On 19 March 2013 09:59, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 March 2013 09:52, Charles Matthews > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 19 March 2013 09:39, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I >>>> can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared >>>> with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid. > >>> They don't. This thread is mostly hair-splitting for the sake of >>> bloody-mindedness, not anything that will actually help anything >>> anywhere. > >> No worries then. The much-neglected grassroots activists will turn up >> in droves, tip their hats, and ask only yo be called on again when >> Wikimania next hits London. > > > If you manage to snatch defeat from victory but succeed in making your > point, will you personally consider it a win?
There is still time to communicate more effectively with said grassroots. This is a theme I have been addressing in what I hope have been non-adversarial ways since I stopped working for WMUK (pretty much on this issue). I don't see that win-win is out of the question. Credit for the stakeholder analysis business should go to Fae, with whom I raised this point quite some time ago. It just needs to be higher up the agenda, like all the other things (there aren't that many) that would grow the active UK community. I put the point this way to a WMUK trustee recently: the question of how many outreachy-networky things WMUK should be taking on is of the nature "how long is a piece of string?", while the grow-the-base things are "fingers of one hand". What I'm really not happy about is the conference strand being a cuckoo in the nest. Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
