On 18 Feb 2016 00:24, "Chris Schilling" <cschill...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > 3) I am still really unsure who is owning this process, either within
the
> > WMF or in general. Generally, I think clear responsibility and
> > accountability *eases* difficult conversations and so far as I can tell
> > they are lacking in the conversation about "what should happen with
> > Wikimania".
>
>
> Hey Chris. I agree that the ownership of the "what should happen with
> Wikimania" question is somewhat murky at the moment. It's true that I
> along with others in Community Resources prepared and ran this
> consultation, and
>
> Is it the WMF's view that Wikimania in its current form is
> >
> broken and change is needed - if so who represents that view to the
> > community? (Or if not, what *is* the WMF's view?)
>
>
> It is fair to say that our team does view the past planning process for
> Wikimania (i.e. 2015 and prior) as problematic and not feasible, for the
> reasons described in the consultation itself.[1]
>
> Equally, I am not really
> > clear what the Wikimania Committee sees its sees its role as these days.
> > In
> > general I am all for ad-hoc groups going and doing things but I think we
> > are some way past the limit of that model with Wikimania.
>
>
> I'm in full agreement. The role of the Wikimania/Steering Committee will
> need to be better defined, and I suspect some of that will happen over the
> next year.
>
> 4) I don't see a 55-47 vote on a menu of 3 options as being a particularly
> > strong indication of community consensus. Indeed, it's pretty clear
there
> > isn't a consensus, and it would be a shame if people proceeded on the
basis
> > that "There was a consultation and the answer was X - so we're doing X".
> > That said, I would be really happy to hear voices from the WMF or the
> > Wikimania Committee saying "The important factors we see are X, Y and Z.
> > From the consultation showed lots of other people were thinking X and Y
> > (though less Z) and P and Q were also important which we hadn't thought
> > about. As a result, we are intending to do: This.
>
>
> For now, I'll point to this response I made to a similar question on the
> discussion page,[2] but I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.
>
> With thanks,
>
> Jethro
>
> [1] <
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#What_is_the_problem_you.27re_trying_to_solve.3F
> >
>
> [2] <
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes&diff=next&oldid=15313641
> >
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Chris Keating <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>
_______________________________________________
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>
