Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Siko Bouterse]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Liang-chih Shang Kuan <
shangkua...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I want to kindly ask a follow up on the issue Isabella Apriana has
> mentioned - "...it's not official yet for Montreal, but seems like
> there's nothing we can do about 2017 now because community discussion is
> expected to focus on 2018-2021."
>
> Is that true? Should all the bid team except Montreal stop to spend their
> energy for the 2017 bid anymore, or should they keep contact the local
> venue and service providers to have a better research on their bid?
>
> I personally really want to have another Wikimania in Asia (if so, I won't
> have big jet lag issue, haha), I see WMID is putting some lot of efforts of
> their organization on the bid process (I was having a meeting with them for
> 2 hours to know better about the venue situation in Bali), so I ask this
> question. Just want to make sure how the follow up should go for the
> bidders before the community consultation in November to prevent burned out
> and reduce feeling of frustration.
>

Hi Liang. Confirming here that we've asked anyone who is considering
hosting Wikimania (for 2017 or any other year) to be in touch with Ellie
Young directly before putting any more energy into a bid.  Hope this is
clear now - thanks!


>
> Best,
>
>
> Liang, Wikimedia Taiwan
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Siko Bouterse
Director of Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

sboute...@wikimedia.org

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. *
*Donate  or click the "edit" button today,
and help us make it a reality!*
___
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] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Gnangarra]

I would be careful but using the Wikimania to forward some phases of the
discussion in person because many people dont get the opportunity to attend
in person and the last thing this process needs now is another barrier to
community participation

On 13 October 2015 at 00:55, Siko Bouterse  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Liang-chih Shang Kuan <
> shangkua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I want to kindly ask a follow up on the issue Isabella Apriana has
> > mentioned - "...it's not official yet for Montreal, but seems like
> > there's nothing we can do about 2017 now because community discussion is
> > expected to focus on 2018-2021."
> >
> > Is that true? Should all the bid team except Montreal stop to spend their
> > energy for the 2017 bid anymore, or should they keep contact the local
> > venue and service providers to have a better research on their bid?
> >
> > I personally really want to have another Wikimania in Asia (if so, I
> won't
> > have big jet lag issue, haha), I see WMID is putting some lot of efforts
> of
> > their organization on the bid process (I was having a meeting with them
> for
> > 2 hours to know better about the venue situation in Bali), so I ask this
> > question. Just want to make sure how the follow up should go for the
> > bidders before the community consultation in November to prevent burned
> out
> > and reduce feeling of frustration.
> >
>
> Hi Liang. Confirming here that we've asked anyone who is considering
> hosting Wikimania (for 2017 or any other year) to be in touch with Ellie
> Young directly before putting any more energy into a bid.  Hope this is
> clear now - thanks!
>
>
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> > Liang, Wikimedia Taiwan
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Siko Bouterse
> Director of Community Resources
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> sboute...@wikimedia.org
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. *
> *Donate  or click the "edit" button today,
> and help us make it a reality!*
> ___
> 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.
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] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Liang-chih Shang Kuan]

Hi all,

I want to kindly ask a follow up on the issue Isabella Apriana has
mentioned - "...it's not official yet for Montreal, but seems like
there's nothing we can do about 2017 now because community discussion is
expected to focus on 2018-2021."

Is that true? Should all the bid team except Montreal stop to spend their
energy for the 2017 bid anymore, or should they keep contact the local
venue and service providers to have a better research on their bid?

I personally really want to have another Wikimania in Asia (if so, I won't
have big jet lag issue, haha), I see WMID is putting some lot of efforts of
their organization on the bid process (I was having a meeting with them for
2 hours to know better about the venue situation in Bali), so I ask this
question. Just want to make sure how the follow up should go for the
bidders before the community consultation in November to prevent burned out
and reduce feeling of frustration.


Best,


Liang, Wikimedia Taiwan
___
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] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Isabella Apriyana]

Hello,

We already knew about Montreal (and the hint for cruise ship) [1] before
putting Bali on Meta. Nevertheless, we did so and moved on to contact and
meet with vendors, venues, etc; simply because it's an active meta page for
Wikimania 2017 bids, there's a somewhat obvious bidding timeline and the so
called bidding was not officially started, Montreal was not even listed on
the page, and most importantly no official announcement whatsoever from the
committee about any other non-bidding process. We also asked @wikimedia
about the updates, and of course they told us to check Meta page. Like we
always (suppose to) do.

Interestingly, it's not official yet for Montreal [2], but seems like
there's nothing we can do about 2017 now because community discussion is
expected to focus on 2018-2021. Either way, we are paying attention!

Cheers,
Isabella

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/2015-07-16
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=13980522


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Gnangarra, you're attaching a great deal of significance to a small detail
> in a complex situation. But please do look at the broader picture:
>
>- The chair of the Wikimania Committee has acknowledged that the
>Montreal selection is not confirmed.[1]
>- The supervisor of the committee's WMF representative has asserted the
>selection is not confirmed, and made assertions that match the original
>published timeline. (start of this thread)
>- The committee's/jury's *recommendations* (and they really have never
>been anything more) have been followed in the past; but there has never
> *yet
>*been a viable alternative recommendation.
>
> When I was a member of the Wikimania Jury, it was pretty well acknowledged
> within the jury that the setup was far from ideal, and should ideally have
> a stronger mandate and a more transparent processes. The problem has long
> been broadly acknowledged; it's not terribly controversial, but it will
> take effort to make an improvement.
>
> It seems that with the establishment of the Wikimania Committee, an effort
> has been made to fix the basic problems; from what I've read here, that
> effort has not (yet?) been successful, meaning that more work is needed.
>
> The only way the Wikimania Committee's recommendation will be unopposed is
> it is accepted by those in a position to offer an alternative. There is
> LOTS OF TIME to offer an alternative, if you or anybody else wants to start
> offering suggestions for how to do so.
>
> If you think the best way forward is for everybody involved to accept the
> Montreal recommendation *months before WMF will do so*, OK. That seems like
> a strange conclusion, but I don't really have any stake in where Wikimania
> is held, so you'll get no argument from me. But I do think anybody who
> disagrees with you and the Wikimania Committee should not hesitate to work
> toward a viable alternative. There's still plenty of time.
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/13980522
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > interesting suggestions Pete but the published timeline is based on the
> > published process which has now been marked as obsolete/historical. We
> also
> > know none of that process had been followed nor was there any intention
> to
> > follow that process. Are you seriously suggesting people continue to put
> > time and effort into the bids and ask people outside of the movement to
> > also make effort, without any leadership from WMF that there is even any
> > value in it.
> >
> > Lets look at the possible outcomes how they will perceived if Montreal
> 2017
> > is not followed through with;
> >
> >- Montreal still wins - it was already decided the process was token
> >gesture to effort of the others but it was never going to be anything
> > but
> >- Perth , Manila, or Bali - who ever wins will be seen as the most
> vocal
> >opponent to process and being awarded 2017 was an appeasement not a
> > genuine
> >best contender
> >- another city not yet in the pool -  went there to stop all the
> >arguments, a spiteful decision by those involve in the original
> decision
> >because of the backlash from the bidders who followed the published
> >processes
> >
> >
> > It really doesnt matter how a solution is proposed the way events have
> > occurred it has poisoned every selection outcome option, the best way
> > forward is for WMF to just accept Montreal and then put effort into
> > restoring community faith in the Wikimania processes and repairing the
> > damage done to those communities who acted in good faith following the
> > process laid down and refined by the community over the last 10 years.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 October 2015 at 22:47, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> >
> > > All:
> > >
> > > Based on a number of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Pete Forsyth]

All:

Based on a number of the posts in this thread, I think a few points are
worth underscoring.

   1. The Wikimania Jury (historical -- and for what it's worth, I was a
   member) and Wikimania Committee (present) have never had a strong mandate.
   Its recommendations have generally been accepted by the Wikimedia community
   and the Wikimedia Foundation.
   2. While it's possible the Wikimania Committee made what it *originally
   intended* to be a final and binding decision, there is nothing preventing
   the committee from revisiting its decision.
   3. As evident in Siko's post, the WMF does not yet regard the Montreal
   decision as final, and does not expect to reach such a decision before the
   end of 2015.

Siko's message aligns with the long-published timeline for venue
selection.[1]

For comparison, past decisions have been made as late as March or April.
There is still A LOT of time to make a final decision.

I'd suggest that anybody deeply dissatisfied with either the process or
proposed decision of the Wikimania Committee simply devote their efforts to
supporting an alternative bid (Perth, Manila, or elsewhere; the original
timeline still allows plenty of time for even *submitting* a bid). The
Wikimedia Foundation has a good deal of influence over legitimizing the
choice of a private group.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2017_bids

In short, there is no emergency here; rather, there's lots of opportunity
to come up with alternative venue options and alternative process proposals.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
wrote:

> Hi Siko
>
> El 06/10/2015 a las 01:11 a.m., Siko Bouterse escribió:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Just letting you know that I’m reading the recent Wikimania-focused
>> mailing
>> list threads with interest, as the Community Resources team is now
>> on-point
>> for funding and coordinating WMF’s involvement in Wikimania.
>>
>> A couple of first thoughts to share:
>>
>> 1. WMF has learned from past Wikimanias that we need to do our
>> due-diligence on venue etc before the host team and location is announced.
>> One reason for this is that we have a limited budget for Wikimania, and
>> doing a site visit before the host is finalized helps us ensure that we’re
>> able to support the costs of the event in a given location. Ellie Young is
>> headed to Montreal in 2 weeks and based on what she learns from that
>> visit,
>> we’re aiming to give the steering committee what they need to confirm
>> selection before the end of 2015.
>>
>
> Seriously? But the committee seems to have already taken a decision as
> early as August, with the e-announcement mail scheduled to be sent sometime
> in October
>
>///
>
>/Wikimania Committee meeting/
>
>2015-08-21, 16:00 UTC / 09:00 PDT
>DECISION: Committee happy to endorse Montréal as a great choice for
>2017. /
>
> /
> /
>
>/Venue//: wikimedia-l, wikimania-l/
>
>/Audience: Prospective Wikimania attendees, and other interested
>Wikimedians/
>
>/What//: Announce 2017 venue/
>
>/When//: ~ October 2015/
>
>/From//: James F. as Chair, o/b/o the Wikimania Committee/
>
>
>/Subject: //Wikimania 2017 to be held in Montréal in Canada/
>
>
>/All,/
>
>
>/I am delighted to announce on behalf of the Wikimania Committee
>that Wikimania, the annual Wikimedia community conference, will be
>held for 2017 in Montréal in Canada; congratulations. /
>
>
>
> That said, we recognize that
>> communications around this haven’t gone as planned,
>>
>
> Sort of.
>
>>   and we are looking into
>> improvements…(see thought 2)
>>
>> 2. We, too, would like to see the movement building towards a shared
>> vision
>> of Wikimania! It is great to see so many people, in true Wikimedian-style,
>> thinking about big-picture questions of participation, representation, and
>> content at Wikimania. Knowing that mailing list discussions have their
>> limits, here’s how my team is thinking about collecting feedback more
>> systematically for this going forward:
>>
>> We’ll be launching a community consultation in November to help build
>> towards more shared vision and process improvements for Wikimania 2018 -
>> 2021. Two key inputs we’ve been thinking about using to launch that
>> conversation are 1) responses from the survey of last Wikimania’s
>> attendees
>> and 2) the steering committee’s recommendation for host selection going
>> forward.
>>
>> We’re still regrouping from the latest Resources Consultation, and will
>> begin planning for a Wikimania Consultation next week, so after that we’ll
>> be able to share more information about what this consultation will look
>> like and the exact timeline. Meanwhile, suggestions and open questions
>> that
>> you’d like to see resolved via this consultation are most welcome in this
>> thread. My hope is that a consultation will help broaden participation in
>> these 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Pete Forsyth]

Gnangarra, you're attaching a great deal of significance to a small detail
in a complex situation. But please do look at the broader picture:

   - The chair of the Wikimania Committee has acknowledged that the
   Montreal selection is not confirmed.[1]
   - The supervisor of the committee's WMF representative has asserted the
   selection is not confirmed, and made assertions that match the original
   published timeline. (start of this thread)
   - The committee's/jury's *recommendations* (and they really have never
   been anything more) have been followed in the past; but there has never *yet
   *been a viable alternative recommendation.

When I was a member of the Wikimania Jury, it was pretty well acknowledged
within the jury that the setup was far from ideal, and should ideally have
a stronger mandate and a more transparent processes. The problem has long
been broadly acknowledged; it's not terribly controversial, but it will
take effort to make an improvement.

It seems that with the establishment of the Wikimania Committee, an effort
has been made to fix the basic problems; from what I've read here, that
effort has not (yet?) been successful, meaning that more work is needed.

The only way the Wikimania Committee's recommendation will be unopposed is
it is accepted by those in a position to offer an alternative. There is
LOTS OF TIME to offer an alternative, if you or anybody else wants to start
offering suggestions for how to do so.

If you think the best way forward is for everybody involved to accept the
Montreal recommendation *months before WMF will do so*, OK. That seems like
a strange conclusion, but I don't really have any stake in where Wikimania
is held, so you'll get no argument from me. But I do think anybody who
disagrees with you and the Wikimania Committee should not hesitate to work
toward a viable alternative. There's still plenty of time.

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/13980522

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> interesting suggestions Pete but the published timeline is based on the
> published process which has now been marked as obsolete/historical. We also
> know none of that process had been followed nor was there any intention to
> follow that process. Are you seriously suggesting people continue to put
> time and effort into the bids and ask people outside of the movement to
> also make effort, without any leadership from WMF that there is even any
> value in it.
>
> Lets look at the possible outcomes how they will perceived if Montreal 2017
> is not followed through with;
>
>- Montreal still wins - it was already decided the process was token
>gesture to effort of the others but it was never going to be anything
> but
>- Perth , Manila, or Bali - who ever wins will be seen as the most vocal
>opponent to process and being awarded 2017 was an appeasement not a
> genuine
>best contender
>- another city not yet in the pool -  went there to stop all the
>arguments, a spiteful decision by those involve in the original decision
>because of the backlash from the bidders who followed the published
>processes
>
>
> It really doesnt matter how a solution is proposed the way events have
> occurred it has poisoned every selection outcome option, the best way
> forward is for WMF to just accept Montreal and then put effort into
> restoring community faith in the Wikimania processes and repairing the
> damage done to those communities who acted in good faith following the
> process laid down and refined by the community over the last 10 years.
>
>
>
> On 6 October 2015 at 22:47, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > All:
> >
> > Based on a number of the posts in this thread, I think a few points are
> > worth underscoring.
> >
> >1. The Wikimania Jury (historical -- and for what it's worth, I was a
> >member) and Wikimania Committee (present) have never had a strong
> > mandate.
> >Its recommendations have generally been accepted by the Wikimedia
> > community
> >and the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >2. While it's possible the Wikimania Committee made what it
> *originally
> >intended* to be a final and binding decision, there is nothing
> > preventing
> >the committee from revisiting its decision.
> >3. As evident in Siko's post, the WMF does not yet regard the Montreal
> >decision as final, and does not expect to reach such a decision before
> > the
> >end of 2015.
> >
> > Siko's message aligns with the long-published timeline for venue
> > selection.[1]
> >
> > For comparison, past decisions have been made as late as March or April.
> > There is still A LOT of time to make a final decision.
> >
> > I'd suggest that anybody deeply dissatisfied with either the process or
> > proposed decision of the Wikimania Committee simply devote their efforts
> to
> > supporting an alternative bid (Perth, Manila, or elsewhere; the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Gnangarra]

interesting suggestions Pete but the published timeline is based on the
published process which has now been marked as obsolete/historical. We also
know none of that process had been followed nor was there any intention to
follow that process. Are you seriously suggesting people continue to put
time and effort into the bids and ask people outside of the movement to
also make effort, without any leadership from WMF that there is even any
value in it.

Lets look at the possible outcomes how they will perceived if Montreal 2017
is not followed through with;

   - Montreal still wins - it was already decided the process was token
   gesture to effort of the others but it was never going to be anything but
   - Perth , Manila, or Bali - who ever wins will be seen as the most vocal
   opponent to process and being awarded 2017 was an appeasement not a genuine
   best contender
   - another city not yet in the pool -  went there to stop all the
   arguments, a spiteful decision by those involve in the original decision
   because of the backlash from the bidders who followed the published
   processes


It really doesnt matter how a solution is proposed the way events have
occurred it has poisoned every selection outcome option, the best way
forward is for WMF to just accept Montreal and then put effort into
restoring community faith in the Wikimania processes and repairing the
damage done to those communities who acted in good faith following the
process laid down and refined by the community over the last 10 years.



On 6 October 2015 at 22:47, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> All:
>
> Based on a number of the posts in this thread, I think a few points are
> worth underscoring.
>
>1. The Wikimania Jury (historical -- and for what it's worth, I was a
>member) and Wikimania Committee (present) have never had a strong
> mandate.
>Its recommendations have generally been accepted by the Wikimedia
> community
>and the Wikimedia Foundation.
>2. While it's possible the Wikimania Committee made what it *originally
>intended* to be a final and binding decision, there is nothing
> preventing
>the committee from revisiting its decision.
>3. As evident in Siko's post, the WMF does not yet regard the Montreal
>decision as final, and does not expect to reach such a decision before
> the
>end of 2015.
>
> Siko's message aligns with the long-published timeline for venue
> selection.[1]
>
> For comparison, past decisions have been made as late as March or April.
> There is still A LOT of time to make a final decision.
>
> I'd suggest that anybody deeply dissatisfied with either the process or
> proposed decision of the Wikimania Committee simply devote their efforts to
> supporting an alternative bid (Perth, Manila, or elsewhere; the original
> timeline still allows plenty of time for even *submitting* a bid). The
> Wikimedia Foundation has a good deal of influence over legitimizing the
> choice of a private group.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2017_bids
>
> In short, there is no emergency here; rather, there's lots of opportunity
> to come up with alternative venue options and alternative process
> proposals.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Siko
> >
> > El 06/10/2015 a las 01:11 a.m., Siko Bouterse escribió:
> >
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> Just letting you know that I’m reading the recent Wikimania-focused
> >> mailing
> >> list threads with interest, as the Community Resources team is now
> >> on-point
> >> for funding and coordinating WMF’s involvement in Wikimania.
> >>
> >> A couple of first thoughts to share:
> >>
> >> 1. WMF has learned from past Wikimanias that we need to do our
> >> due-diligence on venue etc before the host team and location is
> announced.
> >> One reason for this is that we have a limited budget for Wikimania, and
> >> doing a site visit before the host is finalized helps us ensure that
> we’re
> >> able to support the costs of the event in a given location. Ellie Young
> is
> >> headed to Montreal in 2 weeks and based on what she learns from that
> >> visit,
> >> we’re aiming to give the steering committee what they need to confirm
> >> selection before the end of 2015.
> >>
> >
> > Seriously? But the committee seems to have already taken a decision as
> > early as August, with the e-announcement mail scheduled to be sent
> sometime
> > in October
> >
> >///
> >
> >/Wikimania Committee meeting/
> >
> >2015-08-21, 16:00 UTC / 09:00 PDT
> >DECISION: Committee happy to endorse Montréal as a great choice for
> >2017. /
> >
> > /
> > /
> >
> >/Venue//: wikimedia-l, wikimania-l/
> >
> >/Audience: Prospective Wikimania attendees, and other interested
> >Wikimedians/
> >
> >/What//: Announce 2017 venue/
> >
> >/When//: ~ October 2015/
> >
> >/From//: James F. as Chair, o/b/o 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on carrying the Wikimania conversation forward

[Carlos M. Colina]

Hi Siko

El 06/10/2015 a las 01:11 a.m., Siko Bouterse escribió:

Hi folks,

Just letting you know that I’m reading the recent Wikimania-focused mailing
list threads with interest, as the Community Resources team is now on-point
for funding and coordinating WMF’s involvement in Wikimania.

A couple of first thoughts to share:

1. WMF has learned from past Wikimanias that we need to do our
due-diligence on venue etc before the host team and location is announced.
One reason for this is that we have a limited budget for Wikimania, and
doing a site visit before the host is finalized helps us ensure that we’re
able to support the costs of the event in a given location. Ellie Young is
headed to Montreal in 2 weeks and based on what she learns from that visit,
we’re aiming to give the steering committee what they need to confirm
selection before the end of 2015.


Seriously? But the committee seems to have already taken a decision as 
early as August, with the e-announcement mail scheduled to be sent 
sometime in October


   ///

   /Wikimania Committee meeting/

   2015-08-21, 16:00 UTC / 09:00 PDT
   DECISION: Committee happy to endorse Montréal as a great choice for
   2017. /

/
/

   /Venue//: wikimedia-l, wikimania-l/

   /Audience: Prospective Wikimania attendees, and other interested
   Wikimedians/

   /What//: Announce 2017 venue/

   /When//: ~ October 2015/

   /From//: James F. as Chair, o/b/o the Wikimania Committee/


   /Subject: //Wikimania 2017 to be held in Montréal in Canada/


   /All,/


   /I am delighted to announce on behalf of the Wikimania Committee
   that Wikimania, the annual Wikimedia community conference, will be
   held for 2017 in Montréal in Canada; congratulations. /




That said, we recognize that
communications around this haven’t gone as planned,


Sort of.

  and we are looking into
improvements…(see thought 2)

2. We, too, would like to see the movement building towards a shared vision
of Wikimania! It is great to see so many people, in true Wikimedian-style,
thinking about big-picture questions of participation, representation, and
content at Wikimania. Knowing that mailing list discussions have their
limits, here’s how my team is thinking about collecting feedback more
systematically for this going forward:

We’ll be launching a community consultation in November to help build
towards more shared vision and process improvements for Wikimania 2018 -
2021. Two key inputs we’ve been thinking about using to launch that
conversation are 1) responses from the survey of last Wikimania’s attendees
and 2) the steering committee’s recommendation for host selection going
forward.

We’re still regrouping from the latest Resources Consultation, and will
begin planning for a Wikimania Consultation next week, so after that we’ll
be able to share more information about what this consultation will look
like and the exact timeline. Meanwhile, suggestions and open questions that
you’d like to see resolved via this consultation are most welcome in this
thread. My hope is that a consultation will help broaden participation in
these conversations and get us from input to action.
The problem here is that even if the reasoning for deciding behind 
closed doors the host for Wikimania 2017 was 100% valid, the way it was 
done, planning everything as early as August and planning when to 
release information to the people to make it seem transparent (as the 
WMF expects from all wikimedians), the way how it was handled lacked 
ethics and the way the WMF seems to react ("yeah well, we think we 
screwed it, let's move forward") happens again and again, and the 
movement receives always the same poor excuses.


Warm regards,
Siko



--
"*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,