[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
|

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

Chris Keating-2
On 18 Feb 2016 00:24, "Chris Schilling" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
>
> 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>
_______________________________________________
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 Chris "Jethro" Schilling
Hello Chris (or Jethro)! Thanks for taking time to reply.

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

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

> 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
> > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
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.

Yes please, that would be helpful!

Chris

>
> [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
> >
>
_______________________________________________
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
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes please, that would be helpful!


Certainly!  The feedback our team reviewed from participants indicated a
few important factors supporting the conclusions in the consultation.  As
you and others have stated, the differences in the frequency of instances
of support or concern were not substantial, so this difference was only a
minor factor.

One prominent factor that arose supporting Option 3 was a general desire
for balance in support for for Wikimania and regional/thematic
conferences.  Participants supporting this option frequently expressed that
these conferences both have independent, but important value for the work
or projects in which they or others are engaged.   For instance, many
pointed to the importance of regional collaboration-- travel arrangements
and matters of communication (particularly non-English) are easier, local
needs of projects can be prioritized in programming, and there are
opportunities for people to form working groups.  At the same time,
participants recognized the value of meeting together as a unified
movement.  Participants also voiced one benefit we did not consider-- that
taking this balanced approach could be an opportunity for better
interaction between Wikimania and regional/thematic conferences:  e.g.
Wikimania could serve to initiate projects relevant for a subsequent
regional conference. Conversely, a regional/thematic conference could serve
as good preparation for engagement at Wikimania.

A second factor were concerns over the costs of Wikimania itself, though
the "what" varied between the cost of attending, travel, and cost to
"movement resources" overall.  Given the discussion on the discussion page
and mailing lists, there are clearly a diversity of views over whether
Wikimania should cost more or less, but it was clear from participant
feedback that there were concerns with the overall cost.  This was also
true for folks who supported an annual Wikimania.  (On a related note, I
also would have expected that a summary of this budget to have been
presented from the outset, and I apologize that our team did not have this
ready until recently.)

A third factor was about the accessibility and exclusivity of Wikimania.
Many participants reported that they and others in their communities have
routinely been unable to attend Wikimania.  Consequently, they feel they've
been denied important opportunities and conversations with fellow
contributors, and to the extent that regional/thematic conferences can be
made more accessible, the better.  Organizers also noted that a consequence
of an annual Wikimania is that there is less motivation to plan/organize
regional conferences, which harms local solidarity and understanding of
regional issues.

I hope these themes provide a bit more depth to the feedback and context
for the conclusions in the consultation.

Thanks,

Jethro

Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF)>
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello Chris (or Jethro)! Thanks for taking time to reply.
>
> > Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> > >
> > broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> > > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?)
> >
> >
> > It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for
> > Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the
> > reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
>
> Great. I thought that table of issues was helpful, though wasn't quite
> clear whose it was  (so to speak). If the answer is "it's generally the
> view of the WMF staff working with this", that is good to know.
>
> > 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a
> particularly
> > > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
> 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.
>
> Yes please, that would be helpful!
>
> Chris
>
> >
> > [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
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
12