The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change it. As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of exclusion people see.
We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves people that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we can also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former. Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect many people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it does have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into the name and confusion is ebbing around the "Wikimedia Conference" name due to the years of history behind it. But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name. Best regards, Bence On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
