now be 2018 5 uears
since it last was outside of these two regions before anywhere else will
see the event, given its already been stated as SE Asia that also means
that Africa, Middle East, Oceana, South America, the Sub continent and
Eastern Europe will have to wait until 2021 for an opportunity even then
only one will get that.


This doesnt create incentive for people to be involved with Wikimania
planning , in fact it clearly states that if your outside of Europe or
North America your really not part of our movement but we'll tolerate you
to make us look like we care, and we're global in Europe.   There was
nothing wrong with the Wikimania  process as it stood we all knew going
that it takes a lot of energy, time and resources for potentially no
return now there's nothing there's no incentive its going to be 6,9,12
years before other communities will be given some crumbs


> ​ ​
>
> It may rather be that an open communication and keeping control on the
> greater part of the decisions (or even conducting the users of the projets
> themself, as an average internet company does), are "two tendancies that
> are not fully compatible" (to borrow Florence's words).
>
> --
> Mathias Damour
> [[User:Astirmays]]
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Theo10011]

I thought the mandate of this committee was to facilitate and coordinate
bidding, set up policy and best practices. The page on Meta still mention
the same as its purpose[1].

When did a committee intended to facilitate an already established, open
process make the leap to downright owning the process and instead, doing
away with it all together? We went from an open jury system to finalizing
things behind closed doors in a physical meeting that seemingly the same
people attend regularly.

It's downright patronizing to hear plans about rotating wikimania from
Europe (excluding eastern Europe for some reason?), to North america and
the "rest of the world". This seems more like someone picking holiday
destinations, talking about countries, entire continents and rest of the
world, in a manner so cavalier.

It's constantly mentioned that the open bidding process is unwieldy and too
cumbersome. While that may be true for the bidding teams, it's still an
open, accessible process that gives everyone the same chance. The entire
idea of the committee was to move the process away from a single
individual's initiative to a group, not make the same individual chair who
just does away with the entire process and decides things on a whim.

Lastly, I don't think this is the usual WMF communication shortfall. This
is more of a committee issue, with its quasi-official status, they took
some liberty with the entire process and their own stated purpose, made
some sweeping changes and forgot to tell anyone, for months. The foundation
could have been as out of the loop as the rest of us.


Theo


[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee#Purpose_and_process

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Yes and no. Considering that I've been waiting for months for answers to
> questions about the WMF Annual Plan, I would say that there is much room
> for improvement in communications.
>
> On the other hand, the WMF Comms department itself seems to more or less
> ok, and I personally think we'll of WMF's chief communications officer.
>
> So, some good points, and some room to improve. I agree that the status quo
> has been this way for awhile and it would be good to see across-the-board
> communications SLAs.
>
> Pine
> On Oct 4, 2015 12:18 AM, "Mathias Damour" 
> wrote:
>
> > Le 04/10/2015 05:36, Craig Franklin a écrit :
> >
> >> I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community"
> >> seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet
> there
> >> doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see
> here.
> >> A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated
> is
> >> clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at
> all.
> >>
> >
> > I wouldn't say that the WMF communication is simply bad, it is pretty
> > professional.
> >
> > It may rather be that an open communication and keeping control on the
> > greater part of the decisions (or even conducting the users of the
> projets
> > themself, as an average internet company does), are "two tendancies that
> > are not fully compatible" (to borrow Florence's words).
> >
> > --
> > Mathias Damour
> > [[User:Astirmays]]
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pine W]

Yes and no. Considering that I've been waiting for months for answers to
questions about the WMF Annual Plan, I would say that there is much room
for improvement in communications.

On the other hand, the WMF Comms department itself seems to more or less
ok, and I personally think we'll of WMF's chief communications officer.

So, some good points, and some room to improve. I agree that the status quo
has been this way for awhile and it would be good to see across-the-board
communications SLAs.

Pine
On Oct 4, 2015 12:18 AM, "Mathias Damour" 
wrote:

> Le 04/10/2015 05:36, Craig Franklin a écrit :
>
>> I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community"
>> seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet there
>> doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see here.
>> A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated is
>> clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at all.
>>
>
> I wouldn't say that the WMF communication is simply bad, it is pretty
> professional.
>
> It may rather be that an open communication and keeping control on the
> greater part of the decisions (or even conducting the users of the projets
> themself, as an average internet company does), are "two tendancies that
> are not fully compatible" (to borrow Florence's words).
>
> --
> Mathias Damour
> [[User:Astirmays]]
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Mathias Damour]

Le 04/10/2015 05:36, Craig Franklin a écrit :

I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community" seems 
to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet there doesn't seem to have 
been any consistent improvement, as we can see here.
A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated is 
clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at all.


I wouldn't say that the WMF communication is simply bad, it is pretty 
professional.


It may rather be that an open communication and keeping control on the 
greater part of the decisions (or even conducting the users of the 
projets themself, as an average internet company does), are "two 
tendancies that are not fully compatible" (to borrow Florence's words).


--
Mathias Damour
[[User:Astirmays]]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pine W]

Yes, that too.

Pine
On Oct 4, 2015 12:02 AM, "Carlos M. Colina"  wrote:

> All of this could be read as "let's make a call for community input for
> the sake of political correctness, so the community thinks their opinion is
> important for usbut we have taken the decision several months ago
> anyway".
>
> M.
>
> El 04/10/2015 a las 02:38 a.m., Florence Devouard escribió:
>
>> Le 04/10/15 00:13, Nathan a écrit :
>>
>>> Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
>>> been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
>>> completed this past August. [1]
>>>
>>> It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
>>> before it was a done deal.
>>>
>>> ~Nathan
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As member of this community, I would to shortly comment in my individual
>> capacity.
>>
>> The situation is completely embarassing. Yeah, it is.
>>
>> The community met during Wikimania.
>> - We discussed committee membership.
>> - We discussed moving away from the current bidding process, which is, -
>> in our opinion, broken
>> - We discussed making Montreal our choice, to be announced at the
>> *earliest* convenience (keep in mind this was discussed in July), as part
>> of our new process but only after talking with the Montreal team
>> - We finally discussed a notion of location with global areas
>> Very rough notes of that meeting were posted on meta :
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/2015-07-16
>>
>> We closed that meeting with the following todos
>> - Ellie had to check with Montreal (which she did)
>> - James had to propose areas (which he did)
>> - the committee had to meet again a month later (which it did)
>>
>> When August meeting came,
>> - we discussed and finalized membership (keep in mind that not all
>> members were in July meeting and not all members were in August meeting)
>> - Ellie informed us that Montreal team was happy to move forward and we
>> planned an announcement
>> - James proposed a set of areas, with propositions for the coming years
>> - James proposed a draft of announcement
>>
>> AND THIS IS WHERE THE WHOLE SITUATION BUGGED
>>
>> The announcement of the new bidding system, the locations and Montreal
>> were in one document only. And the problem is that the committee did not
>> agree collectively with the area chosen, nor with the predetermination
>> proposed.
>> (I, in particular, indicated my (very) deep disagreement that middle and
>> south africa were completely excluded from the list. I expressed my
>> (serious) desire that the decision of the rotation places be not made now
>> by the committee, but with community input). The committee concluded that
>> 1) the draft announcement was to be reworked and that 2) we would announce
>> the new system and seek input from the community before its finalization in
>> the following weeks.
>>
>> This was over a month ago. Since then, what happened ? We made some
>> improvements to the draft. Iolanda tried to push for the announcement of
>> the new process and of Montreal to be made. Ellie noted that the organizer
>> of Montreal was on a leave for 3 weeks and that she would prefer to wait
>> his return and a visit to Canada to finalize things more, and that she
>> would rather that the new process be announced as part of a larger
>> community consultation that would include discussion both about the program
>> and the future location, to be held in October.
>>
>> And there you are... there is this...dual situation between ... the
>> community wanting to know as soon as possible, so as to weigth in the
>> decision... and the staff... who want to polish things as much as possible
>> before any public announcement and call for input. And of course... these
>> two tendancies are not fully compatible.
>> And a pinch of feeling of "non ownership" from committee members, as only
>> the Chair of the committee should be the one to finalize and send the
>> announcement.
>>
>> Eh :)
>>
>> Well, there you are. Now things are out.
>>
>> We are indeed seriously considering Montreal pending a site visit this
>> month (october).
>>
>> Josh, for the record, I am very sorry because I had no idea you were
>> preparing a bid. I thought only Montreal had been really.
>> This is actually part of the reasons why we wish to change the biding
>> process. We have seen too many teams work like crazy for weeks, even
>> months, to prepare a bid that will go nowhere because another city will be
>> winning. This is such a loss of energy and time ! We think it 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Carlos M. Colina]

All of this could be read as "let's make a call for community input for 
the sake of political correctness, so the community thinks their opinion 
is important for usbut we have taken the decision several months ago 
anyway".


M.

El 04/10/2015 a las 02:38 a.m., Florence Devouard escribió:

Le 04/10/15 00:13, Nathan a écrit :
Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal 
has

been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
completed this past August. [1]

It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
before it was a done deal.

~Nathan

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 






As member of this community, I would to shortly comment in my 
individual capacity.


The situation is completely embarassing. Yeah, it is.

The community met during Wikimania.
- We discussed committee membership.
- We discussed moving away from the current bidding process, which is, 
- in our opinion, broken
- We discussed making Montreal our choice, to be announced at the 
*earliest* convenience (keep in mind this was discussed in July), as 
part of our new process but only after talking with the Montreal team

- We finally discussed a notion of location with global areas
Very rough notes of that meeting were posted on meta : 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/2015-07-16


We closed that meeting with the following todos
- Ellie had to check with Montreal (which she did)
- James had to propose areas (which he did)
- the committee had to meet again a month later (which it did)

When August meeting came,
- we discussed and finalized membership (keep in mind that not all 
members were in July meeting and not all members were in August meeting)
- Ellie informed us that Montreal team was happy to move forward and 
we planned an announcement

- James proposed a set of areas, with propositions for the coming years
- James proposed a draft of announcement

AND THIS IS WHERE THE WHOLE SITUATION BUGGED

The announcement of the new bidding system, the locations and Montreal 
were in one document only. And the problem is that the committee did 
not agree collectively with the area chosen, nor with the 
predetermination proposed.
(I, in particular, indicated my (very) deep disagreement that middle 
and south africa were completely excluded from the list. I expressed 
my (serious) desire that the decision of the rotation places be not 
made now by the committee, but with community input). The committee 
concluded that 1) the draft announcement was to be reworked and that 
2) we would announce the new system and seek input from the community 
before its finalization in the following weeks.


This was over a month ago. Since then, what happened ? We made some 
improvements to the draft. Iolanda tried to push for the announcement 
of the new process and of Montreal to be made. Ellie noted that the 
organizer of Montreal was on a leave for 3 weeks and that she would 
prefer to wait his return and a visit to Canada to finalize things 
more, and that she would rather that the new process be announced as 
part of a larger community consultation that would include discussion 
both about the program and the future location, to be held in October.


And there you are... there is this...dual situation between ... the 
community wanting to know as soon as possible, so as to weigth in the 
decision... and the staff... who want to polish things as much as 
possible before any public announcement and call for input. And of 
course... these two tendancies are not fully compatible.
And a pinch of feeling of "non ownership" from committee members, as 
only the Chair of the committee should be the one to finalize and send 
the announcement.


Eh :)

Well, there you are. Now things are out.

We are indeed seriously considering Montreal pending a site visit this 
month (october).


Josh, for the record, I am very sorry because I had no idea you were 
preparing a bid. I thought only Montreal had been really.
This is actually part of the reasons why we wish to change the biding 
process. We have seen too many teams work like crazy for weeks, even 
months, to prepare a bid that will go nowhere because another city 
will be winning. This is such a loss of energy and time ! We think it 
would be so much positive to get community members to focus more on 
building a great program more than on finding the proper 
venue/hotel/restaurant etc.


Hopefully, James will be available to post a clearer and complete 
message early next week on that topic. Bottom line is that there is a 
community consultation planne

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pine W]

I will be happy to learn of any specific and measurable new goals WMF has
for movement communications and specific plans for how those goals will be
achieved. I agree that vague statements about improved communication are
insufficient.

Pine
On Oct 3, 2015 8:36 PM, "Craig Franklin"  wrote:

> I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community"
> seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet there
> doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see here.
> A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated is
> clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at all.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 4 October 2015 at 13:25, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Sigh. Decisions being made behind closed doors and then being announced
> > much later than they should have been is a bit of a WMF pattern that I
> > would like to see addressed. My understanding is that Lila is putting
> some
> > emphasis on improved communications in Q2, and I would be interested in
> > seeing some specific measures put in place to address the kind of
> situation
> > that seems to have happened again here.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Craig Franklin <
> cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You could excuse the Perth and Manila bid teams for being very angry at
> > > having wasted a lot of time and energy when the decision was apparently
> > > made behind closed doors weeks ago.  Even if you think the idea of
> > getting
> > > rid of the expensive bid process is a good idea (and I do), the way
> that
> > > this was not communicated to the community is simply abominable.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > On 4 October 2015 at 08:13, Nathan  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal
> > has
> > > > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process
> that
> > > > completed this past August. [1]
> > > >
> > > > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new
> method
> > > > before it was a done deal.
> > > >
> > > > ~Nathan
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Craig Franklin]

I take your point Pine, but "improving communication with the community"
seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet there
doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see here.
A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated is
clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at all.

Cheers,
Craig

On 4 October 2015 at 13:25, Pine W  wrote:

> Sigh. Decisions being made behind closed doors and then being announced
> much later than they should have been is a bit of a WMF pattern that I
> would like to see addressed. My understanding is that Lila is putting some
> emphasis on improved communications in Q2, and I would be interested in
> seeing some specific measures put in place to address the kind of situation
> that seems to have happened again here.
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
>
> > You could excuse the Perth and Manila bid teams for being very angry at
> > having wasted a lot of time and energy when the decision was apparently
> > made behind closed doors weeks ago.  Even if you think the idea of
> getting
> > rid of the expensive bid process is a good idea (and I do), the way that
> > this was not communicated to the community is simply abominable.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 4 October 2015 at 08:13, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal
> has
> > > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
> > > completed this past August. [1]
> > >
> > > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
> > > before it was a done deal.
> > >
> > > ~Nathan
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Steven Zhang]

I have to say I'm quite surprised by this as well. It seems a real departure 
from the norm and even though I've been told first hand that WMF would never 
choose Australia as a venue for a Wikimania due to cost (and the shift to a 
Europe/North America/elsewhere rotating format demonstrates this) but it's 
still very disheartening for those that have started preparing a bid only to 
find out it's a complete waste of their time.

Steve Crossin
Sent from my iPhone

> On 4 Oct 2015, at 2:13 PM, Craig Franklin  wrote:
> 
> You could excuse the Perth and Manila bid teams for being very angry at
> having wasted a lot of time and energy when the decision was apparently
> made behind closed doors weeks ago.  Even if you think the idea of getting
> rid of the expensive bid process is a good idea (and I do), the way that
> this was not communicated to the community is simply abominable.
> 
> Cheers,
> Craig
> 
>> On 4 October 2015 at 08:13, Nathan  wrote:
>> 
>> Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
>> been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
>> completed this past August. [1]
>> 
>> It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
>> before it was a done deal.
>> 
>> ~Nathan
>> 
>> [1]
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Pine W]

Sigh. Decisions being made behind closed doors and then being announced
much later than they should have been is a bit of a WMF pattern that I
would like to see addressed. My understanding is that Lila is putting some
emphasis on improved communications in Q2, and I would be interested in
seeing some specific measures put in place to address the kind of situation
that seems to have happened again here.

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> You could excuse the Perth and Manila bid teams for being very angry at
> having wasted a lot of time and energy when the decision was apparently
> made behind closed doors weeks ago.  Even if you think the idea of getting
> rid of the expensive bid process is a good idea (and I do), the way that
> this was not communicated to the community is simply abominable.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 4 October 2015 at 08:13, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
> > been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
> > completed this past August. [1]
> >
> > It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
> > before it was a done deal.
> >
> > ~Nathan
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Craig Franklin]

You could excuse the Perth and Manila bid teams for being very angry at
having wasted a lot of time and energy when the decision was apparently
made behind closed doors weeks ago.  Even if you think the idea of getting
rid of the expensive bid process is a good idea (and I do), the way that
this was not communicated to the community is simply abominable.

Cheers,
Craig

On 4 October 2015 at 08:13, Nathan  wrote:

> Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
> been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
> completed this past August. [1]
>
> It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
> before it was a done deal.
>
> ~Nathan
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Katie Chan]

On 03/10/2015 23:13, Nathan wrote:

Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
completed this past August. [1]


Not so much the Signpost as 梁忠明.[1]

KTC


[1]: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079246.html



--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the 
author is associated with or employed by.



Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Florence Devouard]

Le 04/10/15 00:13, Nathan a écrit :

Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
completed this past August. [1]

It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
before it was a done deal.

~Nathan

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 





As member of this community, I would to shortly comment in my individual 
capacity.


The situation is completely embarassing. Yeah, it is.

The community met during Wikimania.
- We discussed committee membership.
- We discussed moving away from the current bidding process, which is, - 
in our opinion, broken
- We discussed making Montreal our choice, to be announced at the 
*earliest* convenience (keep in mind this was discussed in July), as 
part of our new process but only after talking with the Montreal team

- We finally discussed a notion of location with global areas
Very rough notes of that meeting were posted on meta : 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/2015-07-16


We closed that meeting with the following todos
- Ellie had to check with Montreal (which she did)
- James had to propose areas (which he did)
- the committee had to meet again a month later (which it did)

When August meeting came,
- we discussed and finalized membership (keep in mind that not all 
members were in July meeting and not all members were in August meeting)
- Ellie informed us that Montreal team was happy to move forward and we 
planned an announcement

- James proposed a set of areas, with propositions for the coming years
- James proposed a draft of announcement

AND THIS IS WHERE THE WHOLE SITUATION BUGGED

The announcement of the new bidding system, the locations and Montreal 
were in one document only. And the problem is that the committee did not 
agree collectively with the area chosen, nor with the predetermination 
proposed.
(I, in particular, indicated my (very) deep disagreement that middle and 
south africa were completely excluded from the list. I expressed my 
(serious) desire that the decision of the rotation places be not made 
now by the committee, but with community input). The committee concluded 
that 1) the draft announcement was to be reworked and that 2) we would 
announce the new system and seek input from the community before its 
finalization in the following weeks.


This was over a month ago. Since then, what happened ? We made some 
improvements to the draft. Iolanda tried to push for the announcement of 
the new process and of Montreal to be made. Ellie noted that the 
organizer of Montreal was on a leave for 3 weeks and that she would 
prefer to wait his return and a visit to Canada to finalize things more, 
and that she would rather that the new process be announced as part of a 
larger community consultation that would include discussion both about 
the program and the future location, to be held in October.


And there you are... there is this...dual situation between ... the 
community wanting to know as soon as possible, so as to weigth in the 
decision... and the staff... who want to polish things as much as 
possible before any public announcement and call for input. And of 
course... these two tendancies are not fully compatible.
And a pinch of feeling of "non ownership" from committee members, as 
only the Chair of the committee should be the one to finalize and send 
the announcement.


Eh :)

Well, there you are. Now things are out.

We are indeed seriously considering Montreal pending a site visit this 
month (october).


Josh, for the record, I am very sorry because I had no idea you were 
preparing a bid. I thought only Montreal had been really.
This is actually part of the reasons why we wish to change the biding 
process. We have seen too many teams work like crazy for weeks, even 
months, to prepare a bid that will go nowhere because another city will 
be winning. This is such a loss of energy and time ! We think it would 
be so much positive to get community members to focus more on building a 
great program more than on finding the proper venue/hotel/restaurant etc.


Hopefully, James will be available to post a clearer and complete 
message early next week on that topic. Bottom line is that there is a 
community consultation planned on that topic.


Again, I post this in my personal capacity.

Florence








___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mai

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

[Nathan]

Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
completed this past August. [1]

It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
before it was a done deal.

~Nathan

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/News_and_notes
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,