Hello Chris (or Jethro)! Thanks for taking time to reply.

> Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> >
> broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?)
> It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for
> Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the
> reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]

Great. I thought that table of issues was helpful, though wasn't quite
clear whose it was  (so to speak). If the answer is "it's generally the
view of the WMF staff working with this", that is good to know.

> 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
> > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
> > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
> > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
> > That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> > Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
> > From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
> > (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
> > about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
> For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the
> discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.

Yes please, that would be helpful!


> [1] <
> >
> [2] <
> >
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to