Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gnangarra]

here is a short url created using Google URL shortner

https://goo.gl/pR1SAf

On 26 October 2017 at 10:49, Biyanto Rebin 
wrote:

> Dear Lodewijk,
>
> The link is broken too. Here is the the clickable link:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
> 2018/Eligibility_Criteria
>
>
> Cheers
>
> 2017-10-26 9:45 GMT+07:00 Lodewijk :
>
> > funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a
> different
> > place:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/
> > Eligibility_Criteria
> >
> > Hope more luck this time!
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time
> > fixing
> > > it:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
> > > 018/Eligibility_Criteria
> > >
> > >A.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > aside from the conversation about project/language communities –
> thanks
> > > for
> > > > the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page
> > for
> > > > the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > > > rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
> > > >
> > > > I have received some off-list questions about specific details for
> > > specific
> > > > affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page.
> In
> > > > case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> > > > off-list.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Cornelius
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Biyanto Rebin | Ketua Umum (*Chair*) 2016-2018
> Wikimedia Indonesia
> Surel: biyanto.re...@wikimedia.or.id
> 
>
> Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan:
> http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Biyanto Rebin]

Dear Lodewijk,

The link is broken too. Here is the the clickable link:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria


Cheers

2017-10-26 9:45 GMT+07:00 Lodewijk :

> funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a different
> place:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/
> Eligibility_Criteria
>
> Hope more luck this time!
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
>
> > Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time
> fixing
> > it:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
> > 018/Eligibility_Criteria
> >
> >A.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks
> > for
> > > the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page
> for
> > > the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > > rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
> > >
> > > I have received some off-list questions about specific details for
> > specific
> > > affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
> > > case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> > > off-list.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Cornelius
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

Biyanto Rebin | Ketua Umum (*Chair*) 2016-2018
Wikimedia Indonesia
Surel: biyanto.re...@wikimedia.or.id


Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan:
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Lodewijk]

funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a different
place:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/
Eligibility_Criteria

Hope more luck this time!

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time fixing
> it:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
> 018/Eligibility_Criteria
>
>A.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks
> for
> > the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page for
> > the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
> >
> > I have received some off-list questions about specific details for
> specific
> > affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
> > case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> > off-list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Cornelius
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Asaf Bartov]

Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time fixing
it:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
018/Eligibility_Criteria

   A.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks for
> the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page for
> the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
>
> I have received some off-list questions about specific details for specific
> affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
> case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> off-list.
>
> Best regards,
> Cornelius
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Hi all,

aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks for
the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page for
the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria

I have received some off-list questions about specific details for specific
affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
off-list.

Best regards,
Cornelius

On 25 October 2017 at 15:00, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is not that someone has nothing worthwhile to contribute, it is just
> that once you have interviewed a group that is of sufficient variety the
> likelyhood of hearing anything new will vanish. When too much information
> is gathered it becomes unwieldy as well and the discussion will peter out.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 14:24, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups
> you
> > will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
> > matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
> > what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
> > the selection process alone introduces some bias, creates a division and
> > implies someones opinion isnt worth considering.
> >
> > Starting some where is the important aspect, doing so in a manageable way
> > with the available resources is the only prudent way forward
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25 October 2017 at 19:19, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on
> > adding
> > > more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be
> > empowering
> > > but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
> > > seeking.
> > >
> > > So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
> > > selected group of people have to offer?
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> > > > Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
> > > >
> > > > I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> > > > weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> > > > about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> > > > good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> > > > so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > Hi Lodewijk,
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an
> > > agreement
> > > > > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia
> > > Conference
> > > > > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> > > > depend
> > > > > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy
> process,
> > > for
> > > > > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement
> > > organizations.
> > > > > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're
> talking
> > > > about
> > > > > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the
> > > conference
> > > > > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a
> > solution
> > > to
> > > > > the overall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards
> > > > > Cornelius
> > > > >
> > > > > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> > > > organizations
> > > > >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has
> > been
> > > > doing
> > > > >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case
> for
> > > most
> > > > >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> > > > groups,
> > > > >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we
> have
> > > > always
> > > > >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this
> context
> > > it
> > > > >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> > > > >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> > > > >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user
> > > group
> > > > >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users
> > that
> > > > likes
> > > > >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of
> the
> > > > >> community.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> While lines 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is not that someone has nothing worthwhile to contribute, it is just
that once you have interviewed a group that is of sufficient variety the
likelyhood of hearing anything new will vanish. When too much information
is gathered it becomes unwieldy as well and the discussion will peter out.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 25 October 2017 at 14:24, Gnangarra  wrote:

> Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups you
> will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
> matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
> what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
> the selection process alone introduces some bias, creates a division and
> implies someones opinion isnt worth considering.
>
> Starting some where is the important aspect, doing so in a manageable way
> with the available resources is the only prudent way forward
>
>
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 19:19, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on
> adding
> > more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be
> empowering
> > but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
> > seeking.
> >
> > So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
> > selected group of people have to offer?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> > > Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
> > >
> > > I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> > > weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> > > about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> > > good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> > > so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Hi Lodewijk,
> > > >
> > > > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an
> > agreement
> > > > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia
> > Conference
> > > > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> > > depend
> > > > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process,
> > for
> > > > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement
> > organizations.
> > > > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> > > about
> > > > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the
> > conference
> > > > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a
> solution
> > to
> > > > the overall.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Cornelius
> > > >
> > > > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> > > organizations
> > > >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has
> been
> > > doing
> > > >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for
> > most
> > > >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> > > groups,
> > > >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> > > >>
> > > >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> > > always
> > > >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context
> > it
> > > >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> > > >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> > > >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user
> > group
> > > >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users
> that
> > > likes
> > > >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> > > >> community.
> > > >>
> > > >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies,
> > this
> > > >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> > > >>
> > > >> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either
> have
> > > to
> > > >> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other
> > people.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying
> goal
> > > is
> > > >> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is
> > not
> > > >> cutting it yet.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lodewijk
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon <
> jsed...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is
> not
> > > >> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and
> > > advantages,
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gnangarra]

Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups you
will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
the selection process alone introduces some bias, creates a division and
implies someones opinion isnt worth considering.

Starting some where is the important aspect, doing so in a manageable way
with the available resources is the only prudent way forward



On 25 October 2017 at 19:19, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on adding
> more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be empowering
> but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
> seeking.
>
> So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
> selected group of people have to offer?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> > Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
> >
> > I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> > weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> > about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> > good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> > so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
> >  wrote:
> > > Hi Lodewijk,
> > >
> > > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an
> agreement
> > > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia
> Conference
> > > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> > depend
> > > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process,
> for
> > > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement
> organizations.
> > > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> > about
> > > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the
> conference
> > > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution
> to
> > > the overall.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Cornelius
> > >
> > > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> > organizations
> > >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been
> > doing
> > >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for
> most
> > >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> > groups,
> > >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> > >>
> > >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> > always
> > >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context
> it
> > >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> > >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> > >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user
> group
> > >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that
> > likes
> > >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> > >> community.
> > >>
> > >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies,
> this
> > >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> > >>
> > >> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have
> > to
> > >> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other
> people.
> > >>
> > >> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal
> > is
> > >> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is
> not
> > >> cutting it yet.
> > >>
> > >> Lodewijk
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> > >> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and
> > advantages,
> > >> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> > >> >
> > >> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages
> and
> > >> > topics to varying degrees.
> > >> >
> > >> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> > >> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative
> > in
> > >> an
> > >> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> > >> > representative.
> > >> >
> > >> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates
> > gain
> > >> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new
> roles

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Nicole Ebber]

Chris,

As Cornelius wrote, this conversation will be a part of phase 2
discussions which are supposed take place in many different places,
on- and offline. We won't just put the cart before the horse. I
envision the movement strategy process to also offer space for
conversations about how strategic, decision making processes and
platforms for the movement could look in the future. The outcomes of
these conversations can then inform how goals, structures and
representation for a conference like WMCON can look like in the
future.

Hope this helps,
Nicole



On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating  wrote:
> So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
>
> I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
>  wrote:
>> Hi Lodewijk,
>>
>> One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
>> upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
>> in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also depend
>> on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
>> example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
>> By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking about
>> 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
>> for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
>> the overall.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Cornelius
>>
>> On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  wrote:
>>
>>> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
>>> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
>>> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
>>> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
>>> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>>>
>>> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
>>> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
>>> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
>>> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
>>> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
>>> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
>>> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
>>> community.
>>>
>>> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
>>> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>>>
>>> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
>>> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>>>
>>> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
>>> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
>>> cutting it yet.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
>>> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
>>> > the affiliate model has become very different.
>>> >
>>> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
>>> > topics to varying degrees.
>>> >
>>> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
>>> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
>>> an
>>> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
>>> > representative.
>>> >
>>> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
>>> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
>>> and
>>> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>>> >
>>> > Seddon
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
>>> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
>>> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
>>> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
>>> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
>>> > >
>>> > > Michael
>>> > >
>>> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on adding
more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be empowering
but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
seeking.

So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
selected group of people have to offer?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
>
> I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
>  wrote:
> > Hi Lodewijk,
> >
> > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
> > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
> > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> depend
> > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
> > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
> > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> about
> > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
> > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
> > the overall.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Cornelius
> >
> > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> >
> >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> organizations
> >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been
> doing
> >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
> >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> groups,
> >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> >>
> >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> always
> >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
> >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
> >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that
> likes
> >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> >> community.
> >>
> >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
> >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> >>
> >> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have
> to
> >> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
> >>
> >> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal
> is
> >> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
> >> cutting it yet.
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> >> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and
> advantages,
> >> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> >> >
> >> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> >> > topics to varying degrees.
> >> >
> >> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> >> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative
> in
> >> an
> >> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> >> > representative.
> >> >
> >> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates
> gain
> >> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
> >> and
> >> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> >> >
> >> > Seddon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose
> has
> >> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> >> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not
> as
> >> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> >> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> >> > >
> >> > > Michael
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> >> > chapters
> >> > > > have no control/authority 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Chris Keating]

So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?

I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)

Chris

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
 wrote:
> Hi Lodewijk,
>
> One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
> upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
> in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also depend
> on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
> example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
> By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking about
> 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
> for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
> the overall.
>
> Best regards
> Cornelius
>
> On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  wrote:
>
>> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
>> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
>> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
>> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
>> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>>
>> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
>> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
>> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
>> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
>> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
>> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
>> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
>> community.
>>
>> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
>> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>>
>> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
>> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
>> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
>> cutting it yet.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
>> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
>> > the affiliate model has become very different.
>> >
>> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
>> > topics to varying degrees.
>> >
>> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
>> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
>> an
>> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
>> > representative.
>> >
>> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
>> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
>> and
>> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>> >
>> > Seddon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
>> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
>> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
>> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
>> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
>> > >
>> > > Michael
>> > >
>> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
>> > chapters
>> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
>> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
>> user
>> > > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
>> > > > representatives if they must be represented.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Isaac.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
>> > always
>> > > :)
>> > > >
>> > > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
>> > > organized
>> > > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Hi Lodewijk,

One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also depend
on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking about
10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
the overall.

Best regards
Cornelius

On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  wrote:

> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>
> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> community.
>
> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>
> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>
> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
> cutting it yet.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> >
> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> > topics to varying degrees.
> >
> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
> an
> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> > representative.
> >
> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
> and
> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> > chapters
> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
> user
> > > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > > > representatives if they must be represented.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Isaac.
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
> > always
> > > :)
> > > >
> > > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> > > organized
> > > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
> > movement.
> > > In
> > > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
> > same
> > > > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was
> quite
> > a
> > > > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> > > >
> > > > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a
> > goal.
> > > If
> > > > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> > > structure
> > > > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation
> > for
> > > > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > > > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Chris Keating]

I just want to add my 2p on this.

I raised my eyebrows last year when so many people were invited to WMCON
but I could see the rationale for one-off face-to-face strategy
conversations.

However I am concerned by the idea that WMCON is now turning into a large,
standing, deliberative/representative body and losing focus on supporting
affiliates' impact.

WMCON can never be a representative group for the movement, let's not try.

Chris

On 24 Oct 2017 17:30, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>
> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> community.
>
> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>
> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>
> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
> cutting it yet.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> >
> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> > topics to varying degrees.
> >
> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
> an
> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> > representative.
> >
> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
> and
> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> > chapters
> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
> user
> > > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > > > representatives if they must be represented.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Isaac.
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
> > always
> > > :)
> > > >
> > > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> > > organized
> > > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
> > movement.
> > > In
> > > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
> > same
> > > > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was
> quite
> > a
> > > > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> > > >
> > > > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a
> > goal.
> > > If
> > > > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> > > structure
> > > > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation
> > for
> > > > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > > > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> > > >
> > > > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would
> > be
> > > to
> > > > fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This
> could
> > be
> > > > input from 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Lodewijk]

While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.

Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
community.

While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.

If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.

I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
cutting it yet.

Lodewijk

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
> the affiliate model has become very different.
>
> Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> topics to varying degrees.
>
> In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> representatives. There is a difference though between representative in an
> outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> representative.
>
> The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
> in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles and
> responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>
> Seddon
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> chapters
> > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > > representatives if they must be represented.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Isaac.
> > >
> > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
> always
> > :)
> > >
> > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> > organized
> > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
> movement.
> > In
> > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
> same
> > > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite
> a
> > > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> > >
> > > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a
> goal.
> > If
> > > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> > structure
> > > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation
> for
> > > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> > >
> > > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would
> be
> > to
> > > fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could
> be
> > > input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where
> > we
> > > even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would
> not
> > > imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> > > consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider
> other
> > > areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or
> > project
> > > communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> > > language communities in Africa or communities that are
> > government-blocked -
> > > of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would
> > also
> > > send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative
> what
> > > you 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gnangarra]

Affiliates have no authority over content, just like the WMF has no
authority over content, to imply otherwise whether intentionally or by
accident of design is a problem we need fix ensuring that that line isnt
crossed.  Not only do legal and liabilities make this a must, for
affiliates in countries where the governments arent exactly free put
editors(real people) at personal risk and content neutrality at risk.
Wikimedia Spain isnt responsible for the spanish wikipedia any more than
Wikimedia Mexico is, languages cross borders affiliates shouldnt overlap
each other or borders



On 24 October 2017 at 19:56, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
> the affiliate model has become very different.
>
> Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> topics to varying degrees.
>
> In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> representatives. There is a difference though between representative in an
> outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> representative.
>
> The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
> in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles and
> responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>
> Seddon
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> chapters
> > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > > representatives if they must be represented.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Isaac.
> > >
> > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
> always
> > :)
> > >
> > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> > organized
> > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
> movement.
> > In
> > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
> same
> > > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite
> a
> > > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> > >
> > > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a
> goal.
> > If
> > > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> > structure
> > > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation
> for
> > > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> > >
> > > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would
> be
> > to
> > > fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could
> be
> > > input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where
> > we
> > > even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would
> not
> > > imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> > > consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider
> other
> > > areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or
> > project
> > > communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> > > language communities in Africa or communities that are
> > government-blocked -
> > > of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would
> > also
> > > send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative
> what
> > > you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).
> > >
> > > There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have
> > in
> > > mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate
> > from
> > > the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
> > > though. That is, unless this official line has changed.
> > >
> > > Warmly,
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
> > >>
> > >> Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia
> > > Conference
> > >> would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be.
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Hi all,

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that “representing” is not the right
word.

I wrote:

“The biggest ten language/project communities (by numbers of active editors
[>5 edits/month]) that are not represented by any affiliate, or have an
affiliate, which is not eligible because it was recognized after April 19,
2017, may send one delegate.”

A better formulation could be:

"The biggest ten language/project communities (by numbers of active editors
[>5 edits/month]) ***with no related or supporting affiliate, or where
there is an affiliate,*** which is not eligible because it was recognized
after April 19, 2017, may send one delegate."

As in 2017, the 2018 conference will again be one conference with three
different tracks. We will again create one track specifically dedicated to
discussions about the future of our movement, including conversations about
the future set-up and representation at this conference. We have included
this new criterion, because we would like to also get input from
communities with no related/supporting affiliate (yet!). This is done to
increase the diversity of participants in terms of geography, without
making arbitrary choices.

I did not mean to imply that language communities are (or should be) under
control of local chapters or user groups.

I hope this answers your questions and am happy to continue improving the
clarity of the process according to your input.

Best regards,

Cornelius


On 24 October 2017 at 13:56, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
> the affiliate model has become very different.
>
> Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> topics to varying degrees.
>
> In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> representatives. There is a difference though between representative in an
> outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> representative.
>
> The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
> in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles and
> responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>
> Seddon
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> chapters
> > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > > representatives if they must be represented.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Isaac.
> > >
> > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
> always
> > :)
> > >
> > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> > organized
> > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
> movement.
> > In
> > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
> same
> > > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite
> a
> > > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> > >
> > > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a
> goal.
> > If
> > > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> > structure
> > > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation
> for
> > > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> > >
> > > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would
> be
> > to
> > > fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could
> be
> > > input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where
> > we
> > > even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would
> not
> > > imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> > > consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider
> other
> > > areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or
> > project
> > > communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> > > language communities in Africa or communities that are
> > government-blocked -
> > > of which I'm uncertain if they are 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Joseph Seddon]

The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
the affiliate model has become very different.

Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
topics to varying degrees.

In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
representatives. There is a difference though between representative in an
outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
representative.

The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles and
responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.

Seddon



On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs  wrote:

> Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
>
> Michael
>
> > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
> >
> > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local chapters
> > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > representatives if they must be represented.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Isaac.
> >
> > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
> >
> > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always
> :)
> >
> > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> organized
> > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement.
> In
> > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
> > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
> > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> >
> > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal.
> If
> > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> structure
> > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
> > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> >
> > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be
> to
> > fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
> > input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where
> we
> > even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
> > imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> > consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
> > areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or
> project
> > communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> > language communities in Africa or communities that are
> government-blocked -
> > of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would
> also
> > send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
> > you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).
> >
> > There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have
> in
> > mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate
> from
> > the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
> > though. That is, unless this official line has changed.
> >
> > Warmly,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
> >>
> >> Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia
> > Conference
> >> would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For
> > the
> >> Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to
> the
> >> conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
> >> selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
> >>
> >> To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
> >> people from different regions present at the conference, we needed
> clear,
> >> transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution
> that
> >> covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this
> approach
> >> – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference
> 2018.
> >> Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year,
> this
> >> approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of
> > the
> >> Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
> >>
> >> Additionally, I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Michael Maggs]

Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has always 
been to discuss matters of common interest to movement *organisations*.  
Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as representatives for any 
wider groups such as speakers of a specific language, or editors of any 
particular Wikipedia. 

Michael 

> On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde  wrote:
> 
> I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local chapters
> have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> representatives if they must be represented.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Isaac.
> 
> On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
> 
> That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always :)
> 
> As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and organized
> groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement. In
> 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
> location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
> unique situation because of the strategic process.
> 
> The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal. If
> being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the structure
> probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
> all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> 
> On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be to
> fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
> input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where we
> even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
> imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
> areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or project
> communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> language communities in Africa or communities that are government-blocked -
> of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would also
> send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
> you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).
> 
> There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have in
> mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate from
> the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
> though. That is, unless this official line has changed.
> 
> Warmly,
> Lodewijk
> 
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
>> 
>> Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia
> Conference
>> would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For
> the
>> Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to the
>> conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
>> selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
>> 
>> To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
>> people from different regions present at the conference, we needed clear,
>> transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution that
>> covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this approach
>> – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference 2018.
>> Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year, this
>> approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of
> the
>> Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
>> 
>> Additionally, I want to highlight this, because this was criticized in the
>> past as well, all regularly eligible affiliates may send at least two
>> representatives.
>> 
>> I’m aware that this approach implies challenges, though. I’m happy to
>> receive suggestions on how to come up with equally clear and transparent
>> criteria.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Cornelius
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 October 2017 at 19:37, Jean-Philippe Béland 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I share the questions of Lodewijk
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
>>> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>>> 
 Of course, I meant:
 
 "The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will
>> end
 sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."
 
 Thank you
 Cornelius
 
 --
 
 Cornelius Kibelka
 
 Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
 for the Wikimedia Conference
 
 
 
 Am 23.10.2017 18:04 schrieb "Cornelius 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gnangarra]

I agree the risks involved with having projects including language
wikipedias as recognised groups and represented by individuals will expose
both them and the WMF to legal obligations.   At the moment WMF is at arms
length to the contributing communities as are affiliates, that's an
important separation that needs to be maintained.

On 24 October 2017 at 13:14, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> We absolutely do not want language communities to be under the control of
> local chapters or user groups, for a multitude of reasons, one of the many
> being that the chapters are organized by country (or even by territory)
> whereas language communities are organized differently.
>
> I think the idea that the language communities must be represented at a
> Wikimedia conference is just wrong. The absolute majority of the
> contributors to the Wikimedia projects just do not care (or do not know,
> for that matter) about local chapters and affiliates, and they will be very
> much surprised to learn that they are represented by anybody at a
> conference which started as a conference of affiliates.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local chapters
> > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > representatives if they must be represented.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Isaac.
> >
> > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
> >
> > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always
> :)
> >
> > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> organized
> > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement.
> In
> > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
> > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
> > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> >
> > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal.
> If
> > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> structure
> > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
> > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> >
> > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be
> to
> > fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
> > input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where
> we
> > even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
> > imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> > consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
> > areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or
> project
> > communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> > language communities in Africa or communities that are
> government-blocked -
> > of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would
> also
> > send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
> > you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).
> >
> > There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have
> in
> > mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate
> from
> > the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
> > though. That is, unless this official line has changed.
> >
> > Warmly,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
> > >
> > > Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia
> > Conference
> > > would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For
> > the
> > > Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to
> > the
> > > conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
> > > selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
> > >
> > > To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
> > > people from different regions present at the conference, we needed
> clear,
> > > transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution
> > that
> > > covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this
> > approach
> > > – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference
> 2018.
> > > Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year,
> > this
> > > approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of
> > the
> > > Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
> > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Yaroslav Blanter]

We absolutely do not want language communities to be under the control of
local chapters or user groups, for a multitude of reasons, one of the many
being that the chapters are organized by country (or even by territory)
whereas language communities are organized differently.

I think the idea that the language communities must be represented at a
Wikimedia conference is just wrong. The absolute majority of the
contributors to the Wikimedia projects just do not care (or do not know,
for that matter) about local chapters and affiliates, and they will be very
much surprised to learn that they are represented by anybody at a
conference which started as a conference of affiliates.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local chapters
> have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> representatives if they must be represented.
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac.
>
> On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>
> That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always :)
>
> As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and organized
> groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement. In
> 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
> location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
> unique situation because of the strategic process.
>
> The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal. If
> being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the structure
> probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
> all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
>
> On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be to
> fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
> input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where we
> even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
> imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
> areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or project
> communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> language communities in Africa or communities that are government-blocked -
> of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would also
> send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
> you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).
>
> There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have in
> mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate from
> the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
> though. That is, unless this official line has changed.
>
> Warmly,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
> >
> > Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia
> Conference
> > would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For
> the
> > Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to
> the
> > conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
> > selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
> >
> > To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
> > people from different regions present at the conference, we needed clear,
> > transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution
> that
> > covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this
> approach
> > – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference 2018.
> > Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year,
> this
> > approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of
> the
> > Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
> >
> > Additionally, I want to highlight this, because this was criticized in
> the
> > past as well, all regularly eligible affiliates may send at least two
> > representatives.
> >
> > I’m aware that this approach implies challenges, though. I’m happy to
> > receive suggestions on how to come up with equally clear and transparent
> > criteria.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Cornelius
> >
> >
> > On 23 October 2017 at 19:37, Jean-Philippe Béland  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I share the questions of Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Isaac Olatunde]

I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local chapters
have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
representatives if they must be represented.

Regards,

Isaac.

On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always :)

As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and organized
groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement. In
2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
unique situation because of the strategic process.

The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal. If
being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the structure
probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).

On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be to
fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where we
even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or project
communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
language communities in Africa or communities that are government-blocked -
of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would also
send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).

There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have in
mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate from
the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
though. That is, unless this official line has changed.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
>
> Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia
Conference
> would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For
the
> Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to the
> conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
> selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
>
> To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
> people from different regions present at the conference, we needed clear,
> transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution that
> covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this approach
> – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference 2018.
> Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year, this
> approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of
the
> Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
>
> Additionally, I want to highlight this, because this was criticized in the
> past as well, all regularly eligible affiliates may send at least two
> representatives.
>
> I’m aware that this approach implies challenges, though. I’m happy to
> receive suggestions on how to come up with equally clear and transparent
> criteria.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cornelius
>
>
> On 23 October 2017 at 19:37, Jean-Philippe Béland 
> wrote:
>
> > I share the questions of Lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, I meant:
> > >
> > > "The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will
> end
> > > sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Cornelius
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Cornelius Kibelka
> > >
> > > Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> > > for the Wikimedia Conference
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 23.10.2017 18:04 schrieb "Cornelius Kibelka" <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de>:
> > >
> > > > Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
> > > >
> > > > A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference
will
> > > take
> > > > place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in
> Berlin-Neukölln
> > > > (same location as in 2017). This email contains information about
the
> > > > program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
> > > > including the relevant reporting deadlines.
> > > >
> > > > == Program Themes ==
> > > >
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Just a quick reaction from Cornelius' message and Lodewijk's answer. I will
reply with my thoughts more in detail once I get back in Canada as I'm
still in France after the Wikiconvention.

I also think that we need a better defined official goal of the Wikimedia
Conference to address this issue. It was also my understanding that the
Wikiconference was a meeting of the official structured affiliates of the
Wikimedia movement from around the world. The questions raised about
representativity at the last Wikiconference, from my understanding, were
mainly raised on the Strategy Track, as Lodewijk also suggests, that was a
special event in 2017. I don't think the Wikiconference has the role of
defining strategy for the whole movement as a goal, but again that would
need to be identified by identifying a clear goal and intent for this
conference.

That being said, I don't think this is a good idea to say even implicitly
that affiliates are representatives of our online communities in any way.
They are independant communities and must remain that way in my opinion.

Thank you,
JP

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 20:16 Lodewijk,  wrote:

> That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always :)
>
> As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and organized
> groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement. In
> 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
> location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
> unique situation because of the strategic process.
>
> The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal. If
> being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the structure
> probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
> all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
>
> On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be to
> fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
> input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where we
> even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
> imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
> areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or project
> communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> language communities in Africa or communities that are government-blocked -
> of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would also
> send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
> you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).
>
> There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have in
> mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate from
> the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
> though. That is, unless this official line has changed.
>
> Warmly,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
> >
> > Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia
> Conference
> > would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For
> the
> > Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to
> the
> > conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
> > selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
> >
> > To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
> > people from different regions present at the conference, we needed clear,
> > transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution
> that
> > covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this
> approach
> > – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference 2018.
> > Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year,
> this
> > approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of
> the
> > Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
> >
> > Additionally, I want to highlight this, because this was criticized in
> the
> > past as well, all regularly eligible affiliates may send at least two
> > representatives.
> >
> > I’m aware that this approach implies challenges, though. I’m happy to
> > receive suggestions on how to come up with equally clear and transparent
> > criteria.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Cornelius
> >
> >
> > On 23 October 2017 at 19:37, Jean-Philippe Béland  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I share the questions of Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Of course, I meant:
> > > >
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Lodewijk]

That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always :)

As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and organized
groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement. In
2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
unique situation because of the strategic process.

The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal. If
being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the structure
probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).

On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be to
fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where we
even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or project
communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
language communities in Africa or communities that are government-blocked -
of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would also
send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).

There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have in
mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate from
the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
though. That is, unless this official line has changed.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
>
> Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia Conference
> would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For the
> Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to the
> conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
> selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
>
> To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
> people from different regions present at the conference, we needed clear,
> transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution that
> covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this approach
> – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference 2018.
> Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year, this
> approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of the
> Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
>
> Additionally, I want to highlight this, because this was criticized in the
> past as well, all regularly eligible affiliates may send at least two
> representatives.
>
> I’m aware that this approach implies challenges, though. I’m happy to
> receive suggestions on how to come up with equally clear and transparent
> criteria.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cornelius
>
>
> On 23 October 2017 at 19:37, Jean-Philippe Béland 
> wrote:
>
> > I share the questions of Lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, I meant:
> > >
> > > "The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will
> end
> > > sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Cornelius
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Cornelius Kibelka
> > >
> > > Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> > > for the Wikimedia Conference
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 23.10.2017 18:04 schrieb "Cornelius Kibelka" <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de>:
> > >
> > > > Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
> > > >
> > > > A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will
> > > take
> > > > place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in
> Berlin-Neukölln
> > > > (same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
> > > > program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
> > > > including the relevant reporting deadlines.
> > > >
> > > > == Program Themes ==
> > > >
> > > > As in the previous editions of the conference, the Wikimedia
> Conference
> > > > 2018 will again focus on three core themes.
> > > >
> > > >-
> > > >
> > > >Movement Strategy: In November 2017, phase 2 of the Wikimedia
> > Movement
> > > >Strategy Process will start. Its main goal will be to answer the
> > > question
> > > >"How do we implement the strategic direction", which means
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,

Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia Conference
would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For the
Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to the
conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.

To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
people from different regions present at the conference, we needed clear,
transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution that
covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this approach
– with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference 2018.
Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year, this
approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of the
Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.

Additionally, I want to highlight this, because this was criticized in the
past as well, all regularly eligible affiliates may send at least two
representatives.

I’m aware that this approach implies challenges, though. I’m happy to
receive suggestions on how to come up with equally clear and transparent
criteria.

Best regards,

Cornelius


On 23 October 2017 at 19:37, Jean-Philippe Béland 
wrote:

> I share the questions of Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Of course, I meant:
> >
> > "The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will end
> > sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."
> >
> > Thank you
> > Cornelius
> >
> > --
> >
> > Cornelius Kibelka
> >
> > Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> > for the Wikimedia Conference
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 23.10.2017 18:04 schrieb "Cornelius Kibelka" <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de>:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
> > >
> > > A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will
> > take
> > > place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in Berlin-Neukölln
> > > (same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
> > > program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
> > > including the relevant reporting deadlines.
> > >
> > > == Program Themes ==
> > >
> > > As in the previous editions of the conference, the Wikimedia Conference
> > > 2018 will again focus on three core themes.
> > >
> > >-
> > >
> > >Movement Strategy: In November 2017, phase 2 of the Wikimedia
> Movement
> > >Strategy Process will start. Its main goal will be to answer the
> > question
> > >"How do we implement the strategic direction", which means
> > identifying the
> > >roles and resources needed for execution, and the activities it
> > involves.
> > >In order to ensure participation from the organized part of the
> > movement in
> > >this next phase, we will again host a three-day track on movement
> > strategy.
> > >This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > >-
> > >
> > >Partnerships in the Wikimedia Movement: Wikimedia organizations and
> > >groups have a wide variety of experiences and knowledge in working
> > with
> > >partners to achieve our mission. Based on the conversation at the
> last
> > >Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania, and regional Wikimedia conferences,
> > we aim
> > >to continue to offer a space for conversations, experience sharing
> and
> > >learning around partnerships within and outside the Wikimedia
> > movement.
> > >This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation’s
> > Global
> > >Reach & Partnerships team, WMDE’s Partnerships & Development team
> and
> > the
> > >volunteer “Partnerships group”.
> > >-
> > >
> > >Capacity Building & Learning: The Wikimedia Conference currently is
> > >one of the main spaces for learning and sharing among Wikimedia
> > affiliates.
> > >Again, we will host a track with sessions that are designed
> according
> > to
> > >the participants’ needs, wishes and experiences. This track will be
> > >designed in close consultation with WMF’s Learning & Evaluation
> team,
> > and
> > >will complement the pre-conference Learning Days.
> > >
> > >
> > > == Eligibility Criteria ==
> > >
> > > The eligibility criteria for participating in the Wikimedia Conference
> > > 2018 are aligned to the Affiliates’ Agreements with the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation.
> > >
> > > Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have shown signs
> of
> > > recent activity (within the last six months) and be up-to-date on their
> > > reporting by the eligibility deadline (December 15, 2017). Moreover,
> > > affiliates need to have been officially recognized by the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation before April 19, 2017.
> > >
> > > == Participant number regulation 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

I share the questions of Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Of course, I meant:
>
> "The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will end
> sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."
>
> Thank you
> Cornelius
>
> --
>
> Cornelius Kibelka
>
> Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> for the Wikimedia Conference
>
>
>
> Am 23.10.2017 18:04 schrieb "Cornelius Kibelka" <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de>:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
> >
> > A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will
> take
> > place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in Berlin-Neukölln
> > (same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
> > program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
> > including the relevant reporting deadlines.
> >
> > == Program Themes ==
> >
> > As in the previous editions of the conference, the Wikimedia Conference
> > 2018 will again focus on three core themes.
> >
> >-
> >
> >Movement Strategy: In November 2017, phase 2 of the Wikimedia Movement
> >Strategy Process will start. Its main goal will be to answer the
> question
> >"How do we implement the strategic direction", which means
> identifying the
> >roles and resources needed for execution, and the activities it
> involves.
> >In order to ensure participation from the organized part of the
> movement in
> >this next phase, we will again host a three-day track on movement
> strategy.
> >This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >-
> >
> >Partnerships in the Wikimedia Movement: Wikimedia organizations and
> >groups have a wide variety of experiences and knowledge in working
> with
> >partners to achieve our mission. Based on the conversation at the last
> >Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania, and regional Wikimedia conferences,
> we aim
> >to continue to offer a space for conversations, experience sharing and
> >learning around partnerships within and outside the Wikimedia
> movement.
> >This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation’s
> Global
> >Reach & Partnerships team, WMDE’s Partnerships & Development team and
> the
> >volunteer “Partnerships group”.
> >-
> >
> >Capacity Building & Learning: The Wikimedia Conference currently is
> >one of the main spaces for learning and sharing among Wikimedia
> affiliates.
> >Again, we will host a track with sessions that are designed according
> to
> >the participants’ needs, wishes and experiences. This track will be
> >designed in close consultation with WMF’s Learning & Evaluation team,
> and
> >will complement the pre-conference Learning Days.
> >
> >
> > == Eligibility Criteria ==
> >
> > The eligibility criteria for participating in the Wikimedia Conference
> > 2018 are aligned to the Affiliates’ Agreements with the Wikimedia
> > Foundation.
> >
> > Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have shown signs of
> > recent activity (within the last six months) and be up-to-date on their
> > reporting by the eligibility deadline (December 15, 2017). Moreover,
> > affiliates need to have been officially recognized by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation before April 19, 2017.
> >
> > == Participant number regulation ==
> >
> >-
> >
> >Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups may send two
> >delegates. Chapters and Thematic Organizations which employ at least
> 0.5
> >FTE by Sep 1, 2017, may send one additional delegate who is a paid
> staff
> >member.
> >-
> >
> >Allied organizations may send two delegates.
> >-
> >
> >The biggest ten language/project communities (by numbers of active
> >editors [>5 edits/month]) that are not represented by any affiliate,
> or
> >have an affiliate, which is not eligible because it was recognized
> after
> >April 19, 2017, may send one delegate.
> >-
> >
> >   As per September 2017, the biggest communities without an
> >   (eligible) affiliate representation are the Japanese, Vietnamese,
> Tamil,
> >   Bengali, Slovak, Croatian, Hindi and Malay, Wikimedia Commons and
> >   Wikivoyage communities.
> >   -
> >
> >   The user groups West Bengal Wikimedians User Group (for the Bengali
> >   community), Hindi Wikimedians User Group (for the Hindi
> community), Wikimedia
> >   Community User Group Malaysia (for the Malay community), as well as
> >   the Commons Photographers User Group (for the Wikimedia Commons
> >   community) and the Wikivoyage Association (for the Wikivoyage
> >   communities) may send one delegate. For the language communities
> (Japanese,
> >   Vietnamese, Tamil, Slovak, Croatian), decision finding and making
> process
> >   on who will be the one person sent to the conference, need to be
> made in
> >   

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Of course, I meant:

"The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will end
sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."

Thank you
Cornelius

-- 

Cornelius Kibelka

Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
for the Wikimedia Conference



Am 23.10.2017 18:04 schrieb "Cornelius Kibelka" <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de>:

> Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
>
> A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will take
> place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in Berlin-Neukölln
> (same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
> program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
> including the relevant reporting deadlines.
>
> == Program Themes ==
>
> As in the previous editions of the conference, the Wikimedia Conference
> 2018 will again focus on three core themes.
>
>-
>
>Movement Strategy: In November 2017, phase 2 of the Wikimedia Movement
>Strategy Process will start. Its main goal will be to answer the question
>"How do we implement the strategic direction", which means identifying the
>roles and resources needed for execution, and the activities it involves.
>In order to ensure participation from the organized part of the movement in
>this next phase, we will again host a three-day track on movement strategy.
>This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation.
>-
>
>Partnerships in the Wikimedia Movement: Wikimedia organizations and
>groups have a wide variety of experiences and knowledge in working with
>partners to achieve our mission. Based on the conversation at the last
>Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania, and regional Wikimedia conferences, we aim
>to continue to offer a space for conversations, experience sharing and
>learning around partnerships within and outside the Wikimedia movement.
>This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation’s Global
>Reach & Partnerships team, WMDE’s Partnerships & Development team and the
>volunteer “Partnerships group”.
>-
>
>Capacity Building & Learning: The Wikimedia Conference currently is
>one of the main spaces for learning and sharing among Wikimedia affiliates.
>Again, we will host a track with sessions that are designed according to
>the participants’ needs, wishes and experiences. This track will be
>designed in close consultation with WMF’s Learning & Evaluation team, and
>will complement the pre-conference Learning Days.
>
>
> == Eligibility Criteria ==
>
> The eligibility criteria for participating in the Wikimedia Conference
> 2018 are aligned to the Affiliates’ Agreements with the Wikimedia
> Foundation.
>
> Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have shown signs of
> recent activity (within the last six months) and be up-to-date on their
> reporting by the eligibility deadline (December 15, 2017). Moreover,
> affiliates need to have been officially recognized by the Wikimedia
> Foundation before April 19, 2017.
>
> == Participant number regulation ==
>
>-
>
>Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups may send two
>delegates. Chapters and Thematic Organizations which employ at least 0.5
>FTE by Sep 1, 2017, may send one additional delegate who is a paid staff
>member.
>-
>
>Allied organizations may send two delegates.
>-
>
>The biggest ten language/project communities (by numbers of active
>editors [>5 edits/month]) that are not represented by any affiliate, or
>have an affiliate, which is not eligible because it was recognized after
>April 19, 2017, may send one delegate.
>-
>
>   As per September 2017, the biggest communities without an
>   (eligible) affiliate representation are the Japanese, Vietnamese, Tamil,
>   Bengali, Slovak, Croatian, Hindi and Malay, Wikimedia Commons and
>   Wikivoyage communities.
>   -
>
>   The user groups West Bengal Wikimedians User Group (for the Bengali
>   community), Hindi Wikimedians User Group (for the Hindi community), 
> Wikimedia
>   Community User Group Malaysia (for the Malay community), as well as
>   the Commons Photographers User Group (for the Wikimedia Commons
>   community) and the Wikivoyage Association (for the Wikivoyage
>   communities) may send one delegate. For the language communities 
> (Japanese,
>   Vietnamese, Tamil, Slovak, Croatian), decision finding and making 
> process
>   on who will be the one person sent to the conference, need to be made in
>   the public (on-wiki).
>
>
> == Registration timeline ==
>
> The registration process will start on November 24, 2018 and will end
> sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018. The link will be provided on
> Meta.[1]
>
> If you have any questions regarding the registration process or the
> Wikimedia Conference, please do not hesitate to send us an e-mail to
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Lodewijk]

Thanks Cornelius,

just to check: you're working from the assumption here that language
communities are being represented by geographic chapters (German
represented by WMDE, English by WMUK (??), Dutch by WMNL)? This is the
first time I hear someone in an official capacity change the approach to
separation of language and geography, so I want to double check that I
understand correctly.

This may have significant implications down the line. For example, it would
imply that the chapters will have to take instructions what to discuss and
do from their language communities, the same way that a language community
representative from Japanese would be expected to.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
>
> A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will take
> place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in Berlin-Neukölln
> (same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
> program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
> including the relevant reporting deadlines.
>
> == Program Themes ==
>
> As in the previous editions of the conference, the Wikimedia Conference
> 2018 will again focus on three core themes.
>
>-
>
>Movement Strategy: In November 2017, phase 2 of the Wikimedia Movement
>Strategy Process will start. Its main goal will be to answer the
> question
>"How do we implement the strategic direction", which means identifying
> the
>roles and resources needed for execution, and the activities it
> involves.
>In order to ensure participation from the organized part of the
> movement in
>this next phase, we will again host a three-day track on movement
> strategy.
>This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation.
>-
>
>Partnerships in the Wikimedia Movement: Wikimedia organizations and
>groups have a wide variety of experiences and knowledge in working with
>partners to achieve our mission. Based on the conversation at the last
>Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania, and regional Wikimedia conferences, we
> aim
>to continue to offer a space for conversations, experience sharing and
>learning around partnerships within and outside the Wikimedia movement.
>This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation’s
> Global
>Reach & Partnerships team, WMDE’s Partnerships & Development team and
> the
>volunteer “Partnerships group”.
>-
>
>Capacity Building & Learning: The Wikimedia Conference currently is one
>of the main spaces for learning and sharing among Wikimedia affiliates.
>Again, we will host a track with sessions that are designed according to
>the participants’ needs, wishes and experiences. This track will be
>designed in close consultation with WMF’s Learning & Evaluation team,
> and
>will complement the pre-conference Learning Days.
>
>
> == Eligibility Criteria ==
>
> The eligibility criteria for participating in the Wikimedia Conference 2018
> are aligned to the Affiliates’ Agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have shown signs of
> recent activity (within the last six months) and be up-to-date on their
> reporting by the eligibility deadline (December 15, 2017). Moreover,
> affiliates need to have been officially recognized by the Wikimedia
> Foundation before April 19, 2017.
>
> == Participant number regulation ==
>
>-
>
>Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups may send two delegates.
>Chapters and Thematic Organizations which employ at least 0.5 FTE by
> Sep 1,
>2017, may send one additional delegate who is a paid staff member.
>-
>
>Allied organizations may send two delegates.
>-
>
>The biggest ten language/project communities (by numbers of active
>editors [>5 edits/month]) that are not represented by any affiliate, or
>have an affiliate, which is not eligible because it was recognized after
>April 19, 2017, may send one delegate.
>-
>
>   As per September 2017, the biggest communities without an (eligible)
>   affiliate representation are the Japanese, Vietnamese, Tamil,
> Bengali,
>   Slovak, Croatian, Hindi and Malay, Wikimedia Commons and Wikivoyage
>   communities.
>   -
>
>   The user groups West Bengal Wikimedians User Group (for the Bengali
>   community), Hindi Wikimedians User Group (for the Hindi
> community), Wikimedia
>   Community User Group Malaysia (for the Malay community), as well as
>   the Commons Photographers User Group (for the Wikimedia Commons
>   community) and the Wikivoyage Association (for the Wikivoyage
>   communities) may send one delegate. For the language communities
> (Japanese,
>   Vietnamese, Tamil, Slovak, Croatian), decision finding and making
> process
>   

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,

A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will take
place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in Berlin-Neukölln
(same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
including the relevant reporting deadlines.

== Program Themes ==

As in the previous editions of the conference, the Wikimedia Conference
2018 will again focus on three core themes.

   -

   Movement Strategy: In November 2017, phase 2 of the Wikimedia Movement
   Strategy Process will start. Its main goal will be to answer the question
   "How do we implement the strategic direction", which means identifying the
   roles and resources needed for execution, and the activities it involves.
   In order to ensure participation from the organized part of the movement in
   this next phase, we will again host a three-day track on movement strategy.
   This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation.
   -

   Partnerships in the Wikimedia Movement: Wikimedia organizations and
   groups have a wide variety of experiences and knowledge in working with
   partners to achieve our mission. Based on the conversation at the last
   Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania, and regional Wikimedia conferences, we aim
   to continue to offer a space for conversations, experience sharing and
   learning around partnerships within and outside the Wikimedia movement.
   This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation’s Global
   Reach & Partnerships team, WMDE’s Partnerships & Development team and the
   volunteer “Partnerships group”.
   -

   Capacity Building & Learning: The Wikimedia Conference currently is one
   of the main spaces for learning and sharing among Wikimedia affiliates.
   Again, we will host a track with sessions that are designed according to
   the participants’ needs, wishes and experiences. This track will be
   designed in close consultation with WMF’s Learning & Evaluation team, and
   will complement the pre-conference Learning Days.


== Eligibility Criteria ==

The eligibility criteria for participating in the Wikimedia Conference 2018
are aligned to the Affiliates’ Agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have shown signs of
recent activity (within the last six months) and be up-to-date on their
reporting by the eligibility deadline (December 15, 2017). Moreover,
affiliates need to have been officially recognized by the Wikimedia
Foundation before April 19, 2017.

== Participant number regulation ==

   -

   Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups may send two delegates.
   Chapters and Thematic Organizations which employ at least 0.5 FTE by Sep 1,
   2017, may send one additional delegate who is a paid staff member.
   -

   Allied organizations may send two delegates.
   -

   The biggest ten language/project communities (by numbers of active
   editors [>5 edits/month]) that are not represented by any affiliate, or
   have an affiliate, which is not eligible because it was recognized after
   April 19, 2017, may send one delegate.
   -

  As per September 2017, the biggest communities without an (eligible)
  affiliate representation are the Japanese, Vietnamese, Tamil, Bengali,
  Slovak, Croatian, Hindi and Malay, Wikimedia Commons and Wikivoyage
  communities.
  -

  The user groups West Bengal Wikimedians User Group (for the Bengali
  community), Hindi Wikimedians User Group (for the Hindi
community), Wikimedia
  Community User Group Malaysia (for the Malay community), as well as
  the Commons Photographers User Group (for the Wikimedia Commons
  community) and the Wikivoyage Association (for the Wikivoyage
  communities) may send one delegate. For the language communities
(Japanese,
  Vietnamese, Tamil, Slovak, Croatian), decision finding and making process
  on who will be the one person sent to the conference, need to be made in
  the public (on-wiki).


== Registration timeline ==

The registration process will start on November 24, 2018 and will end
sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018. The link will be provided on
Meta.[1]

If you have any questions regarding the registration process or the
Wikimedia Conference, please do not hesitate to send us an e-mail to
wm...@wikimedia.de.

Warm regards,

Daniela Gentner & Cornelius Kibelka

Wikimedia Conference team

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018


-- 
Cornelius Kibelka
Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
for the Wikimedia Conference

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia