Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

[ENWP Pine]

Although much of my original email to Arbcom about this situation is outdated, 
I can report that Arbcom is having a look at this situation. I don't think 
there is any action needed on their part at the moment. I am only relaying my 
personal views and not speaking on their behalf.

While we wait for further answers and documentation about this issue, I hope 
those who have some spare time will look at the proposed Annual Plan for the 
next fiscal year. I am glad WMF is providing good opportunities for community 
and public input. 

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Education] ANNOUNCEMENT: Anna Koval joins Wikipedia Education Program team

[Daria Cybulska]

Fab, we are looking forward to working with you! Hopefully see you in
London soon.

All the best,
Daria


-- 
Daria Cybulska - Programme Manager, Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0994
+44 7803 505 170


On 2 April 2014 06:17, Lilit Tarkhanyan 
wrote:
> Congratulations, dear Anna!
> I'm very happy that you joined the team :)
>
> Lilit Tarkhanyan
> Wikimedia Armenia
> Board Member
> Wikipedia Education Program Leader
> Aygestan 1/30
> tel. +374 55 534 011
>   +374 10 575397
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Rodney Dunican 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I am happy to announce that Anna Koval is joining the Wikipedia Education
>> Program team.
>>
>> Along with Tighe and Floor, Anna will be our third Global Education
>> Program Manager and will work with our team to support education
initiatives
>> around the world. Anna's Serbian background will be helpful to our team's
>> efforts to support education program leaders in Eastern Europe. She will
>> also serve as our point person for outreach to Asian countries and
secondary
>> schools. She and Sage will work closely on Global Education technical
>> support needs.
>>
>> For the past 8 months, Anna has worked at the Wikimedia Foundation as a
>> Community Advocate, supporting several teams, including mine, as well as:
>> * Siko Bouterse and the Grantmaking team on IEGs and gender gap work
>> * Yana Welinder and the Legal team on the new Trademark policy
>> * James Forrester and the Product team on the VisualEditor roll out
>>   and, of course,
>> * Philippe Beaudette and the Community Advocacy team on a number of
>>   workflows, not the least of which is the wikis' emergency response
>> system.
>>
>> Anna's transition from her Community Advocacy position and activities
will
>> be completed soon.
>>
>> Anna is an award-winning educator, with a master's degree in education
and
>> more than a decade of classroom teaching experience, ranging from middle
>> school through graduate school. She was a Walt Disney Teacher of the Year
>> nominee, an American Library Association Emerging Leader, and was even
>> featured on the cover of California Teacher magazine.
>>
>> When Anna's not at work, she enjoys gardening at her home in Sonoma and
>> spending time her husband and two dogs. She's also a mighty fine home
>> distiller.
>>
>> Please join me in (re-)welcoming Anna Koval!
>>
>>
>> Rod Dunican
>> Director, Global Education
>> Wikipedia Education Program
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> ___
>> Education mailing list
>> educat...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
>>
>
>
> ___
> Education mailing list
> educat...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
>



-- 
Daria Cybulska - Programme Manager, Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0994
+44 7803 505 170
-- 

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).

Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Steve Zhang]

Hi all,

I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't
necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or
Wikimedia Australia as a whole.

My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe
that funds received through the APG process or from money received through
current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money
, and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters
, and
as a result
we need to respect that when spending our
their
money.
Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday people.
When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a
 good friend of mine
reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel
about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.

This is why I feel we should always be
frugal with the funds
that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the
proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we as
chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and
this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.

I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for this -
but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and would
wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the
conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large chapters
with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a disadvantage
or could be perceived as bias.

With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will
mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I
would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going
forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.

Steve Zhang

President - Wikimedia Australia
On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri"  wrote:

> Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right, engagement
> on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the
> right to ask questions and raise concerns.
>
> We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent more
> then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education Meeting,
> but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know why
> this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it before.
> I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we
> asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule" of
> number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we decided to
> select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's staff and
> board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for, and
> asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the
> conference.
>
> WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the
> program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or
> willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo we
> been used to since the beginning so secretly.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber  >wrote:
>
> > 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 
> 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

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There
is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money
involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where the
donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly possible
to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on
donations.

When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise that
plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they can
say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One
really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to
conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the point.
When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for them
not to go.

My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective. There
are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My experience
is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have met
them. It really helps me in what I do.

Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is
realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great opportunity to
get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't
> necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or
> Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
>
> My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe
> that funds received through the APG process or from money received through
> current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money
> , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters
> , and
> as a result
> we need to respect that when spending our
> their
> money.
> Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday people.
> When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a
>  good friend of mine
> reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel
> about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
>
> This is why I feel we should always be
> frugal with the funds
> that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the
> proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we as
> chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and
> this is something I consider before signing off on a project or
> expenditure.
>
> I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for this -
> but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and would
> wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the
> conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large chapters
> with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a disadvantage
> or could be perceived as bias.
>
> With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will
> mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I
> would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going
> forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
>
> Steve Zhang
>
> President - Wikimedia Australia
> On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri"  wrote:
>
> > Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right, engagement
> > on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the
> > right to ask questions and raise concerns.
> >
> > We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent
> more
> > then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education Meeting,
> > but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know
> why
> > this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it
> before.
> > I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we
> > asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule" of
> > number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we decided
> to
> > select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's staff
> and
> > board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for, and
> > asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the
> > conference.
> >
> > WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the
> > program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or
> > willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo
> we
> > been used to since the beginning so secretly.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber  > >wrote:
> >
> > > 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 

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

[Steve Zhang]

Hi Gerard,

My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the
majority of chapters, but to  make my view (as I was asked off list my
view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that
regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's
disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same thought
process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each $1,000
like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be spent
on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending it
on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the
original proposed spending is worth it.

I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to replace
their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of board
members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt that
now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in
general, and I have now done so.

Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)

Steve


On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There
> is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative manner.
> Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money
> involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where the
> donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly possible
> to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on
> donations.
>
> When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise that
> plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they can
> say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One
> really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to
> conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the point.
> When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for them
> not to go.
>
> My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective. There
> are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My experience
> is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have met
> them. It really helps me in what I do.
>
> Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is
> realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great opportunity to
> get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't
> > necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or
> > Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
> >
> > My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe
> > that funds received through the APG process or from money received
> through
> > current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money
> > , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters
> > , and
> > as a result
> > we need to respect that when spending our
> > their
> > money.
> > Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday people.
> > When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a
> >  good friend of mine
> > reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel
> > about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
> >
> > This is why I feel we should always be
> > frugal with the funds
> > that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the
> > proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we
> as
> > chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and
> > this is something I consider before signing off on a project or
> > expenditure.
> >
> > I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for this
> -
> > but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and
> would
> > wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the
> > conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large
> chapters
> > with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a
> disadvantage
> > or could be perceived as bias.
> >
> > With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will
> > mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I
> > would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going
> > forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
> >
> > Steve Zhang
> >
> > President - Wikimedia Australia
> > On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri"  wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right,
> engagement
> > > on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the
> > > right to ask questions and raise concerns.
> > >
> > > We didn't have this di

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

[Risker]

I'm still a bit confused as to why you "reported" this to Arbcom (Wikipedia
in residence programs, paid editing, and general review of accounts are all
outside of their purview), or what  they're supposedly looking at.  This is
a community and WMF issue, and I do not see anything at all for Arbcom to
do here.  In fact, I'd be concerned if they're poking around on this when
there are several matters well within their mandate that are not apparently
being addressed.

Risker/Anne


On 2 April 2014 03:07, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> Although much of my original email to Arbcom about this situation is
> outdated, I can report that Arbcom is having a look at this situation. I
> don't think there is any action needed on their part at the moment. I am
> only relaying my personal views and not speaking on their behalf.
>
> While we wait for further answers and documentation about this issue, I
> hope those who have some spare time will look at the proposed Annual Plan
> for the next fiscal year. I am glad WMF is providing good opportunities for
> community and public input.
>
> Pine
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Itzik Edri]

I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big
criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of
the concept of the conference.

Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending  in conferences - and we don't
limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is not
Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year with
the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change it,
due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally OK
and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together, no
by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no
publicly.




On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the
> majority of chapters, but to  make my view (as I was asked off list my
> view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that
> regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's
> disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same thought
> process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each $1,000
> like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be spent
> on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending it
> on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the
> original proposed spending is worth it.
>
> I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to replace
> their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of board
> members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt that
> now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in
> general, and I have now done so.
>
> Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There
> > is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative
> manner.
> > Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money
> > involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where the
> > donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly
> possible
> > to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on
> > donations.
> >
> > When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise that
> > plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they
> can
> > say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One
> > really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to
> > conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the point.
> > When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for
> them
> > not to go.
> >
> > My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective. There
> > are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My
> experience
> > is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have met
> > them. It really helps me in what I do.
> >
> > Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is
> > realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great opportunity
> to
> > get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't
> > > necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or
> > > Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
> > >
> > > My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe
> > > that funds received through the APG process or from money received
> > through
> > > current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money
> > > , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters
> > > , and
> > > as a result
> > > we need to respect that when spending our
> > > their
> > > money.
> > > Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday
> people.
> > > When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a
> > >  good friend of mine
> > > reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel
> > > about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
> > >
> > > This is why I feel we should always be
> > > frugal with the funds
> > > that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the
> > > proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we
> > as
> > > chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and
> > > this is something I consider before signing off on a project or
> > > expenditure.
> > >
> > > I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for
> this
> > -
> > > but I think the guideline 2+1 really s

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

[Jens Best]

But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good
arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole
thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such
things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such
lists, but on the conference itself.

I for my case really would have liked to come, mainly for listening live to
the discussions and get to know some people from other chapters. And as I
this year live in the city where the conference takes place, it would have
been possible with very few costs, too.

I really would like to see this aspect of the rules to be discussed on this
year's event because I also think that more people will represent the
bigger variety of the movement and still don't boost the event to a
happening where no serious discussion and fair international
decision-finding can be made because of overcrowding or overrepresentation
of some chapters.

Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
events at least. :)


Best regards

Jens


2014-04-02 13:37 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri :

> I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big
> criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of
> the concept of the conference.
>
> Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending  in conferences - and we don't
> limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is not
> Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year with
> the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change it,
> due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally OK
> and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together, no
> by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no
> publicly.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang  wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the
> > majority of chapters, but to  make my view (as I was asked off list my
> > view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that
> > regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's
> > disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same thought
> > process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each
> $1,000
> > like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be
> spent
> > on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending
> it
> > on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the
> > original proposed spending is worth it.
> >
> > I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to
> replace
> > their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of board
> > members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt that
> > now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in
> > general, and I have now done so.
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective.
> There
> > > is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative
> > manner.
> > > Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the
> money
> > > involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where
> the
> > > donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly
> > possible
> > > to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on
> > > donations.
> > >
> > > When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise
> that
> > > plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they
> > can
> > > say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One
> > > really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to
> > > conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the
> point.
> > > When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for
> > them
> > > not to go.
> > >
> > > My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective.
> There
> > > are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My
> > experience
> > > is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have
> met
> > > them. It really helps me in what I do.
> > >
> > > Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is
> > > realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great
> opportunity
> > to
> > > get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and
> don't
> > > > necessarily represent the views of the rest of

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

[Risker]

I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement
members who would be interested in attending this conference, but it is
intended to be a very limited one.  Several of the topics (Conflict of
Interest, Meet the Trustees, Lessons learnt on huge projects, How to
measure blood, sweat and tears, and particularly Reimagining movement
structures) are of interest to a much, much larger community than simply
the chapters/Thorgs. I'm still a bit baffled at having a session devoted to
Wikimania, since almost all of the attendees of the conference will be
attending Wikimania.

Indeed, if others besides the 2+1 representatives from chapters/thorgs are
permitted to attend, I would strongly urge that any additional
seats/participants be focused on movement members who work *outside* of the
formal structures.  It's pretty hard to come up with community-based
reimaginations of movement structures if you exclude those who aren't
already involved in existing movement structures. :-)

The WMF umbrella of projects, chapters, thorgs etc has not done a lot in
terms of leadership development.  I'll note, however, that the place where
leadership is most sorely lacking is on projects, while the majority of
those participating in leadership activities at the chapter/thorg level are
not doing a lot of work on WMF projects.  (That's a generalization, and
there are exceptions.)  It may be that either this conference needs to be
refocused, or it needs to be split into two separate conferences.  There is
definitely an audience out there for many of these same topics which is
being ignored completely.

Risker/Anne


On 2 April 2014 08:32, Jens Best  wrote:

> But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good
> arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole
> thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such
> things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such
> lists, but on the conference itself.
>
> I for my case really would have liked to come, mainly for listening live to
> the discussions and get to know some people from other chapters. And as I
> this year live in the city where the conference takes place, it would have
> been possible with very few costs, too.
>
> I really would like to see this aspect of the rules to be discussed on this
> year's event because I also think that more people will represent the
> bigger variety of the movement and still don't boost the event to a
> happening where no serious discussion and fair international
> decision-finding can be made because of overcrowding or overrepresentation
> of some chapters.
>
> Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
> events at least. :)
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Jens
>
>
> 2014-04-02 13:37 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri :
>
> > I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big
> > criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of
> > the concept of the conference.
> >
> > Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending  in conferences - and we
> don't
> > limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is not
> > Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year
> with
> > the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change
> it,
> > due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally OK
> > and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together, no
> > by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no
> > publicly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Gerard,
> > >
> > > My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than
> the
> > > majority of chapters, but to  make my view (as I was asked off list my
> > > view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list)
> that
> > > regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's
> > > disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same
> thought
> > > process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each
> > $1,000
> > > like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be
> > spent
> > > on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending
> > it
> > > on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the
> > > original proposed spending is worth it.
> > >
> > > I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to
> > replace
> > > their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of
> board
> > > members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt
> that
> > > now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in
> > > general, and I have now done so.
> > >
> > > Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> 

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

[Jon Davies]

How about expanding its scope but alternating it with Wikimania, so one
every other year?

This could help reduce costs and avoid any duplication?




On 2 April 2014 15:59, Risker  wrote:

> I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement
> members who would be interested in attending this conference, but it is
> intended to be a very limited one.  Several of the topics (Conflict of
> Interest, Meet the Trustees, Lessons learnt on huge projects, How to
> measure blood, sweat and tears, and particularly Reimagining movement
> structures) are of interest to a much, much larger community than simply
> the chapters/Thorgs. I'm still a bit baffled at having a session devoted to
> Wikimania, since almost all of the attendees of the conference will be
> attending Wikimania.
>
> Indeed, if others besides the 2+1 representatives from chapters/thorgs are
> permitted to attend, I would strongly urge that any additional
> seats/participants be focused on movement members who work *outside* of the
> formal structures.  It's pretty hard to come up with community-based
> reimaginations of movement structures if you exclude those who aren't
> already involved in existing movement structures. :-)
>
> The WMF umbrella of projects, chapters, thorgs etc has not done a lot in
> terms of leadership development.  I'll note, however, that the place where
> leadership is most sorely lacking is on projects, while the majority of
> those participating in leadership activities at the chapter/thorg level are
> not doing a lot of work on WMF projects.  (That's a generalization, and
> there are exceptions.)  It may be that either this conference needs to be
> refocused, or it needs to be split into two separate conferences.  There is
> definitely an audience out there for many of these same topics which is
> being ignored completely.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 2 April 2014 08:32, Jens Best  wrote:
>
> > But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good
> > arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole
> > thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such
> > things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such
> > lists, but on the conference itself.
> >
> > I for my case really would have liked to come, mainly for listening live
> to
> > the discussions and get to know some people from other chapters. And as I
> > this year live in the city where the conference takes place, it would
> have
> > been possible with very few costs, too.
> >
> > I really would like to see this aspect of the rules to be discussed on
> this
> > year's event because I also think that more people will represent the
> > bigger variety of the movement and still don't boost the event to a
> > happening where no serious discussion and fair international
> > decision-finding can be made because of overcrowding or
> overrepresentation
> > of some chapters.
> >
> > Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
> > events at least. :)
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Jens
> >
> >
> > 2014-04-02 13:37 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri :
> >
> > > I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big
> > > criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question
> of
> > > the concept of the conference.
> > >
> > > Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending  in conferences - and we
> > don't
> > > limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is
> not
> > > Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year
> > with
> > > the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change
> > it,
> > > due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally
> OK
> > > and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together,
> no
> > > by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no
> > > publicly.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Gerard,
> > > >
> > > > My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than
> > the
> > > > majority of chapters, but to  make my view (as I was asked off list
> my
> > > > view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list)
> > that
> > > > regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's
> > > > disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same
> > thought
> > > > process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each
> > > $1,000
> > > > like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be
> > > spent
> > > > on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in
> spending
> > > it
> > > > on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether
> the
> > > > original proposed spending is worth it.
> > > >
> > > > I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to
> > > replace
> > > > their vi

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

[Cristian Consonni]

(my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free will)

2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best :
> Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
> events at least. :)

May I say? Please come by also at the conference.
I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is
a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to
limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation
of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw)
but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if
you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply
Wrong(TM) to me.
For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public,
everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting
(e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always
have some bystanders (this includes the occasional "I am painter, why
I don't have my Wikipedia page?")  and, to date, our assemblies have
never being flooded by strangers :-). Moreover, for the sake of "bias"
and over-representation I think that this will not be of much more
impact than the fact of chosing to hold the event itself in Berlin.

Cristian

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Chris Keating]

Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!

So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?

This has never been clearly defined, in my view.

I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to
know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful
experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters,  and  to get an insight
into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be
done face-to-face.

In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is
for?

Chris
 On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, "Cristian Consonni"  wrote:

> (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free
> will)
>
> 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best :
> > Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
> > events at least. :)
>
> May I say? Please come by also at the conference.
> I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is
> a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to
> limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation
> of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw)
> but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if
> you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply
> Wrong(TM) to me.
> For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public,
> everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting
> (e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always
> have some bystanders (this includes the occasional "I am painter, why
> I don't have my Wikipedia page?")  and, to date, our assemblies have
> never being flooded by strangers :-). Moreover, for the sake of "bias"
> and over-representation I think that this will not be of much more
> impact than the fact of chosing to hold the event itself in Berlin.
>
> Cristian
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Fæ]

On 02/04/2014, Chris Keating  wrote:
> Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
>
> So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
>
> This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
>
> I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to
> know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful
> experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters,  and  to get an insight
> into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be
> done face-to-face.
>
> In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is
> for?
>
> Chris

This question neatly demonstrates the fundamental issue for me.

I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as
the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the
conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in
sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the
employees are being paid for their time rather than going as
volunteers).

If the key benefit claimed is to do social networking, it should be
recognized that all the same faces will be at Wikimania London in 4
months, and socializing is part of the defined benefits of Wikimania.

Considering the conference is a week away and it appears that flights
and accommodation have been paid for, re-framing this as good news,
rather than admitting it is a problem, appears to be replacing
pragmatism with sophistry.

Fae (writing from the grave)
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Nathan]

A good starting point for discussion is the written material already out
there about the purpose of the event:

"*Wikimedia Conference 2014* is the annual meeting of all Wikimedia
chapters
, thematic 
organizations
 and user groups ,
board and staff members of the Wikimedia
Foundation as
well as other committees to discuss the future of the Wikimedia movement in
terms of collaboration, structures and organizational development."

There has been a "Future of Wikimedia Conference" page on Meta for some
time, although it has had limited input. Asaf Bartov wrote a little on the
talk page about the purpose of the conference:


   - An opportunity for Wikimedia movement organizations to meet
   face-to-face and share ideas about projects and practices and to discuss
   any unresolved issues that may have come up during the past year.
   - A venue for one of the quarterly Wikimedia Foundation Board of
   Trustees meetings and an opportunity for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
   Trustees and Wikimedia movement organizations to meet and talk.
   - A venue for the Funds Dissemination Committee to meet to assess the
   funding proposals for Round 2 of the current year and provide
   recommendations on those proposals to the WMF Board.


It may make more sense to continue the discussion on the meta page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[sydney . poore]

Point of information and a comment:

This year 2 members of the FDC will attend the conference as representatives of 
the FDC. The full FDC will not be attending any part of Wikimedia Conference 
this year because the date of the FDC meeting do not align with the conference. 
 Next year if possible I would like to see the two events scheduled together 
again because I see value in having the full FDC do a panel discussion with all 
interested people, especially people from affiliated organizations. Plus it 
makes it easier for the Board of Trustees and the FDC to interact, especially 
the board observers to the FDC which need to attend both meetings. 

Sydney Poore

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 2, 2014, at 13:26, Nathan  wrote:

> A good starting point for discussion is the written material already out
> there about the purpose of the event:
> 
> "*Wikimedia Conference 2014* is the annual meeting of all Wikimedia
> chapters
> , thematic 
> organizations
> and user groups ,
> board and staff members of the Wikimedia
> Foundation as
> well as other committees to discuss the future of the Wikimedia movement in
> terms of collaboration, structures and organizational development."
> 
> There has been a "Future of Wikimedia Conference" page on Meta for some
> time, although it has had limited input. Asaf Bartov wrote a little on the
> talk page about the purpose of the conference:
> 
> 
>   - An opportunity for Wikimedia movement organizations to meet
>   face-to-face and share ideas about projects and practices and to discuss
>   any unresolved issues that may have come up during the past year.
>   - A venue for one of the quarterly Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>   Trustees meetings and an opportunity for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>   Trustees and Wikimedia movement organizations to meet and talk.
>   - A venue for the Funds Dissemination Committee to meet to assess the
>   funding proposals for Round 2 of the current year and provide
>   recommendations on those proposals to the WMF Board.
> 
> 
> It may make more sense to continue the discussion on the meta page:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hi,

To provide some perspective. The Board of Trustees has traditionally had its 
Board meeting at the Wikimedia Conference. This year is the first year we 
decide to change that and have our board meeting a couple of weeks later so 
that we could actually attend the sessions and have more interaction with all 
the participants. Six of us will be going to Berlin because we feel that it is 
an incredible valuable conference. 

Lets be clear: this is a different event than Wikimania. It is a time to meet 
and discuss governance issues with those that have been entrusted with them in 
our movement, it is a time to exchange organisational experiences and a time to 
look forward to possibilities for that part of the movement that chooses to 
organise itself in chapters or thematic organisations. And although the 
audience is probably a subset of the Wikimania audience the smaller setup 
allows for different interactions etc.

I have no opinion on the decision of certain organisations to send more people 
than expected, this is something that can be discussed for next year, and there 
will always be exceptions. But in general: these conferences, though expensive, 
really provide a place to learn how to be more effective with donor money 
rather than less through the sessions and the interaction. I am happy that many 
volunteers are able to invest their valuable time and am sure that they will 
get a great return on that investment (I notice that many chapters rotate 
participation throughout the years and that there are also familiar faces, and 
its great to see them both)

I am grateful to the German Chapter for hosting us this year, and also to all 
the volunteers who are willing to donate their time to participate. Looking 
forward to seeing you all next week!

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Chair 
Wikimedia Board of Trustees


On 02 Apr 2014, at 19:15, Fæ  wrote:

> On 02/04/2014, Chris Keating  wrote:
>> Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
>> 
>> So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
>> 
>> This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
>> 
>> I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to
>> know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful
>> experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters,  and  to get an insight
>> into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be
>> done face-to-face.
>> 
>> In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is
>> for?
>> 
>> Chris
> 
> This question neatly demonstrates the fundamental issue for me.
> 
> I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as
> the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the
> conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in
> sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the
> employees are being paid for their time rather than going as
> volunteers).
> 
> If the key benefit claimed is to do social networking, it should be
> recognized that all the same faces will be at Wikimania London in 4
> months, and socializing is part of the defined benefits of Wikimania.
> 
> Considering the conference is a week away and it appears that flights
> and accommodation have been paid for, re-framing this as good news,
> rather than admitting it is a problem, appears to be replacing
> pragmatism with sophistry.
> 
> Fae (writing from the grave)
> -- 
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Chris Keating]

>
>
>
> I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as
> the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the
> conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in
> sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the
> employees are being paid for their time rather than going as
> volunteers).
>
>
Just to be clear, I know what the benefits we will get out of it are, and I
can tell you the direction that I would like the conference to take in
future; I'm just wondering whether others have the same perception.

This is not a new question, as Nathan has pointed out, and he is probably
right to say it is best to continue it here;
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Yes, finally the discussion we need!  Pity that it happens only one week
before the conference itself.

My point of view:
We have different types of conference: GLAMCamp, EduWiki, Wikimania,
whatever.

Beside Wikimania, which is quite a "fruit salad" of topics and themes and
seen as *the* gathering of the global Wikimedia community, all of thoses
confereces have quite a special, limited scope. I see the Wikimedia
Conference as the highly political, meta level conference. This is the only
meeting in the year where we can discuss governance, strategy, movement
politics issues only, excluding all the programmatic work. As it is the
only meeting of this type during the year, at least a part of the programme
team tried to keep all the sessions in this meta scope. We felt a need for
those topics, which can't be discussed at those other meetings.

Obviously, it doesn't seem to be so clear for many people. Maybe the
majority even thinks that we don't even need that type of conference. Who
knows.., all discussion adressing this issue fizzled out in the last three
past.

However, please think about this! It's important. At the conference we'll
have a special session about this, the session is called actually "Future
of the Wikimedia Conference". We need input from everyone to see how we
should continue and what should happen next year.

Best
Cornelius


Cornelius Kibelka

Twitter: @jaancornelius
Mobile:+351-91-9860232 (Vodafone PT)
German number currently offline




On 2 April 2014 19:16, Chris Keating  wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> > I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as
> > the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the
> > conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in
> > sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the
> > employees are being paid for their time rather than going as
> > volunteers).
> >
> >
> Just to be clear, I know what the benefits we will get out of it are, and I
> can tell you the direction that I would like the conference to take in
> future; I'm just wondering whether others have the same perception.
>
> This is not a new question, as Nathan has pointed out, and he is probably
> right to say it is best to continue it here;
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Risker]

I'm not sure that people think the conference is unnecessary; I think it
has value.  It is, however, the only one of all those listed for
which almost everyone is explicitly excluded and cannot attend - even
though I can think of several who have strong interest in movement
governance and strategy.  It's a heavily publicly discussed meeting to
which 99.9998% of Wikimedians  are unwelcome - and yes, that's the way it
comes across.

The movement has failed if the only way to participate in group discussions
on movement governance is to (1) create a chapter or thorg, (2) become an
executive or employee of one and (3) be granted authority to attend this
conference.  Those are very big hoops to jump through in order for
non-aligned Wikimedians and movement participants/supporters to participate
in the discussion.

Risker/anne







On 2 April 2014 14:32, Cornelius Kibelka  wrote:

> Yes, finally the discussion we need!  Pity that it happens only one week
> before the conference itself.
>
> My point of view:
> We have different types of conference: GLAMCamp, EduWiki, Wikimania,
> whatever.
>
> Beside Wikimania, which is quite a "fruit salad" of topics and themes and
> seen as *the* gathering of the global Wikimedia community, all of thoses
> confereces have quite a special, limited scope. I see the Wikimedia
> Conference as the highly political, meta level conference. This is the only
> meeting in the year where we can discuss governance, strategy, movement
> politics issues only, excluding all the programmatic work. As it is the
> only meeting of this type during the year, at least a part of the programme
> team tried to keep all the sessions in this meta scope. We felt a need for
> those topics, which can't be discussed at those other meetings.
>
> Obviously, it doesn't seem to be so clear for many people. Maybe the
> majority even thinks that we don't even need that type of conference. Who
> knows.., all discussion adressing this issue fizzled out in the last three
> past.
>
> However, please think about this! It's important. At the conference we'll
> have a special session about this, the session is called actually "Future
> of the Wikimedia Conference". We need input from everyone to see how we
> should continue and what should happen next year.
>
> Best
> Cornelius
>
> 
> Cornelius Kibelka
>
> Twitter: @jaancornelius
> Mobile:+351-91-9860232 (Vodafone PT)
> German number currently offline
>
>
>
>
> On 2 April 2014 19:16, Chris Keating  wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as
> > > the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the
> > > conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in
> > > sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the
> > > employees are being paid for their time rather than going as
> > > volunteers).
> > >
> > >
> > Just to be clear, I know what the benefits we will get out of it are,
> and I
> > can tell you the direction that I would like the conference to take in
> > future; I'm just wondering whether others have the same perception.
> >
> > This is not a new question, as Nathan has pointed out, and he is probably
> > right to say it is best to continue it here;
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference
> >
> > Chris
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Balázs Viczián]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFuture_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference&diff=5611433&oldid=5611349

imo.

Vince



2014-04-02 20:32 GMT+02:00 Cornelius Kibelka :

> Yes, finally the discussion we need!  Pity that it happens only one week
> before the conference itself.
>
> My point of view:
> We have different types of conference: GLAMCamp, EduWiki, Wikimania,
> whatever.
>
> Beside Wikimania, which is quite a "fruit salad" of topics and themes and
> seen as *the* gathering of the global Wikimedia community, all of thoses
> confereces have quite a special, limited scope. I see the Wikimedia
> Conference as the highly political, meta level conference. This is the only
> meeting in the year where we can discuss governance, strategy, movement
> politics issues only, excluding all the programmatic work. As it is the
> only meeting of this type during the year, at least a part of the programme
> team tried to keep all the sessions in this meta scope. We felt a need for
> those topics, which can't be discussed at those other meetings.
>
> Obviously, it doesn't seem to be so clear for many people. Maybe the
> majority even thinks that we don't even need that type of conference. Who
> knows.., all discussion adressing this issue fizzled out in the last three
> past.
>
> However, please think about this! It's important. At the conference we'll
> have a special session about this, the session is called actually "Future
> of the Wikimedia Conference". We need input from everyone to see how we
> should continue and what should happen next year.
>
> Best
> Cornelius
>
> 
> Cornelius Kibelka
>
> Twitter: @jaancornelius
> Mobile:+351-91-9860232 (Vodafone PT)
> German number currently offline
>
>
>
>
> On 2 April 2014 19:16, Chris Keating  wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as
> > > the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the
> > > conference is, they should chose to invest the donor's money in
> > > sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the
> > > employees are being paid for their time rather than going as
> > > volunteers).
> > >
> > >
> > Just to be clear, I know what the benefits we will get out of it are,
> and I
> > can tell you the direction that I would like the conference to take in
> > future; I'm just wondering whether others have the same perception.
> >
> > This is not a new question, as Nathan has pointed out, and he is probably
> > right to say it is best to continue it here;
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference
> >
> > Chris
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Itzik Edri]

What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already
scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week
before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking,
nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be consensus
about the purpose of the conference.

And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I
must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest
delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from
"representatives" to "delegation", which fit the case better), but not the
only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others.

The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their
decision on that is something which worries me more, I think.



On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating wrote:

> Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
>
> So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
>
> This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
>
> I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to
> know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful
> experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters,  and  to get an insight
> into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be
> done face-to-face.
>
> In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is
> for?
>
> Chris
>  On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, "Cristian Consonni"  wrote:
>
> > (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free
> > will)
> >
> > 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best :
> > > Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
> > > events at least. :)
> >
> > May I say? Please come by also at the conference.
> > I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is
> > a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to
> > limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation
> > of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw)
> > but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if
> > you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply
> > Wrong(TM) to me.
> > For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public,
> > everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting
> > (e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always
> > have some bystanders (this includes the occasional "I am painter, why
> > I don't have my Wikipedia page?")  and, to date, our assemblies have
> > never being flooded by strangers :-). Moreover, for the sake of "bias"
> > and over-representation I think that this will not be of much more
> > impact than the fact of chosing to hold the event itself in Berlin.
> >
> > Cristian
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Nicole Ebber]

Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind
of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all
these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference)
and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of
the attendee ratio have been put up on Meta. Following that, there
have been discussions about which groups to invite (recognised,
non-recognised), but not a single one about the number of attendees -
although it has always been asked for input.

Our main drive behind opening up was that we felt the 2(+1) rule is
kind of outdated, and it makes sense to have people sent those
representatives who they really believe need to be there. Either as a
contributing or a profiting attendee, but of course focussing on the
topics that are covered in the conference themes. This is also why my
colleagues from the event team only opened the registration _after_
the rough outline of the programme has been published by the programme
team.

As for the broader topic about the purpose, scope and future of the
WMCON, I think it does make sense to discuss this on-list (or better
wiki) before the event. An exchange of arguments and possible
solutions is welcome, those can be used to prepare for the session at
WMCON. I am definitely glad that we now have this discussion and I
like to hear more of people's thoughts.

As for the broader, broader topic that for example Risker mentions
above, I hope that the Chapters Dialogue will be able to provide
insights and food for thought. The presentation at the WMCON and the
extensive documentation that will be provided on-wiki afterwards, can
help foster these discussions on those movement related issues.

Again, I am glad that the pre-conference has now been initiated and
that we can use the following days to get in the right mood for the
conference weekend.

Thanks and best regards,
Nicole



On 2 April 2014 22:18, Itzik Edri  wrote:
> What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already
> scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week
> before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking,
> nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be consensus
> about the purpose of the conference.
>
> And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I
> must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest
> delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from
> "representatives" to "delegation", which fit the case better), but not the
> only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others.
>
> The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their
> decision on that is something which worries me more, I think.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
>> Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
>>
>> So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
>>
>> This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
>>
>> I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get to
>> know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful
>> experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters,  and  to get an insight
>> into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be
>> done face-to-face.
>>
>> In general those are very useful things. But is that what the conference is
>> for?
>>
>> Chris
>>  On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, "Cristian Consonni"  wrote:
>>
>> > (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free
>> > will)
>> >
>> > 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best :
>> > > Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
>> > > events at least. :)
>> >
>> > May I say? Please come by also at the conference.
>> > I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is
>> > a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to
>> > limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation
>> > of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw)
>> > but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if
>> > you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply
>> > Wrong(TM) to me.
>> > For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public,
>> > everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting
>> > (e.g. board elections) only members have the right to vote. We always
>> > have some bystanders (this includes the occasional "I am painter, why
>> > I don't have my Wikipedia page?")  and, to date, our assemblies have
>> > never being flooded by strangers :-). Moreover, for the sake of "bias"
>> > and over-representation I think that this will not be of much more
>> > impact than the fact of chosing to hold the event itself in Berlin.
>> >
>> > Cristian
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Risker]

While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the
attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just around
the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into
consideration for future planning.

Risker/Anne


On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole Ebber  wrote:

> Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind
> of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all
> these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference)
> and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of
> the attendee ratio have been put up on Meta. Following that, there
> have been discussions about which groups to invite (recognised,
> non-recognised), but not a single one about the number of attendees -
> although it has always been asked for input.
>
> Our main drive behind opening up was that we felt the 2(+1) rule is
> kind of outdated, and it makes sense to have people sent those
> representatives who they really believe need to be there. Either as a
> contributing or a profiting attendee, but of course focussing on the
> topics that are covered in the conference themes. This is also why my
> colleagues from the event team only opened the registration _after_
> the rough outline of the programme has been published by the programme
> team.
>
> As for the broader topic about the purpose, scope and future of the
> WMCON, I think it does make sense to discuss this on-list (or better
> wiki) before the event. An exchange of arguments and possible
> solutions is welcome, those can be used to prepare for the session at
> WMCON. I am definitely glad that we now have this discussion and I
> like to hear more of people's thoughts.
>
> As for the broader, broader topic that for example Risker mentions
> above, I hope that the Chapters Dialogue will be able to provide
> insights and food for thought. The presentation at the WMCON and the
> extensive documentation that will be provided on-wiki afterwards, can
> help foster these discussions on those movement related issues.
>
> Again, I am glad that the pre-conference has now been initiated and
> that we can use the following days to get in the right mood for the
> conference weekend.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Nicole
>
>
>
> On 2 April 2014 22:18, Itzik Edri  wrote:
> > What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already
> > scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week
> > before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking,
> > nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be
> consensus
> > about the purpose of the conference.
> >
> > And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I
> > must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest
> > delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from
> > "representatives" to "delegation", which fit the case better), but not
> the
> > only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others.
> >
> > The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their
> > decision on that is something which worries me more, I think.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating <
> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
> >>
> >> So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
> >>
> >> This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
> >>
> >> I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get
> to
> >> know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful
> >> experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters,  and  to get an
> insight
> >> into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be
> >> done face-to-face.
> >>
> >> In general those are very useful things. But is that what the
> conference is
> >> for?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>  On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, "Cristian Consonni" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free
> >> > will)
> >> >
> >> > 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best :
> >> > > Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the
> evening
> >> > > events at least. :)
> >> >
> >> > May I say? Please come by also at the conference.
> >> > I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is
> >> > a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to
> >> > limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation
> >> > of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw)
> >> > but thinking of having a closed event were you can not come along if
> >> > you are interested to do so and you happen to live nearby seems Deeply
> >> > Wrong(TM) to me.
> >> > For comparison all General Assemblies of Wikimedia Italia are public,
> >> > everyone can come along and speak, of course when it comes to voting
> >> > (e.g. board elections) on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Nicole Ebber]

Right, sorry, what I meant was that these arguments can be collected
for the preparation of the "Future of the WMCON" session at WMCON
itself, not for changing the current setting.

Nicole

On 2 April 2014 23:14, Risker  wrote:
> While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the
> attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just around
> the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into
> consideration for future planning.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole Ebber  wrote:
>
>> Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind
>> of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all
>> these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference)
>> and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of
>> the attendee ratio have been put up on Meta. Following that, there
>> have been discussions about which groups to invite (recognised,
>> non-recognised), but not a single one about the number of attendees -
>> although it has always been asked for input.
>>
>> Our main drive behind opening up was that we felt the 2(+1) rule is
>> kind of outdated, and it makes sense to have people sent those
>> representatives who they really believe need to be there. Either as a
>> contributing or a profiting attendee, but of course focussing on the
>> topics that are covered in the conference themes. This is also why my
>> colleagues from the event team only opened the registration _after_
>> the rough outline of the programme has been published by the programme
>> team.
>>
>> As for the broader topic about the purpose, scope and future of the
>> WMCON, I think it does make sense to discuss this on-list (or better
>> wiki) before the event. An exchange of arguments and possible
>> solutions is welcome, those can be used to prepare for the session at
>> WMCON. I am definitely glad that we now have this discussion and I
>> like to hear more of people's thoughts.
>>
>> As for the broader, broader topic that for example Risker mentions
>> above, I hope that the Chapters Dialogue will be able to provide
>> insights and food for thought. The presentation at the WMCON and the
>> extensive documentation that will be provided on-wiki afterwards, can
>> help foster these discussions on those movement related issues.
>>
>> Again, I am glad that the pre-conference has now been initiated and
>> that we can use the following days to get in the right mood for the
>> conference weekend.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Nicole
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 April 2014 22:18, Itzik Edri  wrote:
>> > What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already
>> > scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a week
>> > before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels booking,
>> > nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be
>> consensus
>> > about the purpose of the conference.
>> >
>> > And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only - I
>> > must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest
>> > delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from
>> > "representatives" to "delegation", which fit the case better), but not
>> the
>> > only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others.
>> >
>> > The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their
>> > decision on that is something which worries me more, I think.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating <
>> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
>> >>
>> >> So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
>> >>
>> >> This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
>> >>
>> >> I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to get
>> to
>> >> know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful
>> >> experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters,  and  to get an
>> insight
>> >> into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed to be
>> >> done face-to-face.
>> >>
>> >> In general those are very useful things. But is that what the
>> conference is
>> >> for?
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >>  On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, "Cristian Consonni" 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > (my 2cents here, not speaking in any capacity besides my personal free
>> >> > will)
>> >> >
>> >> > 2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Jens Best :
>> >> > > Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the
>> evening
>> >> > > events at least. :)
>> >> >
>> >> > May I say? Please come by also at the conference.
>> >> > I understand the point of having a rule (which we can decide if it is
>> >> > a strict rule or whatever) of 2+1 representatives because it helps to
>> >> > limit costs and it also assures that there isn't over-representation
>> >> > of an entities over some others (which are both good arguments, btw)
>> >> > but thinking 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

[Risker]

I appreciate your clarification, Nicole - thanks.

There is a certain irony in the fact that those who are making the argument
that there should be some rethinking of the future of the WMCON are all (as
best I can tell) people who will not be present.  I hope that those who are
present will be able to adequately voice ideas other than the status quo.

Risker/Anne


On 2 April 2014 17:17, Nicole Ebber  wrote:

> Right, sorry, what I meant was that these arguments can be collected
> for the preparation of the "Future of the WMCON" session at WMCON
> itself, not for changing the current setting.
>
> Nicole
>
> On 2 April 2014 23:14, Risker  wrote:
> > While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the
> > attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just
> around
> > the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into
> > consideration for future planning.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> >
> > On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole Ebber  wrote:
> >
> >> Itzik, I am sorry that I did not reply to this earlier. I am just kind
> >> of baffled that we are having this discussion now, months after all
> >> these questions where asked (see Future of the Wikimedia Conference)
> >> and all the information about the scope and the slight loosening of
> >> the attendee ratio have been put up on Meta. Following that, there
> >> have been discussions about which groups to invite (recognised,
> >> non-recognised), but not a single one about the number of attendees -
> >> although it has always been asked for input.
> >>
> >> Our main drive behind opening up was that we felt the 2(+1) rule is
> >> kind of outdated, and it makes sense to have people sent those
> >> representatives who they really believe need to be there. Either as a
> >> contributing or a profiting attendee, but of course focussing on the
> >> topics that are covered in the conference themes. This is also why my
> >> colleagues from the event team only opened the registration _after_
> >> the rough outline of the programme has been published by the programme
> >> team.
> >>
> >> As for the broader topic about the purpose, scope and future of the
> >> WMCON, I think it does make sense to discuss this on-list (or better
> >> wiki) before the event. An exchange of arguments and possible
> >> solutions is welcome, those can be used to prepare for the session at
> >> WMCON. I am definitely glad that we now have this discussion and I
> >> like to hear more of people's thoughts.
> >>
> >> As for the broader, broader topic that for example Risker mentions
> >> above, I hope that the Chapters Dialogue will be able to provide
> >> insights and food for thought. The presentation at the WMCON and the
> >> extensive documentation that will be provided on-wiki afterwards, can
> >> help foster these discussions on those movement related issues.
> >>
> >> Again, I am glad that the pre-conference has now been initiated and
> >> that we can use the following days to get in the right mood for the
> >> conference weekend.
> >>
> >> Thanks and best regards,
> >> Nicole
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2 April 2014 22:18, Itzik Edri  wrote:
> >> > What the purpose of this discussion? The program committee already
> >> > scheduled a session about the future of the WMCON. And as we are a
> week
> >> > before, and I believe it's too late to cancel flights and hotels
> booking,
> >> > nothing will probably going to be changed, even if there will be
> >> consensus
> >> > about the purpose of the conference.
> >> >
> >> > And while it seem like the discussion is about WMUK's attendees only
> - I
> >> > must say I don't think this is the case. They are maybe the biggest
> >> > delegations (we may starts to change the term this year from
> >> > "representatives" to "delegation", which fit the case better), but not
> >> the
> >> > only ones. There are other chapters who sends more than the others.
> >> >
> >> > The silence and the ignorance of the organizer team regarding their
> >> > decision on that is something which worries me more, I think.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Chris Keating <
> >> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
> >> >>
> >> >> So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
> >> >>
> >> >> This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
> >> >>
> >> >> I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a chance to
> get
> >> to
> >> >> know face-to-face people I only knew over email, to share some useful
> >> >> experience of Wikimedia UK's with other chapters,  and  to get an
> >> insight
> >> >> into how others were thinking, and have some meetings which needed
> to be
> >> >> done face-to-face.
> >> >>
> >> >> In general those are very useful things. But is that what the
> >> conference is
> >> >> for?
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >> >>  On 2 Apr 2014 17:17, "Cristian Consonni" 
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > (my 2cents here, not sp

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimania Budget (related to chapters and WMF)

[Itzik Edri]

[cross-posting]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Itzik Edri 
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Wikimania Budget (related to chapters and WMF)
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" <
wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org>


Hi,

We are soon gonna meet again in Wikimania 2014, and as many of the chapters
and the WMF already published their final financial numbers for 2013, I
encourage everyone who didn't do it yet - like WMF, WMDE, WMFR, WMAT, and
some others to update their numbers:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013/Budget

And here also:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Scholarships/2013

The Hong Kong team is also welcome to add the conferences costs, and other
financial numbers.

Many thanks to everyone for supporting the transparency around Wikimania!




On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Itzik Edri  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I know it may be too early to ask that, but I promise to send another
> notification related this issue in the coming months :)
>
> We started last year to make the Wikimania costs more transparent.
> Wikimania is our biggest and the most expensive project. To ask our self
> "how much Wikimania costs" we can't only look on the project budget, as the
> total cost involve also scholarships (from WMF and chapters)
> and delegations of the chapters and the WMF.
>
> We have tracking pages on Meta about Wikimania 
> 2011and Wikimania
> 2012  (sadly the
> organizer team of 2012 didn't updated their costs till now...), and I
> opened a new page for Wikimania 
> 2013
> .
>
> So again, I know to some of you this is too early to put the costs
> (although the size of the chapters and WMF delegation is known and could be
> update also now) - but if you can, do it now. If now, remember to do it
> what you have the numbers.
>
> The data requested is your chapter\wmf 
> delegation 
> and
> the number of 
> scholarshipsyour 
> chapters gave.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Itzik
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,