There is no reason to change the name, and no reason to invent a second Wikimania. Also because of finances, the Spring meeting should be really limited to people who make the movement work better. I repeat that, in my opinion, some newer or smaller organisations don't fit really in, or should not be represented with as many people as an older or larger organisation. For newcomers I could imagine regional meetings with a special focus to their needs. It is certainly possible to improve the meeting by some better planning. For a jolly "Let's come all together and have a nice chat about anything" it is just too expensive... Kind regards Ziko
Am Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 schrieb Alice Wiegand : > Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a > discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if > this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations > within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians > as well. Which would probably be a different conference. > > Alice. > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamo...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change > > it. > > > As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem > > > people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of > > exclusion > > > people see. > > > > > > We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves > > people > > > that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we > > can > > > also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there > and > > > forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on > the > > > former. > > > > > > Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect > > many > > > people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I > > > appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor > thing > > > that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it > > does > > > have history and I do contend that the people that first started using > it > > > are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up > with > > > the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into > > the > > > name and confusion is ebbing around the "Wikimedia Conference" name due > > to > > > the years of history behind it. > > > > > > But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are > > > symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name > > that > > > sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the > > > participants, even if the end result is the same new name. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Bence > > > > > > If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia > > Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we > > are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as > > hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a "Wikimedia Conference" you > > might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme > of > > governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania > > would come true. > > > > And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning > to > > those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the > name > > holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. > > And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable > > tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn > out > > to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name > of > > the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those > who > > organize and have attended the event up through now. > > > > Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is > > valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if > > resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the > nature > > of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others > don't > > feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to > > with his "principle of delegation" comment. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
