[Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

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

[Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Ellie Young
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania>
on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better
serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
results and have prepared this report:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes

I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.

Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes>
Thanks to all who participated!

Ellie

--
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I positively HATE the notion that Wikimania will be once every other year.
It is easy enough to get in contact with local heroes. What Wikimania does
is bring people from the whole world together. Without Wikimania our
community is parochial. This is where our projects are weak in having a
global view.

I resent this conclusion forcefully.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 8 February 2016 at 23:53, Ellie Young <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania>
> on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
> unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better
> serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
> results and have prepared this report:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>
> I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
> 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
> movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
>
> Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
> >
> Thanks to all who participated!
>
> Ellie
>
> --
> Ellie Young
> Events Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Isarra Yos
Interestingly, having them every other year would make it potentially
viable for an entirely new community group to start putting on their own
wikimanias, essentially forking the process.

On 09/02/16 07:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> I positively HATE the notion that Wikimania will be once every other year.
> It is easy enough to get in contact with local heroes. What Wikimania does
> is bring people from the whole world together. Without Wikimania our
> community is parochial. This is where our projects are weak in having a
> global view.
>
> I resent this conclusion forcefully.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 8 February 2016 at 23:53, Ellie Young <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania>
>> on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
>> unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better
>> serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
>> results and have prepared this report:
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>>
>> I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
>> 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
>> movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
>>
>> Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>> Thanks to all who participated!
>>
>> Ellie
>>
>> --
>> Ellie Young
>> Events Manager
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] [Wmfall] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Brion Vibber-4
In reply to this post by Ellie Young
Was there a "don't mess with the process, but also don't hold it in tiny
towns while telling staff not to go because there's no room for them"?
option in the survey?

-- brion
On Feb 8, 2016 2:54 PM, "Ellie Young" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania>
> on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
> unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better
> serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
> results and have prepared this report:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>
> I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
> 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
> movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
>
> Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes>
> Thanks to all who participated!
>
> Ellie
>
> --
> Ellie Young
> Events Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
> [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wmfall mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

jmh649
In reply to this post by Ellie Young
Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years. Meeting
once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping it
smaller / capping  funding.

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come? Who is not relevant enough. We
are a big movement and there is a reason for that. You care about health,
what about mental health? How do you learn the lessons from the Malayalam
source movement. There is more than we can do and you talk about capping
funding.. WHY
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 9 February 2016 at 16:25, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years. Meeting
> once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping it
> smaller / capping  funding.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Risker
Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the movement.
Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime", but
many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position.

Your point about sharing lessons is important. It would be good to put
significant focus on how to share lessons in ways that are significantly
less expensive and have the opportunity to reach a broader audience.
Wikimania, for all its good points, isn't necessarily the best way to share
a lot of these lessons.  It's very expensive for everyone, there's very
limited evidence that many of those lessons have been effectively utilized
by other similar groups, and the presentations and lessons may not hit the
most logical target audiences.

I've not expressed a particular opinion about any of the proposed
"Wikimania solutions" but I do believe that there is a real place for more
focused, specialized conferences such as Hackathons, Wikisource conference
and the CEE conference.  I also believe we have to work harder at capturing
lessons and sharing them in a more permanent way, such as the "learnings"
that many groups have created and shared with the assistance of Community
Engagement.  I'm sure we can think of more ways to share information that
doesn't involve people having to fly half-way around the world and spend
thousands of dollars.

Risker/Anne

On 9 February 2016 at 10:40, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come? Who is not relevant enough. We
> are a big movement and there is a reason for that. You care about health,
> what about mental health? How do you learn the lessons from the Malayalam
> source movement. There is more than we can do and you talk about capping
> funding.. WHY
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 16:25, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years.
> Meeting
> > once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping
> it
> > smaller / capping  funding.
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] [Wikimania-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

James Forrester-2
In reply to this post by Ellie Young
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 14:54 Ellie Young <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania>
> on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
> unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to better
> serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
> results and have prepared this report:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>
> I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
> 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
> movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
>
> Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes>
> Thanks to all who participated!
>

On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who
took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.

The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back
with some changes to our processes.

Yours,
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Risker
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
> because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the movement.
> Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime", but
> many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position.


Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving the
value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for tens
of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively tiny
cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put its
own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more
example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside the
organization than it is on internal spending.

It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that the
conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was the
"give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of Wikimania" and
option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect that if
there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option many
would have selected it.

If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I don't
know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily
support that effort.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] [Wikimania-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by James Forrester-2
>
> ​
> On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who

took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.

The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back

> with some changes to our processes.
>

​Ellie started the discussion just 18 hours ago, and now your closing it
 yet it hasnt even had time for the earth to make one complete rotation, if
you seriously want opinions at least give it one 24 hour cycle better 7-14
of them as ideas and thoughts take time to be developed...

All you achieved is proving that Wikimania Committee  isnt interested in
the community ​


> ​
>
>
On 10 February 2016 at 00:19, James Forrester <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 14:54 Ellie Young <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania>
> > on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
> > unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to
> better
> > serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
> > results and have prepared this report:
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
> >
> > I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
> > 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
> > movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
> >
> > Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
> >
> > Thanks to all who participated!
> >
>
> On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who
> took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
>
> The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back
> with some changes to our processes.
>
> Yours,
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a
novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with an
issue quite like this before.

Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as
significant):
1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a good
thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing, even
if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the
conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please compare
it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter.
2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings the
movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)

However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the
direction this is going:
3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
Wikimania". 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?) Equally, I am not really
clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In
general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
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 there
isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
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.

Thanks,

Chris

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
> > because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the
> movement.
> > Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime",
> but
> > many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position.
>
>
> Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving the
> value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for tens
> of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively tiny
> cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put its
> own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more
> example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside the
> organization than it is on internal spending.
>
> It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that the
> conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was the
> "give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of Wikimania" and
> option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect that if
> there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option many
> would have selected it.
>
> If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I don't
> know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily
> support that effort.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] [Wikimania-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Fæ
In reply to this post by Gnangarra
The communications failure and lack of any public consultation before
throwing away the community driven bidding process, was a very good
moment to appoint a new Chair of the Wikimania Committee. The
suggestion at the time was ignored.[1] How can the community force
real changes, if the Committee is in apparent PR lock-down? From my
understanding of the history of this committee, it is long overdue to
appoint a Chair who is not reliant on keeping the WMF executive happy
for their salary.

By the way, 220 Wikimedians took part in the vote that asked for a WMF
trustee to be removed (admittedly, a vote that did not result in the
WMF board changing its mind in any way about their absolute confidence
in their appointment). We probably should expect that level of
participation before announcing that is a significant consensus to
make major changes to something as fundamental to the global community
of Wikimedians as Wikimania.

P.S. The Wikimania Committee appears to have failed to publish minutes
or draft notes of its deliberations since last summer, unless they
have published them somewhere other than Meta.[2] When the Wikimania
Committee looks more secretive than the WMF board of trustees, the
community should be questioning their commitment to openness and
transparency.

Links:
1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079274.html
- "...starting a public process to ensure some new faces in the next
few months, including a change of the Chairman. This would show the
Committee recognizes this was a real serious failure which should see
proportionate changes of roles on the Committee. If everything stays
exactly the same for the next six months, then this would show the
Committee is more interested in protecting itself, than ensuring
that the unpaid volunteer and community consensus is central to the
way this process *should* be seen to work, and in line with the
original mandate for the Committee itself."
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee

Fae

On 9 February 2016 at 17:04, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>
>>
>> On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who
>
> took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
>
> The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back
>
>> with some changes to our processes.
>>
>
> Ellie started the discussion just 18 hours ago, and now your closing it
>  yet it hasnt even had time for the earth to make one complete rotation, if
> you seriously want opinions at least give it one 24 hour cycle better 7-14
> of them as ideas and thoughts take time to be developed...
>
> All you achieved is proving that Wikimania Committee  isnt interested in
> the community
>
>
>>
>>
>>
> On 10 February 2016 at 00:19, James Forrester <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 14:54 Ellie Young <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
>> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania>
>> > on articulating the value of Wikimedia movement conferences overall, the
>> > unique value of Wikimania, and what new form Wikimania could take to
>> better
>> > serve the movement going forward.   We have completed analysis of these
>> > results and have prepared this report:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>> >
>> > I will be working with the community, organizers, committees, and WMF in
>> > 2017 to begin set up and planning for an experimental model for Wikimedia
>> > movement conferences, including Wikimania, starting in 2018.
>> >
>> > Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes
>> >
>> > Thanks to all who participated!
>> >
>>
>> On behalf of the Wikimania Committee, I would like to thank everyone who
>> took part and the Community Resources team for organising this discussion.
>>
>> The Committee will consider these recommendations and will then come back
>> with some changes to our processes.
>>
>> Yours,
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Adam Wight-2
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
Thank you for beginning this important discussion!  I have the same
concerns as
others, especially around how this consultation fits into the decision
making
process.  This sentence from the introduction makes it sound very serious
indeed--
maybe this was a misunderstanding? [1]

> The outcomes of this consultation will begin to be implemented starting
in 2018.

The participation was too low, the margin between "votes" too narrow, and
it seems
like a huge mistake to call this a "survey" but then synthesize the results
by tallying
the votes directly.  I can safely assume that the responses would have been
much
different if we had said from the outset that this was a binding,
democratic ballot.

The concerns raised with Option 3 (alternate years) touch on an issue so
central to
our work that I would personally interpret this as a blocker, a signal that
the plan
needs to be amended and put to another discussion before taking any steps
to implement:[2]

> ... some expressed that working relationships with individuals they are
> accustomed to seeing at Wikimania would be difficult to maintain if they
> could only meet every two years. Likewise, it may also be more difficult
> to initiate and maintain projects and initiatives where meetups at
> Wikimania are useful.

I have raved over the two Wikimanias I've had the chance to attend, they
stand out as
by far the most inspiring and engaging moments of my 3.5 years as a WMF
staffer.  In fact, I'd like to see many more such opportunities for staff,
editors and
other contributors to interact.  I would like to see the Wikimedia
Foundation spend
much more of its budget on directly supporting editors and promoting
community
growth (e.g. Teahouse, Wikipedia Library, Revscoring, Education Program),
and to
invest more in training for its staff, to help acculturate us to the
contributor community
and prevent an adversarial dynamic.

Problem 1 states that "it is difficult to know if Wikimania is meeting the
movement's
needs", but this survey isn't set up to answer that question.  Perhaps we
should try
to measure our success at meeting the movement's needs, and make projections
for how well these needs will be met under alternative scenarios, before
accidentally defunding something that might be working?  Anyway, cutting
back on
Wikimanias without a plan to provide a better substitute would be a huge
loss.

Love,
Adam

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_is_your_solution.3F
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes#Option_3_.28Alternate.29

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a
> novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with an
> issue quite like this before.
>
> Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as
> significant):
> 1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a good
> thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing, even
> if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the
> conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please compare
> it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter.
> 2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings the
> movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)
>
> However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the
> direction this is going:
> 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
> WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> Wikimania". 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?) Equally, I am not really
> clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In
> general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
> 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 there
> isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
> > > because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the
> > movement.
> > > Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime",
> > but
> > > many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position.
> >
> >
> > Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving the
> > value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for
> tens
> > of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively
> tiny
> > cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put its
> > own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more
> > example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside the
> > organization than it is on internal spending.
> >
> > It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that the
> > conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was the
> > "give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of Wikimania"
> and
> > option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect that if
> > there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option
> many
> > would have selected it.
> >
> > If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I
> don't
> > know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily
> > support that effort.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Marc-Andre
In reply to this post by Ellie Young
On 2016-02-08 5:53 PM, Ellie Young wrote:
> The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation

I will join my voice to the chorus expressing concern and dismay at the
completely ridiculous interpretation of that minor discussion - it
clearly does not resemble a mandate to make such a sweeping change to a
movement-central event like this.

[Obvious disclaimer: I am the lead organizer of the 2017 edition of said
event so clearly I am not unbiased]

I've never been a fan of the old bidding process - having been its
victim in the past and seeing the large amount of wasted effort and
demotivation it must necessarily generate - and I agree wholeheartedly
that the *process* needs to be reexamined.  But even *that*
reexamination requires more than a couple weeks on a talk page with a
couple dozen people involved.

Something of the scope of the changes that consultation is claimed to
warrant, however?  Farcical.

Wikimania is the beating heart of our movement.  We should be deploying
efforts to be more inclusive and place it within reach of a larger
segment of the community, not chopping it up.

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] [Wikimania-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Fæ
> The communications failure and lack of any public consultation before
> throwing away the community driven bidding process, was a very good
> moment to appoint a new Chair of the Wikimania Committee. The
> suggestion at the time was ignored.[1] How can the community force
> real changes, if the Committee is in apparent PR lock-down? From my
> understanding of the history of this committee, it is long overdue to
> appoint a Chair who is not reliant on keeping the WMF executive happy
> for their salary.

Hi Fae,

I did wonder how long how much time would elapse from Arnnon Geshuri's
departure  before you demanded someone else resigned from something.

Perhaps for "transparency" you could publish a list of all the occasions
you have demanded people in the Wikimedia movement resign from things? By
my count we are already on 4 in 2016 alone, which is quite good going for
period of 6 weeks :)

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] [Wikimania-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Fæ
Chris, calling me out on transparency, really?

I'm more than a little bit creeped out by your personal "interest". If
you insist, I'll publish everything of interest since 2011 that
involves both of us, and everything about me you have been interested
in tracking, but I'll do it on my own blog rather than on this list. I
have very little to lose as you know.

Thanks,
Fae

On 9 February 2016 at 22:29, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> The communications failure and lack of any public consultation before
>> throwing away the community driven bidding process, was a very good
>> moment to appoint a new Chair of the Wikimania Committee. The
>> suggestion at the time was ignored.[1] How can the community force
>> real changes, if the Committee is in apparent PR lock-down? From my
>> understanding of the history of this committee, it is long overdue to
>> appoint a Chair who is not reliant on keeping the WMF executive happy
>> for their salary.
>
> Hi Fae,
>
> I did wonder how long how much time would elapse from Arnnon Geshuri's
> departure  before you demanded someone else resigned from something.
>
> Perhaps for "transparency" you could publish a list of all the occasions you
> have demanded people in the Wikimedia movement resign from things? By my
> count we are already on 4 in 2016 alone, which is quite good going for
> period of 6 weeks :)
>
> Chris
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Henning Schlottmann
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?

Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
not as general participants.

Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.

Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
this volunteer event.

Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
and how to do it.

Ciao Henning





_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Andrew Lih
Your comments are inaccurate, not useful, and completely antithetical to
our principles.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Henning Schlottmann <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
>
> Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
> engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
> not as general participants.
>
> Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
>
> Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
> this volunteer event.
>
> Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
> experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
> and how to do it.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Henning Schlottmann
Hoi,
When you have been to as many Wikimania's as I have been, you will know
that it is exactly the interaction with staff that enables a lot of things.
They have the consistency (in time) to make a difference, they are embedded
in an organisation that has always cared about what it is that is said.
This does not imply that it is often that you can make a real difference,
typically things change gradually and, that is good.

When Wikimania is only for volunteers, I do not need to come (I am a
volunteer).
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 16 February 2016 at 14:48, Henning Schlottmann <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 09.02.2016 16:40, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > When you cap Wikimania, who is not to come?
>
> Employees of the WMF and the chapters, other than WMF's community
> engagement team and maybe - just maybe - selected speakers as speakers,
> not as general participants.
>
> Wikimania is not for and about employees, they should not be welcome.
>
> Check out the speakers of the last few years: Employees have hijacked
> this volunteer event.
>
> Make Wikimania a volunteer conference again. Let volunteers share
> experiences and ideas, not listen to employees telling them what to do
> and how to do it.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

Chris "Jethro" Schilling
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
>
> 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
> WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> Wikimania".


Hey Chris.  I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with
Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment.  It's true that I
along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this
consultation, and we've done our best to present conclusions and make a
general plan based on the feedback we received.  Further complicating this
issue of ownership is the absence of this team's director (Siko Bouterse)
and her boss (Luis Villa), who have resigned.

With that said, I expect decisions around Wikimania in 2018 to be shaped by
outcomes in Esino Lario this year, in addition to the practical matter of
our budget.  I expect there will be opportunities for community members to
help further define what will happen in 2018 as well.

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]

Equally, I am not really
> clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days.
> In
> general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.


I'm in full agreement.  The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will
need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the
next year.

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 there
> isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
> 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.

With thanks,

Jethro

[1] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_is_the_problem_you.27re_trying_to_solve.3F
>

[2] <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes&diff=next&oldid=15313641
>

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a
> novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with an
> issue quite like this before.
>
> Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as
> significant):
> 1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a good
> thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing, even
> if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the
> conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please compare
> it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter.
> 2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings the
> movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-)
>
> However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the
> direction this is going:
> 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the
> WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> they are  lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> Wikimania". 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?) Equally, I am not really
> clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In
> general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
> 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 there
> isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
> > > because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the
> > movement.
> > > Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime",
> > but
> > > many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position.
> >
> >
> > Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving the
> > value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for
> tens
> > of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively
> tiny
> > cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put its
> > own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more
> > example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside the
> > organization than it is on internal spending.
> >
> > It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that the
> > conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was the
> > "give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of Wikimania"
> and
> > option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect that if
> > there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option
> many
> > would have selected it.
> >
> > If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I
> don't
> > know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily
> > support that effort.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF)>
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12