Hi Bence, We strive not to be bound by bureaucracy, don't we? If we discover that a simple name (as generic as "Wikimedia Conference") is slightly misleading, or not completely accurate, then why should we avoid changing it? Particularly as it appears that no process has begun to plan the next coming conference?
If a group of people in New England USA (my geographic area) got together, perhaps with some of the chapters in the Eastern US, and created an event... We would not call it "Wikimedia Conference", even though we would have as much right to that name as the affiliate conference. That would be confusing, and misleading. So at a moment when there is no cost to the change, no chance of further confusion, and before resources are invested in this name for the next cycle... This is the perfect opportunity to address what is, you must admit, a minor concern easily solved. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe names and how we treat them both hold great power and tell a lot > about the name-giver and power relationships. > > "Wikimedia" means different things to different people (possibly all > valid), it is both the name for the concept of the different sister > projects and their combined ethos forming a network or movement [which > involves some people interested in Meta issues who have not been invited to > the Wikimedia Conference, and many many people who have been], as well as > the name for anything that comes under the substituent parts of the network > (all the individual editors, photographers, etc.) and sets of these groups > (and individuals can be members of Wikimedia under a multitude of ways > often belonging to both groups at the same time). The Wikimedia Conference, > nor Wikimania will ever be truly open to all people of the second group > (also rightfully called Wikimedia), but it can aim to be representative of > the first. Hundreds of volunteers have put their time into building up the > Wikimedia Conference idea and brand, and taking it away just because they > have yet to achieve 100% success on one difficult to define metric seems > ill-advised. > > I don't think taking away the name of the conference by trying to box it > into overspecification (by way of adding extra words) would be the right > direction: it sends the wrong message to the Wikimedians (who happened to > be chapter members at one time or another) who have built up the event for > the past 5-6 years as if they are not eligible to conduct activities under > the Wikimedia name unless they invite absolutely everyone, and it opens the > door for lazyness (if you call it the Affiliates Conference, don't complain > if non-affiliates are not invited, whereas if you call it the Wikimedia > Conference that will keep the organisers and participants accountable to > making it more representative). > > > Just as background, the conference has over the years and almost from the > start went beyond chapters: first the WMF Board and staff, Chapters > Committee members (including people who were not a member of any actual > chapter at the time), then the movement roles discussion group was invited, > followed by user groups, AffCom (still having members not part of any > affiliate at the time) and thorgs, as well as the FDC (again, with members > who are not members in any affiliate) were invited with some side meetings > that had wider participation. It is no longer tied to just the affiliate > organisations but simply to the governance and "Wikimedians active offline > [as well as online]" side of the movement (people falling under one of the > interpretations of "Wikimedia"). > > Last year I made the proposal to some of the organisers to think about > opening a certain number of places for volunteers dedicated to the future > of the movement, strategic and governance issues to be able to freely > attend, to better live up to the name and the valid concern that tying > participation to organisational roles leaves some people out that should be > included. I could see that happening for the 2015 conference if the > organisers work out the details, but even in that case I don't see the > conference as being attractive to 80 thousand editors and that is perfectly > fine. > > In any case, renaming the conference without the consent of the pool of > participants (which might be given, after all the Conference had a > different name in the first years) seems like a move out of power that > belittles the work of the people involved. (And I think this is valid > statement, even considering the valid anguish of all the brilliant > volunteers who could not attend in previous years - this change has to come > from the organisers to be "real".) > > Best regards, > Bence > > (Personal view, though I was lucky to organise the 2011 conference and > participate in various roles in others; I don't at the moment hold any > position serving as an entry ticket to the 2015 event, though I am > considering paying my way if the conference opens up places) > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Isarra Yos <zhoris...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 11/09/14 18:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > > > >> On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote: > >> > >>> On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Against the funds of WMF. > >>>> > >>>> A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly > >>>> Wikimania, > >>>> and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. > >>>> > >>>> Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie. > >>> > >>> J. > >>> > >> > >> Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion. > >> > >> In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups (~15). > >> At the start it was called "chapters conference", now it's called > Wikimedia > >> Conference because it's more open. > >> > >> In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again "chapters conference". > >> > >> To participate it's sufficient to be "representative of a group", not > >> only of himself. > >> > >> Considering the principle of "delegation", it may be considered a > >> Wikimedia Conference. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> > > I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor > > are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. > > Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself. > > > > If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference? > > > > -I > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
