[Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Fæ
Re: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014

I had thought that to ensure the cost of the conference was kept to a
healthy level that organizations would send no more than 2
representatives plus one optional guest. This seems to not be the case
looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive
party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania representatives), significantly
larger than any other Chapter or Thorg.

Could we please be modest with the movement's money and than some of
these proposed names are withdrawn? I propose setting an absolute
maximum of 3 representatives from any chapter, thorg or user group and
that is enforced rather than a vague guideline.

There will be video conferencing available, costing the movement nothing.

Links:
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Participants

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the
opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow
you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right
people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.

Cost is only one criteria to measure things by. What would you consider as
relevant for more people to go ?
Thanks,
     Gerard


On 31 March 2014 11:47, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Re: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014
>
> I had thought that to ensure the cost of the conference was kept to a
> healthy level that organizations would send no more than 2
> representatives plus one optional guest. This seems to not be the case
> looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive
> party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania representatives), significantly
> larger than any other Chapter or Thorg.
>
> Could we please be modest with the movement's money and than some of
> these proposed names are withdrawn? I propose setting an absolute
> maximum of 3 representatives from any chapter, thorg or user group and
> that is enforced rather than a vague guideline.
>
> There will be video conferencing available, costing the movement nothing.
>
> Links:
> 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Participants
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Marc-Andre
In reply to this post by Fæ
On 03/31/2014 05:47 AM, Fæ wrote:
> with the UK sending a massive
> party of 8 people

That seems niether all that surprising nor all that costly; obviously
the cost of sending UK members to London will be considerably cheaper
than from anywhere else (and, indeed, some of those may well be local to
London reducing travel to nil) -- a rare opportunity for a local
movement to increase their participation.

Unless you are aware that the actual /cost/ of that delegation is
unreasonable, I would think that being able to have a larger party is,
in fact, desirable and wouldn't object to size for size's sake.

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Marc-Andre
On 03/31/2014 08:23 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> That seems niether all that surprising nor all that costly

Oh, D'oh!  Wrong conference!

Ignore me, and move along.  :-)

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Fæ
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the
> opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow
> you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right
> people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.
>
> Cost is only one criteria to measure things by. What would you consider as
> relevant for more people to go ?
> Thanks,
>      Gerard

Yes absolute cost is only one measure, but should remain a primary one
when judging if the charitable funds of our movement are being spent
wisely.

Another consideration is past concern from smaller chapters that this
meeting was being overwhelmed with the viewpoint of the larger and
better funded chapters that found it easiest to travel to Berlin, or
pay employees to attend. This is probably a reason why the German
chapter, compared to the UK chapter, is sending a relatively modest
number of people to represent their chapter at the conference they are
actually hosting.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary
consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend
because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out
of kilter.

Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the
bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it means
that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the
German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these people
have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing
needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at
all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who decide
on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the
conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned.

Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it
is not spend effectively.
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 31 March 2014 14:34, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the
> > opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow
> > you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right
> > people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.
> >
> > Cost is only one criteria to measure things by. What would you consider
> as
> > relevant for more people to go ?
> > Thanks,
> >      Gerard
>
> Yes absolute cost is only one measure, but should remain a primary one
> when judging if the charitable funds of our movement are being spent
> wisely.
>
> Another consideration is past concern from smaller chapters that this
> meeting was being overwhelmed with the viewpoint of the larger and
> better funded chapters that found it easiest to travel to Berlin, or
> pay employees to attend. This is probably a reason why the German
> chapter, compared to the UK chapter, is sending a relatively modest
> number of people to represent their chapter at the conference they are
> actually hosting.
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Itzik Edri
I don't think the costs are the issue here, neither if there is streaming
or not (and I don't think we need to have one. It's WMCconf, not Wikimania).

But we have strict rule - two representatives, 3 if you have ED. I also saw
that some chapters have more than that, and I really don't know why. If
they are coming as speakers to one of the sessions - I hope their
participation and attending in the venue area will be limit only to this
session only (and then it will be really waste of money). This is also
relevant by the way (from my point of view) to WMDE staff/board that are
not part of conference staff.


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hoi,
> When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary
> consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend
> because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out
> of kilter.
>
> Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the
> bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it means
> that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the
> German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these people
> have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing
> needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at
> all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who decide
> on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the
> conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned.
>
> Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it
> is not spend effectively.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
> On 31 March 2014 14:34, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the
> > > opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not
> allow
> > > you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right
> > > people go for the right reasons, it pays its dividents.
> > >
> > > Cost is only one criteria to measure things by. What would you consider
> > as
> > > relevant for more people to go ?
> > > Thanks,
> > >      Gerard
> >
> > Yes absolute cost is only one measure, but should remain a primary one
> > when judging if the charitable funds of our movement are being spent
> > wisely.
> >
> > Another consideration is past concern from smaller chapters that this
> > meeting was being overwhelmed with the viewpoint of the larger and
> > better funded chapters that found it easiest to travel to Berlin, or
> > pay employees to attend. This is probably a reason why the German
> > chapter, compared to the UK chapter, is sending a relatively modest
> > number of people to represent their chapter at the conference they are
> > actually hosting.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Fæ
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary
> consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend
> because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out
> of kilter.
>
> Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the
> bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it means
> that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the
> German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these people
> have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing
> needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at
> all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who decide
> on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the
> conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned.
>
> Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it
> is not spend effectively.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM

Gerard, I am unclear if you believe that from the information
available this appears to be an effective use of Wikimedia funds. For
one chapter to break the rules and send significantly more
representatives to this conference than the others when they are not
even the host does not appear effective to my eyes, rather than
"misplaced frugality".

A rationale for a higher UK representatives might be that London is
the host for Wikimania this year, however the attendees going for
other reasons were excluded from the count of 8. From my quick check,
there are actually 10 members of Wikimedia UK going to the conference.

It is reasonable to assume that they are being funded to do so through
Wikimedia funds, however as there are no complete open list I cannot
check this fact.

In addition we should take care to ensure appropriate transparency
when using our funds. It is almost impossible to fully assess how many
employees are attending in proportion to unpaid volunteers (which
implies costs beyond travel and accommodation), or whether named
representatives have any experience or interests in the Wikimedia
projects, as many names are given no link or context. For example,
being a past Chair of the chapter I am familiar with most people
active in it, however, oddly, this is the first time I have seen the
name Katherine Ruth published and there is no information available
about her on the UK wiki.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Cristian Consonni
In reply to this post by Fæ
2014-03-31 11:47 GMT+02:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:
> This seems to not be the case
> looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive
> party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania representatives), significantly
> larger than any other Chapter or Thorg.

Well, the question then is "can WM-UK explain the rationale for
sending such a large representation?"

C

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Bence Damokos
Please note that this year the invitation to the conference states
"Organizations
who would like to send more than two persons will have to book and pay for
all their travel and accommodation themselves."  -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Registration -
There is no more a blanket recommendation against sending more than two
people.

Nevertheless, a discussion on who should attend such a conference in
general, and if there is a specific goal WMUK is hoping to achieve this
year are still valid.

Best regards,
Bence
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Fæ
Hoi,
Fae what I object to is assuming going to a conference with " too big" a
delegation is a waste of money by definition. In your reply you mention *
you were a chair of the chapter and, * you do not know Katherine Ruth.
Given that you were the chair of the chapter, you should be happy new
people are joining the fray; it shows the chapter is vibrant and new people
join.

In WIkipedia there was a time when we had disdain for rules. I applaud this
sentiment; rules for rules sake is neither effective nor cost effective.

My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend
their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this at an
appropriate time and at an appropriate place. When other considerations
exist like agreements not to send too many people, then it is for the
people involved to address these issues.

Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"?
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 31 March 2014 15:36, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary
> > consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend
> > because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are
> out
> > of kilter.
> >
> > Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the
> > bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it
> means
> > that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the
> > German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these
> people
> > have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing
> > needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at
> > all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who
> decide
> > on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the
> > conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned.
> >
> > Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it
> > is not spend effectively.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
>
> Gerard, I am unclear if you believe that from the information
> available this appears to be an effective use of Wikimedia funds. For
> one chapter to break the rules and send significantly more
> representatives to this conference than the others when they are not
> even the host does not appear effective to my eyes, rather than
> "misplaced frugality".
>
> A rationale for a higher UK representatives might be that London is
> the host for Wikimania this year, however the attendees going for
> other reasons were excluded from the count of 8. From my quick check,
> there are actually 10 members of Wikimedia UK going to the conference.
>
> It is reasonable to assume that they are being funded to do so through
> Wikimedia funds, however as there are no complete open list I cannot
> check this fact.
>
> In addition we should take care to ensure appropriate transparency
> when using our funds. It is almost impossible to fully assess how many
> employees are attending in proportion to unpaid volunteers (which
> implies costs beyond travel and accommodation), or whether named
> representatives have any experience or interests in the Wikimedia
> projects, as many names are given no link or context. For example,
> being a past Chair of the chapter I am familiar with most people
> active in it, however, oddly, this is the first time I have seen the
> name Katherine Ruth published and there is no information available
> about her on the UK wiki.
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Fæ
On 31 March 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule "from the grave"?
> Thanks,

Thanks Gerard, I'll return to being dead and buried now.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Russavia
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Gerard, et al

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

>
> My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they
> spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this
> at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.


Might I make a point here.

It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general
public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.

The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste
money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated
last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/

The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is
committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any.

As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions,
and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions
without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair,
why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a
tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a
committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.

Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair
that they answer them.

Cheers,

Russavia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Jon Davies
A few points.

There is no policy to restrict participation to three representatives.
Indeed, many chapters are sending more than three delegates as has been the
case in previous years.

For the record we have people going for four reasons:

   - CEO and Chair as standard
   - Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
   of strength in the chapter.
   - Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
   West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a
   great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
   - Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
   and expectations.

I think this is a sensible use of our resources, (flights to Berlin are
cheaper than many train journeys to UK cities), supports our learning and
helps share our knowledge and understanding with other chapters.

And on a final point we will certainly not be going round in a sort of WMUK
gang trying to overwhelm small chapters - quite the opposite and I think we
have a good record at WMUK of supporting others.

*Regards, Jon Davies*


*CEO Wikimedia UK.*


On 31 March 2014 15:43, Russavia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gerard, et al
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> >
> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they
> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this
> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
>
>
> Might I make a point here.
>
> It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general
> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to
> survive.
>
> The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste
> money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated
> last year by
> http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
> http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
>
> The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is
> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any.
>
> As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions,
> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions
> without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair,
> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a
> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a
> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide
> attacks.
>
> Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair
> that they answer them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Fæ
On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
...

> For the record we have people going for four reasons:
>
>    - CEO and Chair as standard
>    - Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
>    of strength in the chapter.
>    - Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
>    West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a
>    great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
>    - Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
>    and expectations.

I was going to step back from this, however a correction needs to be
made here for the record, There are 8 people being funded not 7. Named
as going are the CEO, 2 additional full time employees and 5 trustees
representing Wikimedia UK at the conference.

This excludes two other active members of Wikimedia UK who are
representing the London Wikimania Programme and a member of the FDC.

Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Jon Davies
You are right - eight. as Chris is going as well. The reasons remain the
same.



On 31 March 2014 17:00, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
> > For the record we have people going for four reasons:
> >
> >    - CEO and Chair as standard
> >    - Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on
> areas
> >    of strength in the chapter.
> >    - Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
> >    West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees -
> a
> >    great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
> >    - Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
> >    and expectations.
>
> I was going to step back from this, however a correction needs to be
> made here for the record, There are 8 people being funded not 7. Named
> as going are the CEO, 2 additional full time employees and 5 trustees
> representing Wikimedia UK at the conference.
>
> This excludes two other active members of Wikimedia UK who are
> representing the London Wikimania Programme and a member of the FDC.
>
> Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Simon Knight
In reply to this post by Fæ
The additional trustee is also talking so Jon's points stand.  It's great that Wikimania representatives will be there, and that a WMUK member will also be there as part of the FDC. However, while I certainly hope those individuals are happy to represent WMUK, they're really not relevant to your point - they are there for other (international movement) purposes and not funded by WMUK.

Best
Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 31 March 2014 17:00
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
...

> For the record we have people going for four reasons:
>
>    - CEO and Chair as standard
>    - Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
>    of strength in the chapter.
>    - Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
>    West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a
>    great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
>    - Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
>    and expectations.

I was going to step back from this, however a correction needs to be made here for the record, There are 8 people being funded not 7. Named as going are the CEO, 2 additional full time employees and 5 trustees representing Wikimedia UK at the conference.

This excludes two other active members of Wikimedia UK who are representing the London Wikimania Programme and a member of the FDC.

Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Itzik Edri
In reply to this post by Jon Davies
This is totally surprise for me. I checked the last years participation
lists, and none of the chapters sent more than 2+1 representatives. The
idea all this years was very simple: to keep the conference small as
possible in order to have effective discussions, and to allow all the
chapter to be equal - neither if you are WMDE or a chapter that just been
approved few months ago with zero budget.

The fact that this year the "rules" (if they been written or not somewhere
till now is less relevant) had been changed without having a discussions
about it very disappointing. I'll be happy to hear from the organization
committee about this surprising change.

BTW - The idea that people from WMUK are coming in order to promote
Wikimania among chapters makes me very amusement.


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Jon Davies <[hidden email]>wrote:

> A few points.
>
> There is no policy to restrict participation to three representatives.
> Indeed, many chapters are sending more than three delegates as has been the
> case in previous years.
>
> For the record we have people going for four reasons:
>
>    - CEO and Chair as standard
>    - Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
>    of strength in the chapter.
>    - Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be a misnamed Kate
>    West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a
>    great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
>    - Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas
>    and expectations.
>
> I think this is a sensible use of our resources, (flights to Berlin are
> cheaper than many train journeys to UK cities), supports our learning and
> helps share our knowledge and understanding with other chapters.
>
> And on a final point we will certainly not be going round in a sort of WMUK
> gang trying to overwhelm small chapters - quite the opposite and I think we
> have a good record at WMUK of supporting others.
>
> *Regards, Jon Davies*
>
>
> *CEO Wikimedia UK.*
>
>
> On 31 March 2014 15:43, Russavia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Gerard, et al
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <[hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they
> > > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question
> this
> > > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
> >
> >
> > Might I make a point here.
> >
> > It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the
> general
> > public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to
> > survive.
> >
> > The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste
> > money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
> demonstrated
> > last year by
> > http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
> > http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
> >
> > The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is
> > committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as
> any.
> >
> > As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions,
> > and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions
> > without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the
> chair,
> > why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there
> is a
> > tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a
> > committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide
> > attacks.
> >
> > Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only
> fair
> > that they answer them.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Russavia
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
> tweet @jonatreesdavies
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
>
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Russavia
Hoi,
Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best
expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not implicit
condemnations.

Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a
former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and
not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not
controversial.

When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the
formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current
criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large
delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste money by
sending people to a conference, why is that".

Thanks,

      GerardM



Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <[hidden email]>:

> Gerard, et al
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> >
> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they
> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this
> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
>
>
> Might I make a point here.
>
> It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general
> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to
> survive.
>
> The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste
> money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated
> last year by
> http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
> http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
>
> The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is
> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any.
>
> As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions,
> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions
> without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair,
> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a
> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a
> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide
> attacks.
>
> Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair
> that they answer them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

Nicole Ebber
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some
activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that
I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like
conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding
programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same
discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.

There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or
volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly,
to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics
on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme

Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We
have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political
discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!

I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!

Best,
Nicole

On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see fit.
> The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for everyone
> to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best
> expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not implicit
> condemnations.
>
> Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a
> former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction and
> not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not
> controversial.
>
> When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the
> formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that gets
> the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere else in
> "the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current
> criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large
> delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste money by
> sending people to a conference, why is that".
>
> Thanks,
>
>       GerardM
>
>
>
> Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Gerard, et al
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they
>> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question this
>> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
>>
>>
>> Might I make a point here.
>>
>> It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the general
>> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to
>> survive.
>>
>> The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to waste
>> money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated
>> last year by
>> http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
>> http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
>>
>> The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is
>> committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as any.
>>
>> As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such questions,
>> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions
>> without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair,
>> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there is a
>> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a
>> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide
>> attacks.
>>
>> Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only fair
>> that they answer them.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Russavia
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Nicole Ebber
Leiterin Internationales
Head of International Affairs

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0

http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12