> > 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the > WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and > accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell > they are lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with > Wikimania".
Hey Chris. I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment. It's true that I along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this consultation, and we've done our best to present conclusions and make a general plan based on the feedback we received. Further complicating this issue of ownership is the absence of this team's director (Siko Bouterse) and her boss (Luis Villa), who have resigned. With that said, I expect decisions around Wikimania in 2018 to be shaped by outcomes in Esino Lario this year, in addition to the practical matter of our budget. I expect there will be opportunities for community members to help further define what will happen in 2018 as well. Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is > broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?) It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the reasons described in the consultation itself.[1] Equally, I am not really > clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. > In > general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we > are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania. I'm in full agreement. The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the next year. 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear there > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X". > That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the > Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z. > From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y > (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought > about. As a result, we are intending to do: This. For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like. With thanks, Jethro [1] < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_is_the_problem_you.27re_trying_to_solve.3F > [2] < https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes&diff=next&oldid=15313641 > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to add my thoughts on this. I think the whole discussion is quite a > novel situation in WMF-Community relations, as we have never dealt with an > issue quite like this before. > > Firstly the good (and even though this section is shorter, it's just as > significant): > 1) The WMF is consulting and discussing, not simply doing. This is a good > thing (and hopefully it's possible to agree that it is a good thing, even > if you disagree with the handling of the consultation, or indeed the > conclusion reached). If you don't think it's a good thing, please compare > it with say (for instance) the Haifa letter. > 2) We do now have a clear statement of what benefits Wikimania brings the > movement, which we didn't have before. Again, this is good. :-) > > However there are a few areas where I still have some concerns about the > direction this is going: > 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within the > WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and > accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell > they are lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with > Wikimania". Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is > broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?) Equally, I am not really > clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days. In > general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we > are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania. > 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear there > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the basis > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X". > That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the > Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z. > From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y > (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought > about. As a result, we are intending to do: This. > > Thanks, > > Chris > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one > > > because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the > > movement. > > > Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime", > > but > > > many of our colleagues from around the world are not in that position. > > > > > > Let's stipulate that there isn't a lot of empirical evidence proving the > > value of Wikimania to the movement. I think the same could be said for > tens > > of millions of dollars in WMF spending. Considering the comparatively > tiny > > cost of Wikimania, it makes much more sense to me for the WMF to put its > > own operations through a cost/benefit crucible. This is just one more > > example of the WMF being much more demanding on money spent outside the > > organization than it is on internal spending. > > > > It doesn't appear that the options presented were really fair or that the > > conclusions drawn from them can be considered supported; option 1 was the > > "give WMF complete control" option, option 2 was "get rid of Wikimania" > and > > option 3 was "Have Wikimania every other year." I have to suspect that if > > there was a "have Wikimania every year, don't give WMF control" option > many > > would have selected it. > > > > If a different organization decides to host its own Wikimania (and I > don't > > know that the WMF "owns" the name Wikimania) in 2018, I would happily > > support that effort. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Chris "Jethro" Schilling I JethroBT (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF)> Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
