Following Andrew's comments, here's what I know -- 1 - User Digest is just one session of about 30 minutes. Liaisons pick the speakers to that. It's supposed to give a review of the thematic subject - GLAM, EDU, etc.
2 - I'm posting here what I've sent to the Cultural Partners Mailing List - *"*I've just updated the GLAM part on the program liaison page on Meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Program/Liaisons#GLAM>, putting there everything from our joint google doc. Now that the "critical issues" submission part is over, *it's high time to submit your suggestions *to all the other aspects of our GLAM track, if you haven't done so thus far. This includes suggestions for: ** Discussions* ** Workshops / Training* ** Posters* ** Lightning talks* * *Anything else we might have forgotten* Some of you have already contacted me privately about *discussions *and *workshops,* so please feel free to update the relevant part on meta. Try to keep it in the same format as suggested below, so it's easier to follow - * Title: * Purpose: * Target audience: * Length: * Max number of people (only if there is a limitation on your part): * Facilitator(s): * any other detail that will help others get a sense of the workshop and what you want to achieve. Please see an example I posted on behalf of Barbara Fischer -- building the GLAM KIT library <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Program/Liaisons#Building_the_GLAM_KIT_library> .* "* In other words*, use the liaison page for now,* till the organizing team has the separate pages ready. - Follow the format suggest, so it's cohesive and easier to follow. - Show your support to proposals, the wiki-way. The organizing team will take that into consideration. - When the organizing team opens submissions for the remaining parts -- submit! Hope that helps, Shani. On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2016-02-04 3:22 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: > >> Hope Montreal manages something a bit better, >> > > I don't know about "better", nor do I think it quite fair to slam the 2016 > team either for what was clearly intended to be an attempt to improve the > process - even if some of the results appear suboptimal in retrospect. > > FWIW, the Montreal team is keeping a close eye on the experiments being > done by the Italian team - no doubt there will be a valuable set of lessons > learned and we may be able to translate some of the things that worked well > into improvements to future Wikimanias. > > As for the programme selection, we are gunning for a process that splits > about 30% invited, 40% community CFP, and 30% unconference-style, with the > selection process for the CFP being very close to past years (i.e.: public > review on-wiki). We also don't intend to make a distinction between > submissions by Foundation staff and the other community members, though we > expect that many presentations that would have been proposals by staff will > end up being invited directly by the programming committee leaving more > "slots" available to the CFP. > > -- Marc > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
