Post-mortem/meeting transcripts/2008-08-09

Summarized minutes : for this meeting | for all meetings

Times are in Pacific Daylight Time (UTC-7).

[06:07:37] <effe-busy>	ok folks
[06:07:39] <effe-busy>	we're all here
[06:07:48] <SueGardner>	Who's planning to chair? (I wasn't planning to :-)
[06:07:51] <effe-busy>	everybody has the page in front somewhere? http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem
[06:08:10] <SueGardner>	Yes.
[06:08:22] <effe-busy>	maybe just go from there? :)
[06:08:29] *	James_F|Busy is now known as James_F
[06:08:37] <effe-busy>	as in, there is an agenda there :P
[06:08:38] <brassratgirl>	btw, thnx for the summary, Sue
[06:08:49] <DamianFinol>	Yes, thanks SueGardner
[06:09:00] <effe-busy>	anything to add to that agenda? :)
[06:09:07] <effe-busy>	(it's a wiki :P )
[06:09:12] <SueGardner>	You're welcome :-)
[06:09:13] <DamianFinol>	Edit this meeting
[06:09:39] <effe-busy>	ok, sounds like consensus to me ;-)
[06:09:56] <Achal>	so can i clarify this: is the purpose of our meeting to come up with (a) a set of broad things around future wikimanias that we agree upon and (b) a plan to get them implemented?
[06:10:20] <bastique>	If you like me to chair, sue
[06:11:04] *	britty_ sues bastique
[06:11:09] <bastique>	I will more than happy to fulfill the role, unless someone else wants to do it.
[06:11:17] <britty_>	Achal, sounds fine to me
[06:11:38] <effe-busy>	Achal: if I understood correctly, we are having a meeting to find out what kind of meeting we want indeed, but that includes a way to determine the opinions of the attendees etc
[06:11:43] <effe-busy>	ie, the evaluation methods
[06:11:49] <effe-busy>	team reports
[06:11:55] <effe-busy>	what information do we need etc
[06:12:05] <effe-busy>	then we move on I believe
[06:12:21] <effe-busy>	to the more general discussion of scope, goals etc?
[06:12:24] <bastique>	First order that the meeting be open, but moderated, only the list of names (currently voiced) should be participating
[06:12:46] <SueGardner>	(Cary: sure. Thanks.)
[06:13:11] <delphine>	so this is a public meeting? Log will be published?
[06:13:13] *	effe-busy is now known as eia
[06:13:14] <britty_>	effe-busy, i rather think first we agree on what we want to have and then go how to design such inquiries from attendees in regard of those talking points?
[06:13:22] <brassratgirl>	broad goals but I would also like to focus on 2010 if we can
[06:13:32] <brassratgirl>	seeing as people are already thinking about bids etc.
[06:13:56] <eia>	brassratgirl: why? Wikimania 2009 is the first opportunity to implement too :)
[06:13:57] <Achal>	as a starting point, can i ask whether there is anything that anyone here wants to discuss that is *not* on sue's summary
[06:14:15] <Austin>	I think something's bound to pop up.
[06:14:53] <Achal>	sure, just so that cary can otherwise go down that list?
[06:15:11] <James_F>	Put that in Any Other Business at the end?
[06:15:20] <eia>	Achal: it's quite an extensive list :)
[06:15:31] <eia>	I doubt we can get through within three hours if we want to discuss it all
[06:15:55] <SueGardner>	I tried to order the list, roughly, by how much discussion a topic seemed to provoke. So topic areas that seemed important to people should cluster at the top.
[06:16:10] <britty_>	my general impression we unanimously want to keep it as a community event though
[06:16:40] <eia>	britty_: even a community event is there in many ways :)
[06:16:42] <britty_>	we may vary what will be in the second priority
[06:17:17] <bastique>	----- > Strong desire expressed for a central, open gathering space
[06:17:37] <SueGardner>	That needs to go into the bidding criteria, as per Phoebe's mail.
[06:17:46] <britty_>	SueGardner, I concur
[06:17:53] <brassratgirl>	it's already there, but we need to make it stronger
[06:18:00] <bastique>	Someone needs to be responsible for note-taking
[06:18:02] <Mido>	totally agree, I feel most of the people missed that here in alex
[06:18:05] <James_F>	brassratgirl> Yes.
[06:18:12] <britty_>	reviewing the last two judging processes I think it will be one of seven highest priority
[06:18:12] <Mido>	and I feel sorry for this indeed
[06:18:16] <Achal>	so the point seemed to be that the community space has to be large enough to accommodate poster sessions right?
[06:18:16] <brassratgirl>	"no, really, we mean it", with pictures and examples
[06:18:29] <britty_>	brassratgirl, good point
[06:18:40] <James_F>	Achal> That too.
[06:18:45] <Achal>	i.e. everything on one floor or in one connected space? (like frankfurt)?
[06:18:48] <brassratgirl>	I think the point about how most conferences/conference venues does not provide this is well taken, so it may be confusing if we work with another venue, etc.
[06:18:50] *	delphine is gonna change her name to "devilsadvocate"
[06:18:51] <Angela>	shouldn't we discuss this part later and follow the agenda, which starts with "postmortem techniques"?
[06:18:58] <Mido>	and I suggest that we have some time during the day (1.5 hours or sth) just to hang out in that gathering place
[06:19:05] <bastique>	delphine: just be.
[06:19:11] <Mido>	sth official in the schedule, (community time)
[06:19:15] <delphine>	ok, first, I agree with Angela
[06:19:18] <bastique>	Angela: I was following sue's notes
[06:19:20] <delphine>	we're already in technicalieites
[06:19:26] <delphine>	let's wrap up 2008 and then move on.
[06:19:29] <Austin>	FYI, the jury was told that the BA would have ample gathering space
[06:19:34] <eia>	yeah, agreed with angela :)
[06:19:42] <Achal>	me too
[06:19:45] <bastique>	see, already we have a revolt.
[06:19:49] <delphine>	lol
[06:20:00] <britty_>	Austin, I remembered so
[06:20:02] <Achal>	(Cary - I think Sue's notes cover points 2 & 3 on the agenda)
[06:20:05] <bastique>	I see suggestions for an agenda, but not agenda
[06:20:11] <brassratgirl>	OK. 2008. I think: reports from the organizers and survey feedback from the attendees.
[06:20:17] <eia>	http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem bastique
[06:20:27] <britty_>	a room would be occupied for that  in the original plan: we need a clear checklist
[06:20:33] <brassratgirl>	working towards putting together a history of wikimania and feedback for everyone else
[06:20:36] <britty_>	which we can use through a year
[06:20:40] <brassratgirl>	and feedback from the bid committee.
[06:20:43] <brassratgirl>	britty: yes
[06:20:46] <bastique>	britty_: okay, we're off the room talk, we'll come back to that.
[06:20:58] <brassratgirl>	2008 feedback: what do you all think?
[06:21:01] <bastique>	Since people want me to follow the agenda (perhaps I should lock the page atm
[06:21:07] <bastique>	First item
[06:21:07] <Achal>	My understanding is that the post mortem evaluation will be both subjective and qualitative
[06:21:09] <bastique>	postmortem techniques -- what information do we need?
[06:21:13] <bastique>	under 2009
[06:21:28] <bastique>	brassratgirl: If I have to go with the agenda, I'm going strictly with the agenda
[06:21:31] <SueGardner>	Sorry, is the question how should we conduct the postmortem?
[06:21:45] <eia>	SueGardner: what we want to know
[06:21:48] <eia>	and from whom
[06:21:54] <SueGardner>	K thanks.
[06:22:00] <Achal>	For example: general experiences, social spaces, etc. - identifiable but subjective and who came, from where, on whose money - quantitative
[06:22:13] <Angela>	do we need any more info than is already covered by the survey?
[06:22:17] <eia>	I think there are a few groups: Attendees, Organizers, Sponsors
[06:22:19] <eia>	anything else?
[06:22:23] <eia>	non-attendees?
[06:22:45] <eia>	Angela: the survey is only for the attendees right?
[06:22:48] <eia>	Ah, Speakers perhaps
[06:22:49] <DamianFinol>	Ok, let's stick with the agenda, after we're done with the agenda, other topics can come up. If you have one during the agenda type it in notepad so you won't forget!
[06:22:53] <Mido>	yeah, I think it's a good idea to know what people from the outside thought about the event
[06:22:57] <bastique>	Did anyone volunteer to formalize these notes?
[06:23:07] <britty_>	eia: I have one thing to say about presentation
[06:23:10] <Achal>	Is there a survey for Wikimania that already exists? I'm not aware
[06:23:20] <delphine>	achal, yes.
[06:23:26] <bastique>	Right now we're discussing the postmortem technicques.
[06:23:26] <Achal>	oops. where?
[06:23:29] <Angela>	http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Postmortem_Survey
[06:23:31] <britty_>	this year no moderator said the audience was expected to turn off their cellular
[06:23:35] <SueGardner>	Thanks Angela.
[06:23:44] <eia>	britty_: please, lets focus on the techniques now
[06:23:51] <eia>	good point, but first techniques :)
[06:23:52] <bastique>	britty_: thanks eia
[06:23:52] <britty_>	ok
[06:23:54] <_sj_>	bastique: a precis to share?
[06:24:07] <bastique>	eia: Are you going to be my Sergeant-at-arms? :)
[06:24:28] <eia>	OK, so we have a survey for the attendees
[06:24:35] <James_F>	Britty> I did, actually.
[06:24:40] <eia>	it has been reviewed somewhat
[06:24:44] <eia>	I think it is ready to go out?
[06:24:55] <Mido>	in what format?
[06:24:58] <eia>	if so, maybe we should just do that :P
[06:25:01] <SueGardner>	LimeSurvey
[06:25:05] <James_F>	I think it's ready, yes.
[06:25:10] <SueGardner>	I think Delphine plans to do it soon.
[06:25:13] <Achal>	Can I ask, in addition to the survey (which we can't expect everyone to complete - realistically) - are we trying to figure out what other evaluative information we should put together?
[06:25:14] <_sj_>	bastique, I can organize minutes and send them to the participants.  you can publish what you want of it
[06:25:15] <eia>	great
[06:25:18] <Mido>	ok, fine I guess
[06:25:22] <bastique>	_sj_: Thank you, yes.
[06:25:33] <brassratgirl>	achal: yes, hence this discussion :P
[06:25:42] <delphine>	yes, I wanted to do it this week, but I was waiting for this meeting to happen
[06:25:45] <eia>	Achal: we also have some info from the regisratio database
[06:25:46] <bastique>	_sj_: Since the actual meeting will be published, your job is important.
[06:25:48] <delphine>	maybe then we get some feedback on the questions
[06:25:53] <eia>	mainly demographics etc
[06:25:54] <delphine>	I'll launch it next week.
[06:26:11] <Achal>	Which contains who came, from where, nationality etc.?
[06:26:16] <eia>	yes
[06:26:17] <eia>	projects
[06:26:18] <Mido>	yes
[06:26:18] <bastique>	To come up with cohesiveness about what we're discussing
[06:26:23] <DamianFinol>	Is this just for Wikimania 08 or all Wikimanias?
[06:26:30] <eia>	DamianFinol: primarily 2008
[06:26:37] <bastique>	because I have tm;dr issues and lose track.
[06:26:38] <eia>	maybe to be reused next years? :)
[06:26:42] <Achal>	And I'd presume you would also have info on scholarships, i.e. who paid for themselves and who we paid for?
[06:26:46] <britty_>	it looks almost fine,  I am not sure on some items; eia: hopefully if it works
[06:26:56] <James_F>	Damian> We have the information from all of them. Which ones we want to study right now can be just this year, though.
[06:26:57] <Mido>	Achal: yes
[06:27:09] <DamianFinol>	Ok
[06:27:23] <eia>	Achal: maybe, but sounds too privacy sensitive to me
[06:27:42] <eia>	not sure how many people want to fill that out, but that might be just me
[06:27:54] <Achal>	eia: not really, we have to know whether the scholarships are being put to best use
[06:28:05] <Mido>	yes, just figures
[06:28:06] <bastique>	eia: I think the information will be collected regardless of names.
[06:28:06] <Achal>	in the sense of complaints that it's the "same people"
[06:28:09] <Mido>	not persons
[06:28:12] <brassratgirl>	well, all the info needs to be keep anonymous/private, yes?
[06:28:15] <eia>	or you mean specifically our scholarships?
[06:28:22] <_sj_>	not necessarily stats on the info
[06:28:24] <bastique>	Its not individual names who will be important
[06:28:28] <James_F>	eia> I think that's what Achal means, yes.
[06:28:30] <SueGardner>	So we have agreed that the survey will go out soon, and that SJ will do minutes from this meeting.
[06:28:32] <britty_>	Achal, ten rather it works to send people who got scholarship?
[06:28:38] <_sj_>	as for surveys, we should also address people who wanted to come (in general) but did not (in specific) for various reasons
[06:28:38] <eia>	or also WMDE etc paying?
[06:28:39] <britty_>	not a part of public inquiry
[06:28:39] <bastique>	SueGardner: yes
[06:28:54] <brassratgirl>	I am not sure about the true-false questions
[06:28:55] <_sj_>	and a general survey of the community about wikimania for the community at large.
[06:28:56] <Achal>	Is PR success a part of the record? Or should it be part of the evaluation?
[06:29:03] <brassratgirl>	they always make me want to write in a different answer :P
[06:29:06] <Achal>	PR success in the country and internationally
[06:29:08] <_sj_>	is there a facility for an annual participant/editor/reader survey?
[06:29:25] <James_F>	_sj_> The UNU stuff?
[06:29:34] <_sj_>	yes, is that going to be periodic or just one time?
[06:29:38] *	eia gets confused by all discussions
[06:29:41] <_sj_>	sorry eia
[06:29:45] <SueGardner>	Me too (confused).
[06:29:45] <MichaelSnow>	I think mostly rotation of scholarships is a factor for those who give them out to consider, rather than something to be judged from the survey
[06:29:55] <bastique>	MichaelSnow: we'll get to that :)
[06:30:04] <eia>	MichaelSnow: agreed
[06:30:07] <SueGardner>	Can we go back to Achal's original question?
[06:30:12] <bastique>	Yes, please
[06:30:18] <SueGardner>	Which was, what other information do we need to gather?
[06:30:24] <Angela>	eia: I'd expect wmde to do their own survey or something else to see the value of the scholarships they gave (a lot of companies paid for people to attend, so I think it makes sense for this survey to only look at the scholarships that went directly through the Foundation)
[06:30:24] <bastique>	My desire not to offend is overriding my desire to take control
[06:30:33] <eia>	well, I think we covered it more or less for the attendees part
[06:30:52] <bastique>	SueGardner: this question?
[06:30:53] <bastique>	[06:28] Achal: Is PR success a part of the record? Or should it be part of the evaluation?
[06:31:03] <eia>	Angela: OK, so a seperate survey :)
[06:31:12] <SueGardner>	No, way back :-)
[06:31:22] <eia>	[15:30:19]]	<SueGardner>	Which was, what other information do we need to gather?
[06:31:27] <brassratgirl>	bastique, no: Achal>	Can I ask, in addition to the survey (which we can't expect everyone to complete - realistically) - are we trying to figure out what other evaluative information we should put together?
[06:31:27] <bastique>	[06:23] Achal: Is there a survey for Wikimania that already exists? I'm not aware
[06:31:28] <SueGardner>	yes - Can I ask, in addition to the survey (which we can't expect everyone to complete - realistically) - are we trying to figure out what other evaluative information we should put together?
[06:31:35] <SueGardner>	(That was Achal, not me.)
[06:31:38] <bastique>	riht
[06:31:43] <bastique>	then let's stay on that
[06:31:44] <_sj_>	the survey is of partiipants.  they know how successful internal pr and promotion was, not so much external pr
[06:31:58] <brassratgirl>	to answer that question: I think we should have reports from the organizers
[06:32:02] <brassratgirl>	like mido was talking about :)
[06:32:05] <_sj_>	interesting things learned
[06:32:06] <SueGardner>	Yes, Phoebe, I agree.
[06:32:12] <eia>	brassratgirl: we need many reports
[06:32:15] <_sj_>	projects joined/discovered
[06:32:16] <brassratgirl>	for internal wmf purposes and future-organizing lessons
[06:32:19] <Achal>	Suppose we have the program team evaluate the conference subjectively (in terms of social spaces etc.)
[06:32:19] <delphine>	yes. Report from the sponsors.
[06:32:25] <_sj_>	longstanding animosities/edit wars resolved in person
[06:32:26] <SueGardner>	Mido has been very polite and recessive as we all yak about 2008; it would be lovely to get his views :-)
[06:32:30] <eia>	organizers, press people, sponsors, program team
[06:32:34] <brassratgirl>	otherwise, I like SJ's idea of surveying people who didn't come, but am not sure how to do it
[06:32:39] <_sj_>	longstanding friendships/collaborations dissolved by losing a midnigth bocce game
[06:32:42] <Achal>	and suppose we have a foundation team evaluate scholarship success, PR efforts, etc. (the measurable stuff)
[06:32:48] <britty_>	sj: so? there were seven japanese and the internal were three including me
[06:32:57] <brassratgirl>	sj, just put it on the wiki
[06:33:00] <_sj_>	yea
[06:33:11] <Achal>	In addition to the survey attendees - would that be complete?
[06:33:15] <SueGardner>	I like that idea from SJ too [re surveying those who did not attend]: could we use the sitenotice for a tiny (like, three question) survey?
[06:33:25] <_sj_>	survey the venue(s)
[06:33:31] <bastique>	A separate survey
[06:33:41] <Austin>	I'm not sure a sitenotice-published survey would be of any real value.
[06:33:56] <eia>	I think there are a few groups: Attendees, Organizers, Sponsors, non-attendees, Speakers perhaps
[06:34:03] <brassratgirl>	at the end of the day, I care most about the opinions of people who did attend
[06:34:13] <bastique>	Previous attendees who did not attend
[06:34:20] <SueGardner>	Hm.
[06:34:23] <James_F>	It's easy to get feedback from e.g. foundation-l, but hard from general editors who might well never have heard of Wikimania.
[06:34:28] <eia>	brassratgirl: I care also about those who potentially attend next time :)
[06:34:30] <_sj_>	Did YOU Wikimania? : a microsurvey in three(3) parts
[06:34:36] <brassratgirl>	aside from the people who are morally opposed to traveling and/or wikimania, I think the reasons why people who might not have come are pretty predictable
[06:34:52] <SueGardner>	Money, time?
[06:34:56] <brassratgirl>	yeah :)
[06:34:59] <SueGardner>	:-)
[06:35:02] <Achal>	My hesitation with "previous attendees who did not attend" is that there are plenty of natural situations totally irrelevant (for eg. being busy, not living in the city of Wikimania etc.)
[06:35:07] <brassratgirl>	and people finishing their thesis or whatever
[06:35:13] <eia>	brassratgirl: I think it is also a good signal to the non-attendees :)
[06:35:20] <brassratgirl>	eia: true
[06:35:44] <SueGardner>	Okay. So are we saying no survey of non-attendees?
[06:35:51] <SueGardner>	(Which I think would be fine.)
[06:35:54] <brassratgirl>	since respondents will be self-selected, though, we'd have to be really careful about looking at results
[06:35:58] <James_F>	Yes, I think so.
[06:36:02] <bastique>	Keeping it simple, Sue, yes
[06:36:04] <SueGardner>	K.
[06:36:10] <eia>	SueGardner: I'd say make a microsurvey for non attendees
[06:36:15] <eia>	but no priority
[06:36:22] <SueGardner>	K.
[06:36:24] <bastique>	Okay, Survey timeline and questions
[06:36:31] <bastique>	have we fleshed these all out?
[06:36:32] <Achal>	Do we want the program comm and the foundation to formally evaluate any aspects of wikimania?
[06:36:38] <SueGardner>	Yes!
[06:36:42] <SueGardner>	Program committee!
[06:36:44] <eia>	Achal: I think all teams have to evaluate
[06:37:01] <bastique>	Achal: Separately from the rest?
[06:37:09] <eia>	bastique: we will do it anyway
[06:37:12] <eia>	so live with it ;-)
[06:37:17] <SueGardner>	I think everyone should fill out the survey, but additionally we should ask a few groups to provide an essay-like document with analysis & recommendations from their perspective. Yes?
[06:37:20] <Achal>	I'm just saying, there are people on this list who have strong views: important views: they should be expressed formally no?
[06:37:25] <bastique>	eia: I wasn't insinuating that it was a problem.
[06:37:32] <eia>	bastique: I was kidding, sorry :)
[06:37:52] <James_F>	Sue> Good plan, yes.
[06:37:58] <bastique>	eia: I'm far more serious at 0630 than other points during the day
[06:37:59] <eia>	SueGardner: definitely
[06:38:08] <eia>	and review the software used, too
[06:38:12] <britty_>	Achal, not sure need to be formalized but organized: input separate not in the list as reply to someone else
[06:38:17] <eia>	for the resgirtation and program things
[06:38:17] <britty_>	independent report
[06:38:25] <eia>	which might be useful for the 2009 folks
[06:38:33] <Achal>	I'm not being hierarchical here but people who have had experience with Wikimanias right though, which is basically all of you, should evaluate too.
[06:38:54] <britty_>	eia: good point > evaluate softwares
[06:39:18] <James_F>	Achal> I think the ProgCom and WMF reviews would take care of some of that.
[06:39:22] <SueGardner>	I think the document I sent out last night could be used as postmortem fodder too: I thought the conversation we had over the past week was pretty good & useful :-)
[06:39:40] <_sj_>	I'd like to see a spot survey of active editors on different projects and in different languaegs about wikimania, including whether or not they attended. 
[06:40:08] <_sj_>	asusming the conference is theoretically for all active community members, not just the ones who are attracted to the current type of event
[06:40:09] <britty_>	sj; ah that was I forgot to say
[06:40:09] <brassratgirl>	so the thing about the program committee et al -- is there's two parts to that report, how they think this year went and any recommendations for next year's committee
[06:40:28] <britty_>	I think it is useful to note which language is their primary and which project if they join
[06:40:31] <brassratgirl>	of which there will be a lot, not all of which are practical :)
[06:40:35] <eia>	brassratgirl: and how the software was, which I consider seperate
[06:40:39] <_sj_>	that could be informal discussion, not necc a proper survey... but many of the people we'd like to 4engage in this conversation aren't yet in #wikimania or on wikimania-l b/c they don't think it applies to them
[06:40:43] <Achal>	I think that if we could come up with a checklist to serve TWO purposes, that would be great. The same checklist that is shown upfront to the bidding teams (to flesh out the details of social space, etc.) - so that the points are kept to; and then have the same checklist used to evaluate the event. That would be fair?
[06:40:45] <bastique>	-- Make sure the points in Sue's document are expresseed in the survey?
[06:40:46] <eia>	since it is way more detaillistic
[06:41:04] <bastique>	Achal: you're ahead, now I think
[06:41:08] <_sj_>	whoops, point already over :)
[06:41:20] <Achal>	cary: sorry
[06:41:50] <James_F>	eia> More widely, not just software, but all the processes and supporting infrastructure/work/etc.
[06:42:01] <bastique>	We are safely on survey questions / timeline?
[06:42:08] <_sj_>	brg, also there should be a little blue book of people invited to wikimanias
[06:42:10] <eia>	bastique: just send it out asap
[06:42:17] <_sj_>	so when someone goes to invite Tim Berners-Le for the 8th time
[06:42:18] <eia>	and get the results :)
[06:42:25] <_sj_>	they can see the full discussions from the first 7 times
[06:42:28] <Achal>	Can I ask: does anyone feel the need to have a separate survey for sponsors, speakers, others?
[06:42:32] <brassratgirl>	_sj_: yes, pls, sigh.
[06:42:34] <_sj_>	and the name of the secretary to contact
[06:42:45] <eia>	sj :)
[06:42:48] <_sj_>	also, did we really invite Putin for the tin-foiling ceremony?
[06:42:51] <_sj_>	was there a response?  &c.
[06:42:59] <Austin>	And what we can potentially bribe them with.
[06:43:02] <_sj_>	yes.
[06:43:02] <bastique>	okay...
[06:43:06] <Austin>	"Fondness for parrots"
[06:43:08] <_sj_>	you have 18 months. you need one friendly parrot.
[06:43:11] <eia>	Austin: we all know that, stroopwafels
[06:43:11] <brassratgirl>	so sj and everyone: that's a good point -- putting together stuff for future wikimanias is dealing with the *results* of the surveys and reports, which is different from doing them
[06:43:13] <eia>	anyway
[06:43:13] <DamianFinol>	lol
[06:43:27] <bastique>	Achal had another question
[06:43:29] <brassratgirl>	I think that we have a fair bit of feedback from 2006, 2007 *ahem*
[06:43:30] <Austin>	Hehe, sj saw where I was going
[06:43:35] <eia>	we have on one side the report, essay-like
[06:43:41] <bastique>	separate survey for sponsors, speakers, others?
[06:43:46] <eia>	and on the other side the practical part, telling the do's and don'ts
[06:43:49] <bastique>	speakers, maybe
[06:43:56] <_sj_>	achal I like the consistency of a checklist/outline for two audiences
[06:43:57] <bastique>	I think we get sponsor feedback no matter what
[06:44:05] <_sj_>	that could be handed out on the last day for feedback
[06:44:09] <SueGardner>	re sponors
[06:44:12] <SueGardner>	[sponsors
[06:44:15] <SueGardner>	]
[06:44:18] <Achal>	my own feeling is that we need to give sponsors feedback, not nec. the other way around
[06:44:26] <eia>	bastique: we should approach sponsors I think :) (Or Kul should) since that gives again a signal
[06:44:29] <bastique>	as long as we have some institutional memory about sponsors
[06:44:30] <SueGardner>	I think we should ask Kul about this.
[06:44:34] <delphine>	do we know who is going to then take the survey results and do something with them?
[06:44:39] <_sj_>	bastique : +1
[06:44:45] <_sj_>	again, a little blue book
[06:44:48] <bastique>	Kul will be at the Wednesday meeting
[06:44:50] <SueGardner>	That is the central question, Delphine!
[06:44:53] <SueGardner>	Before we ask it though
[06:44:59] <_sj_>	"when OSI said last year they wanted this to be the last year they sponsored travel, what did that really mean?"
[06:45:04] <SueGardner>	Can we assign responsibility for the individual pieces?
[06:45:06] <Achal>	since the sponsors themselves aren't there, their sponsorees are. if i was a sponsor, i'd be happy to get a full report of what attendees felt and learned and di.
[06:45:08] <_sj_>	nuances are important there
[06:45:08] <bastique>	And we should add it to the Wednesday agenda, which someone is probably forming now, right?
[06:45:09] <brassratgirl>	sj, yes, a list of sponsors pls!
[06:45:12] <SueGardner>	Delphine is doing the survey.
[06:45:15] <_sj_>	not just what they say when you ask them
[06:45:17] *	delphine takes responsibility for the attendees survey
[06:45:29] <brassratgirl>	there's a handful of us that have been on multiple program committees who can probably work on that part
[06:45:32] <SueGardner>	The other pieces are
[06:45:35] <SueGardner>	program committee
[06:45:37] <SueGardner>	Foundation
[06:45:41] <SueGardner>	Local planning team
[06:45:42] <brassratgirl>	and another handful who have worked with all the sponsors :)
[06:45:44] <SueGardner>	Are there others?
[06:45:56] <Angela>	My company was a sponsor, and I really think you do need to survey the sponsors to see whether they were happy with sponsoring it and how you could keep future sponsors happier
[06:46:11] <SueGardner>	Angela: I agree.
[06:46:18] <eia>	SueGardner: Maybe sponsors, but that's it. We could consider asking the BA for a little feedback?
[06:46:19] <James_F>	The scholarships?
[06:46:20] <Achal>	angela: sure, i see your point.
[06:46:28] <SueGardner>	I think we should ask Kul how to go about this; it could be a survey, or some other method.
[06:46:35] <_sj_>	local venue/host team
[06:46:36] <bastique>	Angela: Good point, but I'd like to see Kul involved in that
[06:46:41] <James_F>	The boring back-office stuff, e.g. Registration software/sending out invites/etc.?
[06:46:44] <patricio>	may be the sponsors survey should be a formal and personal interview with them... they are not so many
[06:46:52] <bastique>	http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem#Wednesday_.40_2000
[06:46:52] <SueGardner>	Patricio: yes.
[06:46:59] <eia>	patricio: good point
[06:47:08] <SueGardner>	So can someone be responsible for the program committee input?
[06:47:12] <Angela>	for team reports, having a meeting on irc followed by  a write-up of that, would probably be more useful than trying to survey the teams. I expect more will come out of a discussion than people would think of separately
[06:47:18] <eia>	SueGardner: me and jakob are working on it
[06:47:19] <bastique>	so for expedience purpose:  We want a sponsor survey/feedback and we want to talk about it on Wednesday
[06:47:24] <eia>	but it'll take a while :)
[06:47:35] <SueGardner>	eia: Excellent! You are it!
[06:47:45] <eia>	jakob will be here wednesday :P
[06:47:54] <delphine>	Angela: can't we just skip the irc part? Have someone write a preliminary report, leave it on the wiki for a week. Add a personal comments section
[06:47:57] <bastique>	eia: let's add that to Wednesday
[06:47:59] <_sj_>	(to check with the venues/lodging places whether the attendees were good guests)
[06:48:00] <delphine>	and be done with it.
[06:48:06] <Achal>	Can we say that speakers/ attendees are largely the same entity, and so dispense with treating speakers as a separate category?
[06:48:12] <brassratgirl>	I can work on non-2008 program committee histories: "Inviting Tim Berners-Lee: a five-part retrospective"
[06:48:20] <brassratgirl>	achal: not exactly
[06:48:22] <_sj_>	achal, I don't think so
[06:48:30] <bastique>	Achal: there were special issues for speakers
[06:48:43] <bastique>	"Was everything there you needed for your presentation"
[06:48:51] <bastique>	"Was there adequate sound coverage"
[06:48:52] <Achal>	I'd like to think that speaker's feelings can be captured via the attendees survey (maybe with a bit of tweaking)....
[06:48:52] <bastique>	etc.
[06:48:53] <_sj_>	"was your glass half empty or just too large?"
[06:48:54] <James_F>	E.g. moderation, support in advance, etc.
[06:48:54] <Angela>	delphine: yes, if that produces enough info. Not sure it will for all teams
[06:49:04] <bastique>	yes, moderation
[06:49:16] <_sj_>	spurring discussion is good; else you only hear from people who feel really strongly
[06:49:16] <bastique>	delphine: I think we can discuss Angelas concerns on Wednesday
[06:49:21] <Achal>	Sure, but can't we just do that in the attendee survey? i.e. change it to Attendee/ Speaker survey
[06:49:23] <bastique>	with Kul participating
[06:49:25] <SueGardner>	Achal: I agree. We should ask them to fill out the standard survey, but also to send us any particular comments from their speaking role.
[06:49:28] <eia>	Achal: not really, I have reason to believe they experienced some, ehm, inprofessionalism before the conference :P
[06:49:30] <brassratgirl>	achal: maybe a sep section of the survey -- "were you a speaker"?
[06:49:32] <_sj_>	again cutting out those not being inspired/served yet
[06:49:36] <delphine>	ahhh hmmm. Speakers are in my databse of attendees. Maybe we should add a specific part for "if you were a speaker, click here"
[06:49:53] <eia>	delphine: maybe yes
[06:49:57] <MichaelSnow>	delphine: Excellent
[06:49:58] <bastique>	delphine: absolutely
[06:50:02] <eia>	but we have no questions yet for speakers
[06:50:06] <eia>	so that will take time
[06:50:13] <_sj_>	how was the setup in your room?  ho was your moderation?
[06:50:15] <britty_>	brassratgirl, i support it: an additional set for speakers would be okay
[06:50:16] <delphine>	no, it can be tweaked in a few days.
[06:50:19] <bastique>	James_F: can you come up with speaker questions?
[06:50:25] <Achal>	we do - all the ones here, like did you get enough water and was the parrot friendly etc
[06:50:25] <James_F>	I could, sure.
[06:50:28] <eia>	lets not wrap up all questions now here :)
[06:50:32] <_sj_>	what sort of response id you get?  more/less attendance than you expected?  &c.
[06:50:36] <_sj_>	you can pull this from other conf's too
[06:50:39] <James_F>	OK, will take that away and action it.
[06:50:43] <britty_>	and if you did get stroopwafels
[06:50:44] <bastique>	right, right... James_F is on it :)
[06:50:47] <_sj_>	britty: natch
[06:50:50] <eia>	James_F: send it through progcom too please
[06:50:55] <eia>	might have input :)
[06:51:06] <James_F>	eia> Well, given that I'll be part of that discussion too... :_)
[06:51:22] <SueGardner>	K, so we now have speaker feedback assigned to James :-)
[06:51:24] <brassratgirl>	next year no speakers
[06:51:25] <bastique>	anything unanswered about Surveys?
[06:51:26] <Achal>	What would the foundation like to see - in addition to all the surveys discussed here - I am assuming, something on the PR generated too?
[06:51:28] <brassratgirl>	only lightning talks
[06:51:33] <SueGardner>	(James > Delphine)
[06:51:35] <brassratgirl>	and tim berners-lee
[06:51:43] <bastique>	Achal: Jay would be good for that question
[06:51:46] <eia>	brassratgirl: hey, and me!
[06:52:10] <SueGardner>	Yes, Jay can assess PR, and Mido can assess it in his input also.
[06:52:15] <bastique>	I could call him and wake him up... but... I'd probably get hated for it.
[06:52:23] <bastique>	Jay will be at Wednesday meeting
[06:52:26] <eia>	do we want to get feedback from BA?
[06:52:28] <SueGardner>	I think we need a document from the Foundation, which can include bits from various areas.
[06:52:34] <brassratgirl>	probably someone else should give input on PR
[06:52:35] <Achal>	So are we slotting in a PR survey that Jay will conduct?
[06:52:40] <brassratgirl>	who knows what it was like in previous years also
[06:52:43] <SueGardner>	Not a survey, no.
[06:52:45] <brassratgirl>	if we are doing a retrospective
[06:52:56] <bastique>	brassratgirl: that is very important
[06:52:59] <Mido>	I think Abdel Rahamn here can help on this as well with Jay
[06:53:03] <Achal>	Sue: sorry, I meant a PR round-up of some sort
[06:53:06] <bastique>	But it should be separate, IMHO
[06:53:21] <bastique>	I've added PR roundup to Wednesday's agenda
[06:53:25] <SueGardner>	Well.
[06:53:29] <brassratgirl>	seemed comparable to me with, say, frankfurt, but I wasn't really paying attention
[06:53:49] <SueGardner>	I think Abdel can cover off local/national PR, and Jay international.
[06:53:59] <Achal>	PR round-up would be something that sponsors might quite like to see no?
[06:54:00] <eia>	can we just assign PR report to Jay, or wait until wednesday, and then discuss details?
[06:54:05] <_sj_>	we might want to send a copy of the survey(s) sent to previous years' org teams for reflection, in case they have older input
[06:54:06] <bastique>	Mido: Make sure Abdel is invited to Wednesday's meeting
[06:54:09] <eia>	otherwise there will be twice the same discussion anyway
[06:54:13] <_sj_>	retro, but useful
[06:54:18] <MichaelSnow>	Should we move on to team reports, or was that already covered?
[06:54:43] <SueGardner>	Not all covered yet, I think. What's missing?
[06:54:44] <eia>	online team perhaps
[06:54:47] <bastique>	MichaelSnow: I think we discussed team reports
[06:54:51] <_sj_>	online/localization team
[06:54:52] <bastique>	Scholarships
[06:55:00] <eia>	yeah
[06:55:07] <Mido>	bastique: np, and I think Ashraf would be suitable as well for Registration process, he was the registration process in fact :)
[06:55:09] <bastique>	Which I can push out
[06:55:11] <britty_>	kibble worked for l10n
[06:55:19] <britty_>	no online team guy though perhaps here
[06:55:28] *	britty_ pokes kibble 
[06:55:35] <eia>	britty_: kibble is here, but not voiced
[06:55:39] <Achal>	My understanding is that we are trying to understand what other evaluative info is reqd. So far, we've got an attendee/speaker survey + sponsor survey + PR round up on the cards.
[06:55:51] <_sj_>	 localization is one area where wikimania could shine as brightly as any conf on the planet
[06:55:52] <bastique>	eia: He doesn't need to be.  We don't need the team report now
[06:55:57] <_sj_>	it hasn't to date
[06:55:58] <eia>	bastique: i know
[06:56:00] <_sj_>	but it's quite important
[06:56:01] <Achal>	Is there anything else (any other constituency that is left out)?
[06:56:03] <SueGardner>	Yes. and a local planning team report (Mido) and a Foundation report.
[06:56:07] <_sj_>	for most if ont all of the potential conf goals discussed
[06:56:19] <eia>	_sj_: I actually dont really agree
[06:56:21] <SueGardner>	I think Cary should coordinate the Foundation report, since Delphine has the attendee survey.
[06:56:26] <SueGardner>	Cary: is that okay?
[06:56:38] *	bastique adds foundation coordinator to his title
[06:56:44] <SueGardner>	;-)
[06:56:50] <eia>	its an english conference, so it makes sense to have info available in english mainly, since otherwise the attendees cant follow it anyways
[06:56:56] <bastique>	Yes.
[06:56:57] <SueGardner>	And a program committee report (Lodewijk)
[06:57:05] <_sj_>	eia: it would be a pity for wikimania to be known as "an english conference".
[06:57:05] <eia>	translations are nice, but no priority imho
[06:57:17] <eia>	_sj_: lets be realistic :)
[06:57:21] <eia>	it *is*
[06:57:25] <bastique>	Arabic speakers as well?
[06:57:33] <eia>	there were none, bastique
[06:57:38] <bastique>	there were a great many attendees who spoke little to no Arabic
[06:57:39] <eia>	not even one submission
[06:57:43] <_sj_>	I'm sorry, it has been to date, but wikimedia projects are much more than 50% non-english speaking.
[06:57:50] <_sj_>	if you want to make "wikimania' an english-speaking event
[06:57:51] <patricio>	_sj_: i agree with you
[06:57:58] <_sj_>	then we should also provide for a global non-"english only" event
[06:58:00] <bastique>	I expect next year to be completely bilingual
[06:58:03] <_sj_>	and you can choose a new name for it
[06:58:13] <eia>	_sj_: but if you want one big conference, with people sharing thoughts, you need a lingua franca
[06:58:14] <patricio>	i think eia is right, but we must try to move forward
[06:58:19] <britty_>	patricio, yes
[06:58:21] <bastique>	yes this is very off topic
[06:58:24] <_sj_>	:)
[06:58:34] <bastique>	Language as it relates to survey responses
[06:58:35] <britty_>	that was what we have dreamt: but now back to the reality we experienced
[06:58:36] <_sj_>	on topic : feedback from localization teams
[06:58:36] <eia>	maybe limitedly in the langauge of the host country, but otherwise, sorry :S
[06:58:36] <Angela>	but perhaps a good question to add to the survey
[06:58:49] <_sj_>	and, somehow, feedback in various languages from people who wouldn't feel comfortable filling out an en survey
[06:59:10] <britty_>	sj: that is: I think survey has to include one question
[06:59:17] <bastique>	And maybe it's personal, but I do expect to be able to attend a Spanish lecture and reasonably understand.
[06:59:19] <britty_>	about their language
[06:59:27] <_sj_>	eia: I respect what you mean
[06:59:45] <_sj_>	eia: but until you have attended a conference that handles that part properly, you may just not be envisioning what a multilingual event can be like
[06:59:47] <eia>	maybe if we reach 10k attendees :)
[06:59:59] <_sj_>	eia: we should have a spearate discussion about this
[07:00:04] <eia>	hehe
[07:00:05] <eia>	maybe :)
[07:00:11] <bastique>	_sj_: Have we had any feedback on survey timeline?
[07:00:18] <bastique>	since you're taking notes?
[07:00:18] <Achal>	Wouldn't this all come out from the attendee survey?
[07:00:22] <_sj_>	no
[07:00:39] <bastique>	So what is our current survey timeline: delphine?
[07:00:40] <_sj_>	except that it will be out next week
[07:00:54] *	eia is fine with any timeline actually
[07:00:58] <delphine>	if we can flesh out the speakers questions by the end of the week-end
[07:01:07] <_sj_>	we don't know yet who will use the results or how, either
[07:01:09] <delphine>	and Monday
[07:01:10] *	bastique nods to James_F 
[07:01:12] <delphine>	I can send it Tuesday
[07:01:28] <James_F>	I will try.
[07:01:30] <SueGardner>	Delphine: does LimeSurvey automatically compile results etc. for you?
[07:01:33] <SueGardner>	I assume yes.
[07:01:34] <eia>	lets just leave it up for two weeks or so?
[07:01:37] <bastique>	_sj_: good point.
[07:01:40] <delphine>	James_F: I'm already working on the questions
[07:01:47] <delphine>	SueGardner: compile in what sense?
[07:01:55] <James_F>	delphine> Oh, right. So am I. We should share. :-)
[07:02:06] <_sj_>	(as del and sue noted earlier)
[07:02:11] <SueGardner>	Just - do you need to do any work at the end of the survey, or will it tell you "65% answered yes here," etc.
[07:02:26] <delphine>	you need to do the work
[07:02:29] <bastique>	And whoever will send the email "spam" to attendees needs the data from registration
[07:02:35] <SueGardner>	ah, too bad :-(
[07:02:53] <bastique>	Can you export into a spreadsheet?
[07:02:58] <delphine>	yes, you can.
[07:03:12] <bastique>	still work needed
[07:03:15] <bastique>	Sue likes charts
[07:03:18] <SueGardner>	LOL
[07:03:25] <eia>	bastique: me too, actually :)
[07:03:33] <eia>	the results of the survey, will they be public?
[07:03:41] <eia>	or at least to the bidding teams?
[07:03:54] <_sj_>	also, for bastique: do we have a timeline for this meeting?
[07:03:55] <SueGardner>	They should be public :-)
[07:03:57] <bastique>	eia: the compiled reports should be made public
[07:04:03] <_sj_>	is it more important to cover all agenda items, or tocover the ones we get to fully?
[07:04:06] <eia>	nice :)
[07:04:09] <bastique>	anything that reveals any specific data
[07:04:24] <bastique>	"100% of people from Turkey hated the lunches"
[07:04:34] *	Hexacoder (n=chatzill@196.218.246.74) has joined #wikimania-meeting
[07:04:36] <bastique>	should really not be public
[07:04:39] <Angela>	sj: imo, cover all agenda items. We can go into more detail in the later meetings, or by email
[07:04:41] <delphine>	Abdel Rahman!
[07:04:47] <eia>	bastique: we dont ask for nationality, but i get the point :)
[07:04:50] *	delphine waves at Hexacoder
[07:04:51] *	White_Cat_Zzz (i=EVA@wikimedia/White-Cat) has joined #wikimania-meeting
[07:05:09] <eia>	ok
[07:05:10] <MichaelSnow>	Angela: At this rate, we should get through the agenda by about Wednesday, just in time for the next meeting
[07:05:15] <Angela>	:)
[07:05:17] <eia>	thats it about the survey?
[07:05:27] <eia>	surveys :)
[07:05:43] <bastique>	eia: Funny how things time
[07:05:49] *	eia proposes to move on to the general discussion :)
[07:05:52] <delphine>	indeed.
[07:05:59] <britty_>	hi Hexacoder !!
[07:06:02] <bastique>	Purpose of Wikimania in the coming years? Main goals?
[07:06:04] <eia>	bastique: :)
[07:06:10] <bastique>	britty_: He cannot respond
[07:06:24] <britty_>	ah sorry
[07:06:26] <SueGardner>	Yes, Cary. Purpose & goals :-)
[07:06:30] <bastique>	I think we're all agreed we want to focus on the COMMUNITY
[07:06:44] <brassratgirl>	yes.
[07:06:52] <britty_>	yes
[07:06:53] <patricio>	+1
[07:06:55] <brassratgirl>	I really do want to get to 2010
[07:06:56] <Mido>	yes, I believe so
[07:07:00] <Achal>	I'm just wondering if we can discuss a framework of how we go forward here, and the details over email (is that a better tool to give input? or a wiki?) - i don't know.
[07:07:04] <brassratgirl>	and since we have this discussion about the point of wikimania every year
[07:07:10] <brassratgirl>	I don't know if we're going to finish it today :P
[07:07:11] <delphine>	about Purpose and goals there was  a very inspiring post from MichaelSnow a while back, which got very little feedback :(
[07:07:14] <bastique>	Achal: framework of the meeting or of wikimania
[07:07:38] <bastique>	brassratgirl: you haven't had a mature Foundation involved before
[07:08:10] <Achal>	Its a huge list, and I personally have to leave in a few minutes (though I will take part in the next meeting) - so I was wondering if we can decide on what we want. I.e. do we want a checklist to do its work pre and post meeting, that kind of thing.
[07:08:12] <brassratgirl>	bastique: in re: what aspect?
[07:08:15] <SueGardner>	Cary, are you _threatening_ Phoebe? (joke)
[07:08:19] <bastique>	noooooo
[07:08:27] <Achal>	What actually goes on the checklist will be a much longer discussion (I am thinking)
[07:08:28] <bastique>	brassratgirl: Okay, you haven't had a mature me getting involved
[07:08:33] <MichaelSnow>	The post Delphine means is http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/040636.html
[07:08:38] <bastique>	pushing and nagging people until we come to some resolution :)
[07:08:54] *	dungodung (n=felix@wikipedia/dungodung) has joined #wikimania-meeting
[07:09:03] <delphine>	MichaelSnow: thanx, I have a drafted answer in my drafts box...
[07:09:11] <SueGardner>	[re-reading it]
[07:09:21] <bastique>	Achal: checklist
[07:09:36] <bastique>	For what we're discussing?
[07:09:45] <bastique>	I've been trying to get http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem#Wednesday_.40_2000 started
[07:09:54] <bastique>	But that makes a lot of sense to me
[07:10:04] <bastique>	I do tend to distract easily
[07:10:31] <SueGardner>	Do we want to talk about purpose & goals here, or do we want to have that conversation elsewhere?
[07:10:43] <bastique>	Sue, that's this part of the agenda
[07:10:47] <MichaelSnow>	I think it's too long for this meeting
[07:10:50] <Achal>	Yes. For how to rework Wikimania. Let's assume we know what we want to have done - my question is, should be we begin by thinking about how we intend to have that done vis-a-vis community, program and local teams - and then decide the details of what we want to have done?
[07:10:58] <MichaelSnow>	and IRC discussion is too fragmented to give it proper reflection
[07:11:01] <bastique>	So we should decide on whether we're discussing it now or not :)
[07:11:23] <bastique>	And I also think it requires input from the feedback survey
[07:11:24] <delphine>	I think we should launch Michael's post again :)
[07:11:53] <SueGardner>	Well. I am interested to discuss it, because I think that Frank's new public outreach role changes the landscape, or could, re Wikimaia.
[07:11:55] <SueGardner>	So yes
[07:12:00] <_sj_>	hi dung,msn
[07:12:02] <SueGardner>	Maybe we relaunch this conversation on foundation-l
[07:12:03] <bastique>	With the caveat that it will be a community based event
[07:12:05] <SueGardner>	or internal-l
[07:12:12] <bastique>	or wikimania-l
[07:12:51] <SueGardner>	Okay. But not here. Delphine, why don't you reply to Michael's post, then I will, and we'll see if we can engender more discussion?
[07:12:54] <bastique>	I would like to point out that we have people working on bids for 2010 who need to know where we are going
[07:12:59] <britty_>	perhaps wikimania-l or w-program-l would be nice: some of this meeting partisipants ares not on internal-l
[07:13:04] <bastique>	so they don't feel like they're wasting energy
[07:13:16] <SueGardner>	Okay.
[07:13:31] <bastique>	Oxford and Stockholm are already very hard at work
[07:13:34] <MichaelSnow>	Definitely a public list; more than one list would be okay
[07:14:05] <bastique>	which deals with this question on the agenda:
[07:14:06] <bastique>	will it be a community event or outreach (focus on newbees, insiders or outsiders (journalists, teachers, business people with a wiki, technicians, Open Source people etc))?
[07:14:25] <Achal>	I have to leave unfortunately; until Wednesday then.
[07:14:34] <bastique>	achal, see you Wednesday at 2000 (UTC)
[07:14:34] <SueGardner>	Bye Achal!
[07:14:37] <britty_>	bye Achal
[07:14:52] <Achal>	yup. cheers!
[07:15:19] <britty_>	bastique, we may agree again it should be a community event: but we cannot satisfy every member so we then need again sort priority
[07:15:21] <Angela>	"is there a process by which we might submit broader suggestions?" is on the agenda page. I think this is an important question. Rather than saying "should Wikimania reach out to newbies / should it be a community event?", we ought to consider whether we should have multiple events instead of trying to force one event to be all things
[07:15:32] <bastique>	Angela: I'm getting to that
[07:15:34] <britty_>	besides that which side effect we want is another topic
[07:15:50] <eia>	I think tha besides a great opportunity to volunteers, this is also *the* opportunity to show to the outside world what our mission is
[07:16:07] <britty_>	eia: yes!
[07:16:07] <_sj_>	agreed.  and whether the goal of wikimania should be decided by a broad community and varied by bid teams each year, with focus left out of any bid judging criteria (or settled by community vote among the most competent bids)
[07:16:11] <eia>	it is a season of little news, and a great chance to carry out our values
[07:16:27] <brassratgirl>	how does this all affect planning future conferences?
[07:16:32] <britty_>	eia: did you remember the local gentleman we met in front of KFC? :D
[07:16:39] <_sj_>	or whether it should be decided by a small group of people associated with past events...
[07:16:45] <bastique>	For instance: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EuroWikimania
[07:16:49] <eia>	I would not like to deminish the other goals that much actually :)
[07:16:56] <brassratgirl>	_sj: yes
[07:17:23] <_sj_>	bye achal
[07:17:25] <delphine>	eia: but how? Through PR, or through inviting the right people who are going to be emissaries of what and who we are?
[07:17:27] <eia>	which btw doesn't exclude the option of having a volunteer feeling
[07:18:04] <eia>	delphine: through picking the right speakers and keynotes, through making noise in press releases, through having promotional activities around wikimania?
[07:18:11] <bastique>	Can we agree this is a greater discussion that cannot be encompassed in this meeting and try to address Angela's question?
[07:18:17] <eia>	such as visiting schools, libraries whatever
[07:18:35] <delphine>	bastique: I certainly agree. I got carried away ;)
[07:18:36] <eia>	inviting people is of course an option too :)
[07:18:37] <patricio>	bastique: i agree
[07:18:38] <DamianFinol>	Agreed
[07:18:42] <bastique>	Is there a process by which we might submit broader suggestions?
[07:18:43] <_sj_>	 eia: when you say "our mission" do you not mean the mission of the contributors and community?
[07:18:50] <_sj_>	bastique, yes please
[07:18:55] <eia>	_sj_: I mean the mission of the movement :)
[07:19:34] <brassratgirl>	we need to figure out a way to get the larger community feel like they can give input, also
[07:19:46] <_sj_>	process: can we turn this reflection on wikimania into a brainstorming exercise to help all attendees to reflect on what is most valuable to them and how to celebrate it with other wikimedians 
[07:19:51] <brassratgirl>	I have been told that the wikimania judging process seems like "a black box"
[07:19:57] <bastique>	See the EuroWikimania link I put up, for instance.  If there was a braoder process to do this, this event might get more input from others
[07:20] brassratgirl: by, um, someone who is very well connected in the foundation
[07:20] brassratgirl: and I think that is a pretty widespread view
[07:20] eia: anyway, I think that we can not handle two world wide events imho, but we might be if we scale down the secondary
[07:20] bastique: And the Atlanta conference last year
[07:20] eia: ie, national, continental
[07:20] brassratgirl: I don't think we've made bad decisions as a jury...
[07:20] Mido: I totally agree with the smaller events, I think we need that
[07:20] bastique: brassratgirl: Jury process coming later
[07:20] bastique: let's discuss that together then 
[07:20] brassratgirl: but many people definitely think it's a little strange
[07:20] eia: note that there are already several national conferences btw
[07:20] brassratgirl: well, jury process connects with the question of "broader feedback"
[07:20] _sj_: I see the advnatage to this sort of small-group meeting being that we can pause to reflect on these larger questions without getting sucked up by the really hard and controversial ones
[07:20] brassratgirl: more than one conference, who decides the mission, etc.
[07:21] _sj_: so finding out how to expand feedback beyond the scope of these meetings is important
[07:21] britty_: we published criteria and points for 2007
[07:21] _sj_: not only for those present
[07:21] britty_: and still blackbox?
[07:21] _sj_: rather than trying to decide on "What wikimnia should be'
[07:21] brassratgirl: britty: yeah
[07:21] _sj_: if we find a way to make that an enjoyable and ongoing discussion with focus
[07:21] brassratgirl: britty: b/c the of the question of who was on the jury, and how they got there
[07:21] bastique: Angela: input on this item?
[07:21] eia: _sj_: maybe first come with some guiding ideas
[07:21] eia:                          
[07:21] _sj_: then we can have the constant reflection before/during/after as part of what the event means to contributors and readers
[07:21] _sj_: eia: yes
[07:22] _sj_: past discussions haven't produced too many good specific essays or pov's
[07:22] _sj_: on what a global conference should/could be.  though it has produced some interesting parallel case studies
[07:22] _sj_: which deserve more organized attention
[07:22] _sj_: what global conferences mean in other parts of the world
[07:23] eia: i dont really get where you're going
[07:23] bastique: And it sounds like a broader conversation as well
[07:23] _sj_: there should be something explicit about being bold : a great novel idea for a bid should always trump tradition
[07:23] _sj_: imo
[07:23] brassratgirl: we get together. we geek out. that still leaves the practical questions of how to choose a location, etc.
[07:24] bastique: _sj_: you have very high ideals
[07:24] bastique:                          
[07:24] _sj_: eia: there are lots of valid, useful goals for wikimania that conflit with one another
[07:24] bastique: brassratgirl: and given that I'm no better to understanding the previous question that I was when I presented it, I'd like to move on
[07:24] brassratgirl: _sj_: that's in direct contradiction to all of these conversations about improving the next conference through iterative feedback 
[07:24] bastique:         * criteria for bids -- use prior year criteria, need to be adapted/updated?
[07:25] bastique: I think some of our team members are distracted
[07:25] _sj_: rather than trying to pick one and say "this is what it will alwys be" giving people a way to clearly discuss the options, or present a particular idea in terms of which goals it furthers, is a good start
[07:25] eia: do we have a link to the prior criteria?
[07:25] SueGardner: Where are the criteria? I can't find them.
[07:25] Austin: Personally, I think we did a pretty good job formalizing the criteria last year.
[07:25] SueGardner: (Thanks effe)
[07:25] _sj_: iterative shouldn't mean we iterate until this point : here  <---
[07:25] _sj_: after which we've decided what the answer should be
[07:25] Angela: would adjusting the criteria lead to less controversy than we had the last couple of years. And does that matter?
[07:25] bastique:        http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2009/Judging_criteria    
[07:25] _sj_: and tell certain people not to think about running a wikimania
[07:25] SueGardner: Thanks Cary.
[07:25] bastique: Criteria needs to be specific
[07:25] brassratgirl:        http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Judging_criteria    
[07:26] brassratgirl: _sj_: no, of course not
[07:26] delphine: at the risk of repeating something I've said many a times
[07:26] bastique: Angela: Controversy will occur
[07:26] delphine: the first and most important criteria should be
[07:26] bastique: "The Dutch will complain"
[07:26] eia: Angela: the only thing to reduce the criticism is to handle the timeline better (ie, dont extend once fixed etc, and dont cross deadlines as a jury)
[07:26] britty_: bruntly saying: wikimania is for me an opportunity to exchange real hugs: that's all
[07:26] delphine: Rotation.
[07:26] brassratgirl: _sj_: but if we use these criteria and this process, we are putting some limits on the whole thing
[07:26] delphine: I mean, are we seriously considering having Wikimania in Antartica next year?
[07:26] delphine: or not.
[07:26] bastique: I'm not sure Rotation is that important
[07:26] • James_F laughs.
[07:26] • britty_ grins
[07:27] britty_: but I think rotation is not underestimated
[07:27] bastique: I think we want to have a conference be put on by the best people.
[07:27] britty_: should not be, i meant
[07:27] delphine: not true.
[07:27] delphine: at equal venues
[07:27] brassratgirl: space-wise, I think we can focus on the community gathering part and sleeping and the airport as the biggest factors
[07:27] delphine: rotation always wins.
[07:27] _sj_: I hope we are.  I already bought my anorak.
[07:27] eia: I think rotation plays a role
[07:27] brassratgirl: It seems like we are moving away from money/sponsorship being important?
[07:27] eia: sure
[07:27] DamianFinol: It does
[07:27] eia: but it should not be a major one imho
[07:27] bastique: Well, let's see, 5 Wikimanias at 5 different continents
[07:27] DamianFinol: Although it sounds bad
[07:27] bastique: Rotation has played a BIG role
[07:27] eia: at least, as long as things are not too close together
[07:27] Austin: We've never seen equal venues, though.
[07:28] bastique: nope
[07:28] eia: Austin: there are none 
[07:28] delphine: don't agree 
[07:28] Austin: Yes, and we've argued that point for years.  
[07:28] delphine: but then, some might say I am biased 
[07:28] brassratgirl: look, people are going to ask all of us, if they should even bother bidding if they are in Asia or Africa or South America
[07:28] brassratgirl: what is the answer?
[07:28] delphine: in any case
[07:28] DamianFinol: brassratgirl> look, people are going to ask all of us, if they should even bother bidding if they are in Asia or Africa or South America < This
[07:28] SueGardner: That is a great question, Phoebe.
[07:28] eia: brassratgirl: well, in South America, the odds are small indeed 
[07:28] eia: I think
[07:28] eia: and Africa too
[07:28] eia: but Asia, sure
[07:28] eia: imho then
[07:29] brassratgirl: maybe a definite rule -- not the same continent twice?
[07:29] britty_: for 2010? agreed with eia
[07:29] brassratgirl: we leave the rest up to fate? dunno.
[07:29] SueGardner: Can I ask this?
[07:29] _sj_: I would say that accessibility and community balance is more important than rotation
[07:29] britty_: brassratgirl, it won7t work: consider egypt then dubai ...
[07:29] MichaelSnow: brassratgirl: Wikimania 2013: The Moon
[07:29] britty_: they were not in the same continent
[07:29] _sj_: michael: is that after or before the airship?
[07:29] DamianFinol: Europe, NA, Asia, Africa, SA
[07:29] MichaelSnow: (after Australia and Antarctica)
[07:29] Austin: I know for my part, I would have no problem selecting a venue in, say, Rio, if was the best choice.
[07:29] SueGardner: If the main purpose of Wikimania is to enable the core community to get together once a year, then surely accessibility & cheapness are the core crtieria, no?
[07:29] DamianFinol: Oceania?
[07:29] DamianFinol: That seems to be the rotation
[07:29] • bastique agrees with SueGardner
[07:30] britty_: i don't like the moon wikimania: doens't sound carbon-neutral
[07:30] James_F: It was suggested "not within 2000 km of the last two", BTW.
[07:30] _sj_: (britty: you can get there by diving into a lake)
[07:30] James_F: Just an idea.
[07:30] bastique: James_F: "of the last one"
[07:30] britty_: the Carbon guy may bother us why we dare go to such a place
[07:30] James_F: Cary> Only the last one?
[07:30] britty_: James_F, yeah i like this idea to some extent
[07:30] brassratgirl: accessibility is mainly "do they have a good airport"
[07:30] DamianFinol: I'd say not the same continent as the previous two Wikimanias as a rule
[07:30] brassratgirl: the problem with tahiti or whatever is it's hard to get there
[07:30] eia: please, lets get rid of the moon-ish discussions
[07:30] DamianFinol: So for 2010 Europe, NA and Asia can bid
[07:30] eia: and focus
[07:30] bastique: James_F: I think Chicago two years after Toronto is perfectly fine provided the venues are gerat
[07:31] _sj_: afaic, I think if someone comes up with a great cheap venue that is easy for people all around the world to come to -- the impossible mecca of all conference sites -- and makes it accessible to all cultures and languages
[07:31] eia: DamianFinol: and australia
[07:31] _sj_: wikimania could be held there forever
[07:31] DamianFinol: er and Australia yes
[07:31] • bastique concurs with _sj_
[07:31] SueGardner: sj: interesting
[07:31] James_F: Cary> Are Chicago and Toronto close?
[07:31] brassratgirl: so, back to frankfurt then? 
[07:31] _sj_: the reason I care about localization
[07:31] bastique: James_F: Close enough
[07:31] britty_: sj: accessibility? visa issue then
[07:31] MichaelSnow: within 2000 km
[07:31] eia: _sj_: agreed, if the sultan of Dubai is sponsoring...
[07:31] eia:                          
[07:31] DamianFinol: Frankfurt is perfect 
[07:31] delphine: so we're ruling out Australia 
[07:31] bastique: not for all time
[07:31] Angela: I don't think you can define it in terms of km or continents. The 2 sides of Australia are more than 2000 km apart. And I don't see why having it in England one year should rule out anywhere in Europe the next year
[07:31] _sj_: is the same...
[07:32] bastique: and not ruling Australia out
[07:32] _sj_: right now the only way to enjoy a wikimania in your own language is to host one in a country that speaks it
[07:32] _sj_: and even then...
[07:32] bastique: if the other parts are qualifying
[07:32] brassratgirl: I think we can say pretty safely that no country has perfect visa regulations, sadly.
[07:32] britty_: sj: not really
[07:32] _sj_: in practice, location tends to discriminae
[07:32] britty_: it is always english conference
[07:32] _sj_: so to balance that, there is some motivation for rotation
[07:32] bastique: Argentina, as it happens, tends to be better on visas than most
[07:32] eia: ok please no localization discussion now
[07:32] _sj_:                          
[07:32] DamianFinol: brassratgirl, Is about the processa ctually
[07:32] DamianFinol: actually* of getting a visa
[07:32] DamianFinol: if you need one
[07:33] _sj_: location discriminates on visas, on language barriers, on cost
[07:33] DamianFinol: trust me, I've had to get visas for all wikimanias
[07:33] eia: ok, can i summarize that geolocation plays an important role compared with the last two years, but not an absolute?
[07:33] DamianFinol: #1 most exchrusiating (sp): USA
[07:33] britty_: language barriers? to which? hard to be objective
[07:33] bastique: Let me state that I think we need to work harder at bringing more people to Wikimania via scholarships
[07:33] bastique: From those hard to get to from places
[07:33] Austin: Yes, certainly.
[07:33] _sj_: but I can imagine two places v. close to one another that are accessible to v different audiences.
[07:33] britty_: geolocation and visa availablity is enough i suppose
[07:34] brassratgirl: bastique: yes. but 90% of the attendees will need scholarships if we have it somewhere very difficult, so that's something to consider.
[07:34] britty_: aside scholarship (and thanks bastique)
[07:34] SueGardner: Cary: yes. Scholarships are critical to making Wikimania accessible.
[07:34] James_F: _sj_> Jersusalem and Eilat?
[07:34] _sj_: lol
[07:34] MichaelSnow: So if we keep turning down Australia, we should have a special Australians to Wikimania scholarship fund?
[07:34] SueGardner: Michael: yes, exactly. Seriously.
[07:34] _sj_: now you're talking
[07:34] _sj_: for some version of "we"
[07:34] James_F: Possibly it should be a consideration.
[07:34] bastique: brassratgirl: which is why I think rotation should not be a deciding factor if the other factors are in place.
[07:34] • delphine seconds MichaelSnow
[07:34] James_F: I mean, .au people are disadvantaged.
[07:34] DamianFinol: Agreed
[07:34] SueGardner: Yes yes yes.
[07:34] bastique: MichaelSnow: absolutely
[07:34] eia: James_F: so are people from siberia
[07:35] brassratgirl: we've talked about setting scholarship guidelines more clearly
[07:35] _sj_: define accessibility in a way that can apply to any wiki[m]edian
[07:35] James_F: Not necessarily a special fund, but a heavier weighting for .au / etc. people.
[07:35] Austin: I think I have a draft e-mail about that open, which I never finished.
[07:35] brassratgirl: making sure we fund a person from every chapter, definitely from every continent... that seems reasonable to me
[07:35] SueGardner: Can we talk about scholarships just for one minute now?
[07:35] _sj_: likewise meta-acessibility
[07:35] bastique: "The Australian problem" is that the country is unusually over-represented on our projects
[07:35] delphine: one minute scholarships
[07:35] bastique: as is India
[07:35] brassratgirl: scholarships: a terrible idea!
[07:35] britty_: SueGardner, yes please
[07:35] _sj_: is it enough to make all conferences most accessible to the 80% of active participants who live close to one another?
[07:35] _sj_: that's pretty acessible!
[07:35] delphine: that's a challenge 
[07:35] eia: why do we have scholarships 
[07:35] SueGardner: I would like someone to take on the scholarships question - consult, write up recommendations 
[07:35] _sj_: but there's some iteration on the theme.
[07:36] SueGardner: It's really important.
[07:36] delphine: about scholarships: it's very simple really
[07:36] eia: is it to make people happy, or bring people to the conference that add value to the conference?
[07:36] bastique: SueGardner: I have a lot to say about scholarships
[07:36] brassratgirl: OK, so the problem with scholarships is when and how we get the money.
[07:36] _sj_: scholarships, also local contact people
[07:36] bastique: brassratgirl: here's the thing
[07:36] SueGardner: I think it would be reasonable for the Foundation to fund scholarships.
[07:36] _sj_: and perhaps explicit satellite events
[07:36] _sj_: when scholarships aren't enough
[07:36] bastique: scholarships are the one thing the Foundation can handle
[07:36] brassratgirl: (IMHO). If we knew we had $40,000 up front no question the whole process would be a gazillion times easier.
[07:36] Austin: eia: the applicant's added value for the conference has always been the chief factor.
[07:37] delphine: bastique: there's a difference between "fund scholarships" and "organize scholarships"
[07:37] bastique: brassratgirl: that's what we're going to fix.
[07:37] SueGardner: Cary: I think the community should manage the process, but the Foundation can fund it.
[07:37] delphine: in my books at least.
[07:37] eia: Austin: indeed, and that rules out to favor australians 
[07:37] delphine: SueGardner: agreed.
[07:37] SueGardner: K: done 
[07:37] DamianFinol: I think scholarships should be decided upon very very, very very, early
[07:37] bastique: DamianFinol: Yes
[07:37] Austin: They should.
[07:37] DamianFinol: It's no secret airfare for example gets costier by the minute
[07:37] DamianFinol: expensive
[07:37] bastique: if the last two years are any indication
[07:37] Austin: But as mentioned, there's no way to even start on that until we know how much we have to spend.
[07:37] delphine: WMF says: you got 30,000 bucks, we want at least 3 people from Antartica. We don't want more than 10% overhead. Then you're on your own.
[07:37] brassratgirl: running scholarships -- need to involve more people (who are trustworthy, know what's going on); need to know how much money we have up front; and need to set clearer criteria
[07:38] bastique: penguins are cheap to ship
[07:38] _sj_: by thetime you're talking $20k in scholarships to one region you could just throw a small local event with a very good connection to the global one
[07:38] brassratgirl: like: every chapter should be expected to fund one person, then maybe the WMF can match it
[07:38] _sj_: (and perhaps better-encourage local community development at tne same time)
[07:38] SueGardner: Yes. Someone knowledgeable needs to write all this up 
[07:38] _sj_: hmm, matching
[07:38] DamianFinol: brassratgirl, That's a good idea
[07:38] bastique: All chapters are not equal
[07:38] bastique:                          
[07:38] SueGardner: Some regions don't have chapters at all.
[07:38] delphine: I would keep chapters out of the overall scholarship process.
[07:38] Austin: Most of them are downright broke.  
[07:38] brassratgirl: no, but it's a good goal to fund-raise for etc
[07:38] bastique: exactly
[07:38] brassratgirl: so, for non-chapter areas, another couple of people
[07:39] brassratgirl: ?
[07:39] eia: delphine: agreed
[07:39] delphine: ie. I would say: chapters should send representatives, and we should have a different fund to fund those.
[07:39] James_F: Chapters should be strongly encouraged to do their own scholarships, but they're seperate from the WMF ones.
[07:39] SueGardner: Who's volunteering to write this up?
[07:39] delphine: James_F: exactly.
[07:39] bastique: brassratgirl: ?
[07:39] SueGardner: And, James: I agree.
[07:39] bastique: Can you take this on?
[07:39] bastique: please?
[07:39] Austin: I can write up something on scholarships.
[07:39] SueGardner: Yay!
[07:39] bastique: Or Austin?
[07:39] SueGardner: Sold, to Austin.
[07:39] James_F: Excellent.
[07:39] brassratgirl: austin, yay 
[07:39] DamianFinol: I'll help Austin if he needs/wants
[07:39] eia: but ehm, I also think we should really define what the purpose of the scholarships is 
[07:39] bastique: Austin I will be poking you mercilessly about it
[07:39] brassratgirl: and we have 3 iterations of scholarship software, thanks to austin
[07:39] Austin: I am the only person to have participated in every scholarship process to date, anyway.  
[07:39] James_F: (We need to pick a scribe /before/ we start on a topic in here.)
[07:39] eia: what do we want to get done  what is the goal
[07:39] brassratgirl: so that's covered
[07:39] Austin: Cary, sure
[07:39] Angela: as an alternative to scholarships that only allow a couple of people from Australia (or wherever) to attend, what about more Foundation support for local conferences? Why not send the Board and pay for other important speakers to attend not only Wikimania but also a second conference in a "less accessible" location each year?
[07:39] bastique: and scholarships should be a more open process
[07:40] bastique: Angela: I'll be happy to come to Australia every year
[07:40] SueGardner: The Foundation committed this year to supporting the annual chapters conference.
[07:40] SueGardner: I attended a Wikipedia Academy in Berlin.
[07:40] SueGardner: If people organize stuff and invite us, we would go 
[07:41] brassratgirl: all 10 board members and some staff? that sounds like a lot of money also, depending on how many events you're talking about.
[07:41] eia: hmmm, sue, i'll invite someone for november 1st to amsterdam then 
[07:41] _sj_: angela: +1
[07:41] DamianFinol: eia> is it to make people happy, or bring people to the conference that add value to the conference? < This
[07:41] bastique: Angela: And I'll put my full support in helping an Australian conference
[07:41] brassratgirl: just so everyone knows: the Chinese are organizing the Chinese Wiki conference again for April/May next year, in either Hong Kong or Macau
[07:41] eia: DamianFinol: yeah 
[07:41] Austin: Angela's idea is a great one.
[07:41] DamianFinol: (Just repeating)
[07:41] _sj_: or at least provide a channel for consolidating interest in sponsoring such events
[07:41] SueGardner: Lodewijk: 
[07:42] MichaelSnow: brassratgirl: Thanks, I may try to be there
[07:42] MichaelSnow: no promises yet, though
[07:42] _sj_: there's a startup cost to organizing sponsorship for something; it might be easier to get support for a series of smaller events
[07:43] _sj_: its important to foster local events that can suport themselves
[07:43] SueGardner: If people want financial help from the Foundation for a conference, I think that is something we would try to handle through the fund we are going to set up. (It's at the very beginning stages of being organized, but that is the process, I think, that would handle those types of requests.)
[07:43] bastique: Okay, I do want to talk about the jury
[07:43] bastique: obviously we want the community to input more on this
[07:43] _sj_: but some sort of echo of wikimania to increase its impact and sense of community would be valuable in itself
[07:44] brassratgirl: bastique: yes
[07:45] brassratgirl: but how?
[07:45] bastique: We need to firm up the criteria, more response between jury and bidders
[07:45] brassratgirl: otherwise I want badges
[07:45] _sj_: the first and most important criteria should be
[07:45] brassratgirl: "wikimania cabal 4 life"
[07:45] _sj_: Rotation.
[07:45] bastique: ouch
[07:45] DamianFinol: Ok
[07:45] britty_: Yeah rotation: that I say since people think it IS the criterion
[07:46] Austin: You can't pin the past lack of community input entirely on the selection committee.
[07:46] brassratgirl: and also think it shouldn't be....
[07:46] bastique: I think our group might feel strongly about that but I think the community at large is not so big on rotation
[07:46] DamianFinol: I'm still up for the idea of a jury that sort of 'weeds' out lacking bids, leaving two or three strong ones and letting the community decide
[07:46] britty_: and yes we used it as criterion at least in recent two decisions: we need to offer a logicial explanation what it really is
[07:46] _sj_: bastique, no?
[07:46] _sj_: britty: I meant for jury members
[07:47] britty_: bastique, community at large don't give attention to the conf anyway
[07:47] eia: DamianFinol: hmmm, i dont really like that too much 
[07:47] SueGardner: SJ: are you saying "Wikimania could be in a single location forever if there were a perfect location, but since there is not, it must rotate.' (I am getting a little confused about what your position is.)
[07:47] DamianFinol: Any reason eia ?
[07:47] eia: even though I like community etc, I dont like votings that much
[07:47] _sj_: whoops.  shoot me for trying to make a joke before morning coffee.
[07:47] bastique: And how are we rotating?  NA, EU, Asia
[07:47] eia: votings dont really always reflect what is best
[07:47] Austin: Yeah, thanks sj
[07:47] bastique: NA, EU, SA Asia?
[07:47] • delphine shoots _sj_
[07:47] bastique: What about Africa and Australia?
[07:48] DamianFinol: Well, it could be like I said on my email, voting at the previous year WM
[07:48] _sj_: I am not a fan of making 'continent rotation' a big deal
[07:48] DamianFinol: After the bidders show their bids/information
[07:48] _sj_: I don't think that matters
[07:48] eia: bastique: I dont think we should have a firm rotation
[07:48] _sj_: accessibility matters
[07:48] bastique: Maybe I'm thinking that rotation means something eles
[07:48] britty_: the best rotation is lake geneve lake geneve and then milwaukee
[07:48] _sj_: and geography tends to weight accessibility one wway or another.
[07:48] eia: just dont have wikimania twice in three years on the same region
[07:48] Austin: Stop talking about rotation.  
[07:48] britty_: but i am a realist
[07:48] bastique: I like James idea of (no less than 2000 km distant)
[07:48] DamianFinol: That's what I suggested
[07:48] eia: not Paris, Atlanta, Amsterdam
[07:48] _sj_: but the core criterion should be ovr time makeing wikimanias accessible to the broadest scope of the community.
[07:48] bastique: but I don't thin that's rotation
[07:48] SueGardner: SJ: Okay. I agree with you. Austin: Okay. I will stop talking about rotation 
[07:48] eia: but maybe Moscow would be an option
[07:49] DamianFinol: No WM if it was hosted in the same contintent the previous two years
[07:49] _sj_: on the topic of jury selection, I think rotation is important; the selection committee personal opinions shouldn't have much to doi with identifying competent bids
[07:49] brassratgirl: 2 years?
[07:49] eia: it's a deal, but not something to fixate too much
[07:49] brassratgirl: I just said 1 year 
[07:49] _sj_: but public eprception is that it does.
[07:49] DamianFinol: For 2009 nor Asia or Africa can host it leaving it up for SA/NA/Europe/Australia
[07:49] britty_: 2000 km was originally proposed as 1600 km or so?
[07:49] bastique: London -> Chicago -> Geneva should be acceptable
[07:49] DamianFinol: 2008: Nor Asia/NA
[07:49] bastique: 1600 km, then
[07:49] britty_: DamianFinol, it is already determined ... for BA ......
[07:50] DamianFinol: 2007: Europe/NA
[07:50] DamianFinol: britty_, Yea just making an example
[07:50] britty_:                          
[07:50] DamianFinol:                          
[07:50] bastique: 2007 was Turin versus Taipei
[07:50] DamianFinol: So, is the Two year rule sound good?
[07:50] bastique: no
[07:50] DamianFinol: what!
[07:51] Angela: a 2 year rule sounds better than simply ruling out Australia for no good reason
[07:51] eia: brassratgirl: due to the early selection procedure i think 2 years makes sense
[07:51] bastique: I think continent as a basis is not good
[07:51] eia: but we should make no rules anyway
[07:51] eia: just give an indication
[07:51] bastique: then we have people microdefining continent
[07:51] eia: like, hey the odds might decrease
[07:51] bastique: "Eurasia is a continent"
[07:51] DamianFinol: Then we make it clear from the start 
[07:52] Austin: Since we're still talking about it anyway, I want to again say for the record that I reject the idea of "rotation" per se being a criterion.
[07:52] britty_: i prefer an objective measure like distance, say xxxx km (or miles, if you prefer)
[07:52] James_F: Cary> Exactly.
[07:52] bastique: I agree with Austin
[07:52] _sj_: agreed with austin.
[07:52] SueGardner: Me too
[07:52] MichaelSnow: bastique: Sealand is a continent
[07:52] eia: as I said, I dont see why we can't go from London to Moscow
[07:52] bastique: MichaelSnow: And close to London
[07:52] brassratgirl: look, if people are going to fight about what is a continent
[07:52] eia: MichaelSnow: it's a Dutch province
[07:52] bastique: but no facilities afaik
[07:52] brassratgirl: and they have a good bid
[07:52] eia:                          
[07:52] Austin: Factors related to so-called rotation can be criteria, like accessibility and outreach opportunities.
[07:52] brassratgirl: I say let them bid
[07:52] brassratgirl: and quit worrying about it
[07:52] delphine: I disagree with Austin. Always have, always will 
[07:52] _sj_: perhaps we can articulate a positive accessibility measure
[07:52] Austin: Of course.  
[07:52] britty_: eia then you claim it was considered Asia in some period
[07:52] brassratgirl: part of the problem is that bidding has gotten so difficult
[07:52] brassratgirl: no one wants to bid
[07:53] _sj_: <cough>
[07:53] eia: britty_: no
[07:53] bastique: brassratgirl: I have to disagree
[07:53] eia: britty_: I claim that it is no huge deal
[07:53] britty_: Austin, sounds nice
[07:53] _sj_: being accessible to people who couldn't aprticipate in the past is a plus.
[07:53] bastique: I see two strong bids developing
[07:53] SueGardner: Phoebe: do we want lots of bids, or do we want to somehow encourage excellent bids?
[07:53] brassratgirl: when I said last year was difficult, I meant the alexandria-atlanta year
[07:53] brassratgirl: uh, a happy middle ground?
[07:53] brassratgirl:                          
[07:53] SueGardner:                          
[07:53] bastique: I think Brisbane worked hard on their bid against Bueonos Aires
[07:53] delphine: SueGardner: the best would be one bid, in Europe, cheap and perfect.
[07:53] eia: SueGardner: good point...
[07:53] brassratgirl: I think more than 2 or 3 bids is important
[07:53] delphine: for 2010 that is
[07:53] James_F: Sue> We want better bids more than we want more, I think.
[07:53] DamianFinol: I don't think the whole in kms is good
[07:53] bastique: We have two European bids already in Europe
[07:54] bastique: i mean in 2010
[07:54] DamianFinol: Most european cities are very close to each other
[07:54] _sj_: the bid process is useful
[07:54] brassratgirl: a reasonable bid can always be improved over time
[07:54] SueGardner: How can we help people develop their bids?
[07:54] _sj_: when expectations are set properly
[07:54] britty_: giving a thought to 4 bids were easier than to 3 bids in my experience
[07:54] brassratgirl: and we all know that a bid on paper doesn't necessarily equal the reality anyway
[07:54] MichaelSnow: kms is more a rough idea than a firm rule
[07:54] DamianFinol: Whereas if you take Asia for example, capital cities are veeeery far apart
[07:54] _sj_: we can provide better templates
[07:54] bastique: Provide them with concrete information as to what we want to see
[07:54] britty_: considering three, I saw our discusssions tend to focus on only two of them
[07:54] _sj_: perhaps a support group for early bids
[07:54] SueGardner: Yes re templates - +1
[07:55] _sj_: here's how to organie thoughts / consider timelines
[07:55] bastique: DamianFinol: well Macao and Hong Kong are fairly close 
[07:55] _sj_: here's who you should think about contacting
[07:55] brassratgirl: but having just a couple places is discouraging, and also sends a stronger message to the losing team: "no really, we hate atlanta"
[07:55] DamianFinol: bastique, Same, uhm, 'country' 
[07:55] brassratgirl: (imho)
[07:55] _sj_: here's how to frame your requests so that you can still use goodwill for alocal conf if you don't win the wikmania bid
[07:55] bastique: Seoul and Pyongyang
[07:55] _sj_: esp when pitching to sponsors
[07:55] _sj_: again, expectations
[07:55] SueGardner: Yes re a support group: maybe earlier host groups could volunteer to mentor bidders during the bidding process?
[07:55] DamianFinol: And I don't know if the PRC will sort of let us host WM in Hong Kong
[07:55] brassratgirl: bid templates: beyond criteria?
[07:56] brassratgirl: we could probably push the bids in particular directions with certain kinds of templates
[07:56] SueGardner: As a juror last time, I found it difficult to compare bids because the information wasn't presented in an easily-comparable manner.
[07:56] bastique: okay, templates 
[07:56] DamianFinol: Like a table SueGardner ?
[07:56] SueGardner: Yeah, something like that.
[07:56] brassratgirl: ok, templates for the bids;
[07:57] brassratgirl: rotation tba
[07:57] _sj_: here are examples of good bids : clear roles, clear goals, serious assessment of network, accessibility (including cost), potential for local collabs around the event
[07:57] DamianFinol: _sj_, venue 
[07:57] _sj_: a bidder's "questionnaire" that guides them to anse3wr things that show up in the table
[07:57] brassratgirl: well, for instance, I think we were all impressed by Argentina's budget charts; but probably other bids could have come up with those
[07:57] eia: hmm
[07:57] _sj_: this checklist can overlap with achal's
[07:57] _sj_: for criteria and post-conf review
[07:57] eia: I believe that we should allow people freedom too
[07:57] SueGardner: Yes, a questionnaire would help with comparability too.
[07:57] brassratgirl: but we don't want leading questions
[07:57] bastique: We won't be able to formalize criteria during this meeting.
[07:57] _sj_: eia: definitgely
[07:57] SueGardner: y
[07:57] brassratgirl: OK. so once we have our perfect bids
[07:58] eia: if they want to do something unexpectedly, sure
[07:58] _sj_: -g*
[07:58] brassratgirl: who decides?
[07:58] bastique: brassratgirl: I was getting to that
[07:58] brassratgirl: Damian wants voting 
[07:58] • eia wants jury 
[07:58] brassratgirl: bastique: I'm impatient! sorry.
[07:58] bastique: Community voting?
[07:58] _sj_: O M G
[07:58] DamianFinol: A jury should weed out bids that are lacking
[07:58] SueGardner: From the perspective of the Foundation, I want incompetent bids eliminated 
[07:58] DamianFinol: and leave two or three strong bids
[07:58] brassratgirl: yes
[07:58] bastique: Okay, I've had two people ask to be on the Jury so far.
[07:58] DamianFinol: And leeting the community vote at that year WM
[07:58] brassratgirl: which is why we need more than 3 bids total
[07:58] DamianFinol: letting
[07:58] bastique: DamianFinol: that's a very good idea
[07:58] brassratgirl: bastique: can you say who?
[07:58] DamianFinol: This gives bidders a chance to sort of present their bid at that WM
[07:59] eia: DamianFinol: that would leave less time to prepare
[07:59] bastique: DamianFinol and Dan Rosenthol
[07:59] DamianFinol: A year
[07:59] eia: and no time to walk along with the current organization
[07:59] DamianFinol: and by then you already have most of the information ready
[07:59] brassratgirl: ha! dan's never been to a conference
[07:59] eia: no opportunity to learn
[07:59] DamianFinol: BA Was selected two months before WM08
[07:59] MichaelSnow: brassratgirl: Is that a reason not to have someone on the jury?
[07:59] SueGardner: (Incidentally, if there is a jury, I think it needs to agree to adhere to the criteria. Its job is not to reopen the criteria/secondguess them.)
[07:59] bastique: he would be a good choice.  I think you need the uninitiated to help decide
[07:59] eia: DamianFinol: yeah, and I believe it would have been better if they were selected earlier
[07:59] eia: imho
[07:59] brassratgirl: michaelsnow: in my opinion yes, others may differ
[08:00] eia: SueGardner: definitely
[08:00] _sj_: chance to present/show off is good for inspiring others
[08:00] DamianFinol: Yep
[08:00] _sj_: maybe whatever we choose on voting, we can encourage people to show off bids 2 yrs in advance at wikimania
[08:00] MichaelSnow: brassratgirl: I think I'm going to have to differ, then
[08:00] _sj_: and offer booths to any bid teams who want to be there
[08:00] Austin: I agree that at least *attending* a conference and knowing what you're selecting a venue for is important.
[08:00] DamianFinol: And the community, the WM community gets to pick
[08:00] DamianFinol: Through democracy
[08:00] _sj_: agreed re: the jury evaluating competence acording to criteria
[08:00] bastique: brassratgirl: I think a lot more people want to attend than actually make it.  I think having some of those people decide will go a long way toward having more people make it
[08:00] _sj_: not setting criteria
[08:00] bastique: and if we strengthen the criteria
[08:00] DamianFinol: Also, a lot of WM attendees can ask questions to the bidders
[08:00] eia: _sj_: might be an option, but I dont believe you can expect people to do so much that long in advance 
[08:00] DamianFinol: Open questions, face to face
[08:01] eia: we're too muhc of a dynamic community 
[08:01] _sj_: jury membrership should be a bit time consuming, an important task, but no big deal
[08:01] bastique: and require that bids meet the criteria
[08:01] Mido: I don't think a community voting is a good way to select the venue
[08:01] _sj_: in that any competent community members should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion
[08:01] Mido: at all
[08:01] delphine: MichaelSnow: well, if the reason for not wanting someone on the jury is 'we don't want only French people on the jury", then yes, there is a reason for not wanting someone on the jury
[08:01] _sj_: andnot rule out all coungtries that practice a certain religion, for instance 
[08:01] barcex: I agree with Mido.
[08:01] bastique: I'm also believe that Mido or some other person from the 2008 team should be on the jury
[08:02] DamianFinol: Mido, Is there a reason?
[08:02] James_F: Of course.
[08:02] Mido: we should have clear criteria and a selected jury and give very clear explanation for the selected venue
[08:02] _sj_: maybe last two years for continuity?
[08:02] James_F: _sj_> Only two?
[08:02] SueGardner: I think it needs to be understood that being on the jury is _work_.
[08:02] eia: DamianFinol: it is a complicated decision
[08:02] brassratgirl: well, re: attendees -- I have often thought that if some people who were dissatisfied with the jury realized just how boring and hard it is to sort through the criteria, they wouldn't complain as much 
[08:02] bastique: Yes, but at least one different person from Taipei
[08:02] eia: I dont think it is a good subject to leave to the community at large
[08:03] SueGardner: Like, ensuring bids are complete and understandable, measuring against criteria, seeking out additional info as required, etc.
[08:03] bastique: Wing could act as Taipei person and board member
[08:03] brassratgirl: so yeah, having some non-attendees might be helpful
[08:03] MichaelSnow: delphine: Sure, there are reasons to exclude individuals, but not having attended Wikimania before is a form of diversity, not a lack of it
[08:03] Mido: DamianFinol: a conference is not a wiki 
[08:03] eia: nor do I think the community is eager to vote on it
[08:03] eia: I prefer to select some community people
[08:03] britty_: MichaelSnow, I think experience is needed
[08:03] delphine: MichaelSnow: ah sorry, missed that part. Then I agree. Yes.
[08:03] eia: from all corners
[08:03] DamianFinol: This is how I saw it: Bidding starts January 2009, bidders put up their bids, work on the, find sponsors, already have venues etc. Say 8 bids pop up. A jury picks the two or three strongest ones
[08:03] barcex: Let me say that in my opinion the most important criteria for selecting a bid is the bidding team.
[08:03] eia: and let them "represent" the community
[08:03] Austin: Michael: it's not about diversity, imo.
[08:03] eia: but let the community of course participate
[08:03] DamianFinol: Those two or three go to WM09, show their bids, receive questions from atendees
[08:03] DamianFinol: Then there's a voting process between those two/three
[08:04] Austin: You're asking someone to judge "is this venue the best fit for the conference?" without actually knowing what the conference involves.
[08:04] DamianFinol: You already had a jury to weed out bad, or lacking bids
[08:04] eia: DamianFinol: but that would leave out again the whole "walk with the previous wikimania" opportunity
[08:04] eia: to get some experience
[08:04] eia: to see what goes wrong behind the screens
[08:04] MichaelSnow: No one individual judges by themselves, the jury does it as a group
[08:04] bastique: Austin: I think the last four conferences have involved many different things
[08:04] delphine: Austin: when we started, we decided for the Haus der Jugend, without knowing. It was good.
[08:04] brassratgirl: well... I don't think we know if the community wants to vote on it or not
[08:04] SueGardner: Michael: yes, I agree.
[08:04] brassratgirl: some do, some don't
[08:04] DamianFinol: Then let both of the bidding teams walk
[08:04] Austin: del, yeah
[08:05] bastique: I'm a bit nervous about community voting
[08:05] brassratgirl: some people on the lists are very vocal but probably non-representative
[08:05] delphine: Frankly, if you have enough people who know, you don't need ALL to know.
[08:05] eia: DamianFinol: thats too much of a walking 
[08:05] MichaelSnow: I'm confident that someone who has never attended can learn from others on the jury what is generally needed
[08:05] DamianFinol: Either way, it's good experience, if that team isn't picked they'll have a better experience the following year
[08:05] brassratgirl: the problem with voting is it's not totally representative
[08:05] bastique: Because the community generally isn't prepared to weigh all the considerations
[08:05] Austin: I'm not saying it's a dealbreaker, I'm just arguing that it's a factor.
[08:05] eia: and btw, still causes that the available community is biased (more locals) and are not expert
[08:05] • delphine has a mind of being accepted on the jury as non voting member but as "devil's advocate"
[08:05] brassratgirl: alex is the first to bid twice and get it on the 2nd year...
[08:05] DamianFinol: the problem with jury, is it's definately not totally representative brassratgirl
[08:05] brassratgirl: delphine: that was my job last year!
[08:05] MichaelSnow: As long as enough of the jury has experience, a fresh face or two would be a good thing
[08:05] bastique: With the community, it's more about "whether I can go" over "how do we make the best conference"
[08:06] delphine: in any case people, I gotta go.
[08:06] delphine is now known as delphine_away.
[08:06] brassratgirl: damian: right. does it need to be representative?
[08:06] brassratgirl: Michael: agreed
[08:06] eia: bastique: areed yes!
[08:06] Austin: I'm with Cary on this
[08:06] SueGardner: Bye Delphine!
[08:06] patricio: the wikimania's attendees are not representative either: there's many local people
[08:06] bastique: Definitely
[08:07] britty_: bastique, I trust wing but was he involved to organize the conference at that time?
[08:07] Austin: And I definitely believe that putting it to a vote of that year's attendees doesn't make any sense.
[08:07] Austin: s/that/one/
[08:07] bastique: right 
[08:07] Austin: Er, s/that y/one y/
[08:07] brassratgirl: OK, so in the past we've had the jury made up of:
[08:07] brassratgirl: previous organizers, because they knew something about wikimania
[08:08] brassratgirl: sue, to represent the foundation's interests
[08:08] brassratgirl: board members, also for the foundation's interests
[08:08] brassratgirl: these all seem like good things to me
[08:08] bastique: People have complained that the jury has been mostly made up of people who weren't really a part of the community
[08:08] brassratgirl: sigh
[08:08] eia: brassratgirl: and long time visitors
[08:08] eia: iirc
[08:08] DamianFinol: That's what I want to sort of fix bastique
[08:08] eia: dror and...
[08:08] britty_: i agree with Austin: if someone is experienced to organize a conf, it would be another consideration though
[08:08] brassratgirl: right
[08:08] bastique: DamianFinol: yes, me too
[08:09] brassratgirl: chapter people, actually
[08:09] DamianFinol: Then maybe leave a few places so people can vote for people to get IN the jury?
[08:09] britty_: but have we already agreed Wikimania should be what we think wikimania is?
[08:09] brassratgirl: who also are long time visitors
[08:09] SueGardner: See, I think if the criteria are correct, the makeup of the jury does not matter much.
[08:09] James_F: bastique> The jury's also had a good half of everyone who's managed to visit all four conferences.
[08:09] brassratgirl: I don't remember who else
[08:09] britty_: Then lack of past confs is a fatal disadvantage imho
[08:09] SueGardner: Why should everyone have to be an expert in every bid? (Like, if we were to put it to a community vote.)
[08:09] brassratgirl: SueGardner: yes, but, the jury has historically also set the criteria
[08:09] eia: besides the *who*, does the size matter?
[08:09] bastique: James_F: I think these people should be responsible for setting the criteria, which is more important
[08:09] SueGardner: Maybe the community should just vote on the criteria 
[08:09] eia: to speed it up?
[08:09] brassratgirl: this is part of the problem 
[08:10] brassratgirl: SueGardner: ack!
[08:10] eia: SueGardner: voting on the criteria? 
[08:10] Austin: Actually, historically we've put up a page on meta and said "please edit the criteria for us"
[08:10] Austin: Sue: we asked
[08:10] bastique: experienced people setting the criteria
[08:10] James_F: bastique> I agree. I don't follow the leap from "they're important" to "we must fill it with new people regardless of their merits".
[08:10] Austin: Sue: Nobody showed any interest
[08:10] bastique: variety of people be on the jury
[08:10] SueGardner: That's sad re lack of interest.
[08:10] James_F: Yes, but it is how it is.
[08:10] Austin: We get plenty of people happy to bitch about the decision after the fact, but nobody who wants to edit the criteria ahead of time.  
[08:10] brassratgirl: I like the idea of a few empty spots on the jury
[08:11] brassratgirl: or else at least publicizing who is on it
[08:11] SueGardner: Well, that is one of my questions. What level of bitching could be considered normal & unavoidable, and are we above that threshold? 
[08:11] brassratgirl: and why
[08:11] bastique: We get the criteria set...  let the jury be composed of a broad group, including a few formerly non-attendees
[08:11] patricio: i want to reinforce barcex's point: I think one of the most important criteria is the bidding team
[08:11] Austin: Actually, I think it's fine as-is.
[08:11] eia: SueGardner: bitching as in? 
[08:11] brassratgirl: there was not too much complaining about Argentina getting picked, was there?
[08:11] MichaelSnow: Two-stage jury? One to set the criteria, an expanded one to decide between bids?
[08:11] DamianFinol: brassratgirl, There's always bitching
[08:11] brassratgirl: (because it's AWESOME  )
[08:12] bastique: brassratgirl: no, it was the way Brisbane was ruled out
[08:12] DamianFinol: I sort of received a few messages about BA
[08:12] Austin: I think we're unduly concerned about being fair and avoiding conflict, when people are going to make a fuss no matter what.
[08:12] DamianFinol: And I certainly received a few messages about Alexandria (even though I wasn't even IN the jury)
[08:12] SueGardner: Austin: I think that may be true.
[08:12] brassratgirl_ joined the chat room.
[08:12] SueGardner: So. Do we need to revisit/reconfirm the criteria?
[08:12] brassratgirl_ was granted voice by ChanServ.
[08:12] eia: just set criteria
[08:12] Angela: perhaps just widening the jury would make the process appear fairer to those who were complaining it was unfair?
[08:12] eia: ask for community input
[08:12] bastique: We should firm up the criteria
[08:13] eia: and see how fair it is
[08:13] bastique: Bingo Angela
[08:13] DamianFinol: People are always going to bitch; the thing is, should we sort of give them the right to bitch, or let them bitch because they want to?
[08:13] _sj_: patricio: +1
[08:13] _sj_: a good team makes the conference
[08:13] bastique: Angela: +1
[08:13] brassratgirl_: I also do like the idea of community voting between the finalists
[08:13] eia: Angela: even larger jury?
[08:13] James_F: Angela> A sop to those complaining is not a good move.
[08:13] Angela: eia: yes
[08:13] brassratgirl_: but it sounds like I'm in the minority
[08:13] DamianFinol: That's what I said!
[08:13] eia: how workable would the jury be?
[08:13] eia: maybe something former jury folks can better judge
[08:13] brassratgirl_: the problem is if the jury works via consensus it's difficult to get it with a big group
[08:13] eia: but it seemed already rather unworkable last year to me
[08:13] _sj_: (and barcex)
[08:13] James_F: Angela> We should expand the jury because we believe that it would come to a better decision, not to pacify people who complain.
[08:13] bastique: I don't know about widening the jury
[08:13] SueGardner: Have you ever done an open call for jury members?
[08:14] eia: so I'd earlier vouch for a smaller jury
[08:14] Angela: brassratgirl: I don't think you need total consensus
[08:14] James_F: Yes.
[08:14] bastique: I don't think everyone who was on the jury this year should be on the jury next year
[08:14] brassratgirl_: James_F: I do think expanding the jury in some manner is a good idea
[08:14] brassratgirl_: Sue: no.
[08:14] bastique: Or necessarily
[08:14] bastique: let me rephrase that
[08:14] bastique: I think people can drop off the jury
[08:14] James_F: Certainly.
[08:14] bastique: I think some people can be more focused on criteria (PLEASE)
[08:14] DamianFinol: I'll drop off bastique
[08:14] bastique: DamianFinol: you've only been on once
[08:14] DamianFinol: I'll certainly help if you guys ned
[08:14] DamianFinol: need
[08:14] eia: dror will drop off too iirc 
[08:14] brassratgirl_: people have always been personally invited to be on the jury by either being a former organizer, or invited by former organizers
[08:14] bastique: but okay if you want to help with criteria, then by all means
[08:14] brassratgirl_: except for the board members, who chose themselves
[08:15] _sj_: also : committing to sponsor someone from leading bid teams to attend wikimania would be appropriate
[08:15] Austin: The thing about enlarging the jury is that I like to see the decision made by consensus.
[08:15] SueGardner: What if the jury was split into two: a group that did the work of prepping the bids & criteria, and a group that made the decision according to the criteria?
[08:15] eia: but thats about people again, sorry
[08:15] dungodung was granted voice by you.
[08:15] _sj_: it's a lot of work to organize a bid, you learn a lot, the local community grows a lot
[08:15] _sj_: this would help people not feel tey've been totally left out
[08:15] patricio: people, I have to go now; i'll read you later
[08:15] SueGardner: The second group could be bigger and looser.
[08:15] dungodung: yay! I can talk
[08:15] bastique: I voiced filip because he's attended quite a bit
[08:15] _sj_: and build a community of itnerested proto-organizers with first-hand wikimania experience
[08:15] SueGardner: Bye Patricio.
[08:15] brassratgirl_: _sj_: sponsoring bid organizers, yes
[08:15] DamianFinol: Just one thing: If we chose to let people select people for the jury (at least some spots) then make the spot I'm leaving free up for the people to be voted in
[08:15] brassratgirl_: (again, the early notice of scholarships would be helpful)
[08:16] britty_: bastique it just meant no part of enwiki instead?
[08:16] eia: DamianFinol: what is the added value for a vote here?
[08:16] brassratgirl_: I think the jury members should be geographically representative and project-representative
[08:16] bastique: brassratgirl: absolutely
[08:16] barcex: Hope to see you on Wednesday, bye!
[08:16] barcex left the chat room. ("adios")
[08:16] _sj_: SueGardner, I like the idea of community collaborating on the criteria
[08:16] DamianFinol: You'll kill the bitchers (rightfully so) that say 'But that jury is made with people that don't represent the community!'
[08:16] SueGardner: I agree, Phoebe: if there is going to be a jury its role is to represent the community & lend legitimacy to the final choice.
[08:16] DamianFinol: or whatever
[08:16] Austin: I'm not convinced that "representative" is really what we're after.
[08:16] DamianFinol: Which is sort of true
[08:16] _sj_: that could be an answer to how people address larger issues / bring them up for discussion
[08:16] Austin: We're looking for a good decision.
[08:17] Angela: I don't think project-representative is relevant to the conference
[08:17] eia: DamianFinol: bad luck for the bitchers imho
[08:17] DamianFinol: No, they're right
[08:17] eia: they complain always
[08:17] _sj_: lack of interest in the past may have been due ot how it was presented.
[08:17] _sj_: I never quite felt it had the right tone
[08:17] bastique: _sj_: that's right
[08:17] brassratgirl_: Of course they complain. But this is also about rethinking how we do things
[08:17] James_F: SueGardner> I disagree. The job of the jury is to pick the best bid. Everything else is frippery.
[08:17] brassratgirl_: not appeasing complainers 
[08:17] DamianFinol: So less of them complains
[08:17] britty_: SueGardner, good question but why a person who haven7t been even no part of online team?
[08:17] SueGardner: There are two jobs for the jury: to pick the right bid, and to defend the choice 
[08:17] MichaelSnow: Project representation might be more important for the program committee?
[08:17] eia: anyway
[08:17] eia: i cant focus anymore
[08:17] eia: meeting for over two hours
[08:17] brassratgirl_: we want a good decision, but part of that is getting buy-in and happiness from the community
[08:18] eia: lets wrap up?
[08:18] eia: please? 
[08:18] brassratgirl_: since it is a community event *ahem*
[08:18] SueGardner: aw, Lodewijk 
[08:18] bastique: I think we're going to get a lot of people look at the complaints about Alexandria and say, "see you can't do this right"
[08:18] eia: i dont think we will come to a conclusion soon anyway
[08:18] DamianFinol: And I'm probably getting on people's nerves by trying to bring more democracy to this; but I believe in it; specially when I'm losing it in real life
[08:18] DamianFinol: So yes
[08:18] Angela: MichaelSnow: for the program maybe, but not necessarily the committee. I think people who don't edit wikibooks are capable of making sure some presentations on that get into the program
[08:18] bastique: DamianFinol: No, I appreciate it
[08:18] brassratgirl_: I want to be able to say to anyone: the people who made the decision are in that position because of ____"
[08:18] brassratgirl_: that's been a hard question to answer in the past
[08:18] SueGardner: Phoebe: agreed.
[08:19] bastique: phoebe: absolutely
[08:19] James_F: DamianFinol> I disagree that your suggestsions would result in "democracy".
[08:19] DamianFinol: But more representation from the community at least
[08:19] James_F: I disagree, frankly.
[08:19] Austin: Phoebe: we had rationale for the members for the last jury.
[08:19] SueGardner: This is a tough one to resolve: how can we move it forward?
[08:19] James_F: We spent weeks last time having a rationale for every single person on the Bid Committee.
[08:19] Austin: I'm pretty sure they were posted on meta.
[08:19] James_F: Every single one.
[08:19] MichaelSnow: brassratgirl: I think an open call for volunteers might help with that
[08:19] Austin: James, yes.
[08:19] Austin: Thank you for confirming that I wasn't just imagining that.
[08:19] James_F: So now we're going to turn around and pretend that we never did that, but in the magic wonderful future it'll all be better?
[08:20] James_F: This isn't rational.
[08:20] brassratgirl_: OK. So I want to continue that fine tradition.
[08:20] bastique: I'm trying to remember when those weeks occurred
[08:20] DamianFinol: This is why we are having this meetings
[08:20] _sj_: sue: separate groups is an interesting thought.  the bid-prep and criteria-massaging group could be open to all
[08:20] James_F: In retrospect, we should have done it better, but we *did* do it.
[08:20] • eia reminds tha there are two more meetings
[08:20] bastique: one more re: this topic
[08:20] brassratgirl_: Look. The process is perceived as being arbitrary by at least some people.
[08:20] _sj_: since by asing everyone to editi criteria we're really inviting people to hel with criteria-prep but not quite empowering them to feel their voice would be listened to
[08:20] DamianFinol: James_F, This is the time to fo it better
[08:20] bastique: there is no wednesday morning meeting
[08:20] brassratgirl_: Maybe that will never change.
[08:20] James_F: eia> Two more meetings that not everyone might be able to attend.
[08:20] DamianFinol: brassratgirl Some?
[08:20] Mido left the chat room. (Connection reset by peer)
[08:20] brassratgirl_: but *I* am also unhappy with the process.
[08:20] eia: nor is everybody able to attend this one
[08:21] DamianFinol: brassratgirl Try to read foundation-l / wm-l after a bid is selected
[08:21] _sj_: an open call for that group could just be  amatter of people wanting to self-identify with the 'mania process
[08:21] _sj_: it /feels/ as though it's closed even if it is not
[08:21] SueGardner: Phoebe: unhappy enough to write up some recommendations?
[08:21] eia: James_F: I realize that, especially since i wont be able to attend next week
[08:21] SueGardner: LOL.
[08:21] James_F: DamianFinol> Try to read it before a bid is selected. 
[08:21] eia: since I'll be in UK
[08:21] eia: so... 
[08:21] bastique: There will not be a formal meeting wednesday at 1300 UTC
[08:21] brassratgirl_: DamianFinol: I know, I know
[08:21] DamianFinol: There's definately more bitching after 
[08:21] Angela: is there some other way that people could be involved and useful without being on the jury?
[08:21] Mido joined the chat room.
[08:21] brassratgirl_: I was one of the few people who answered messages, remember? 
[08:21] eia: bastique: yeah, sorry, one more meeting
[08:21] SueGardner: Angela: yes. I like SJ's idea about opening up the pre-process.
[08:21] DamianFinol: AS of right now we only let the community have a voice (asking questions)
[08:21] Austin: I think the process is actually pretty good; the jury makeup can be refined, and the process definitely needs to be more widely understood.
[08:21] MichaelSnow: _sj_: It could also bring in people who are trying to open it up
[08:21] DamianFinol: but no choosing power
[08:21] _sj_: the group that hopefully comes to consensus should be people trusted to assess neutrally a given set of criteria
[08:22] Mido was granted voice by ChanServ.
[08:22] brassratgirl_: Angela: a great question
[08:22] James_F: _sj_> The "hopefully" led to a month's delay last time.
[08:22] britty_: honestly bitching way of dan was disruptive and unacceptable for me; it overloaded my politeness criteria as Asian
[08:22] bastique: you mean the consensus?
[08:22] britty_: I honestly am not sure if I can work with him
[08:22] _sj_: and not be swayed by nationalism, anger, friendship, &c.
[08:22] brassratgirl_: which is precisely why he needs to be on the jury, and we can assign him all the work 
[08:22] bastique: britty_: You were on the last two juries though
[08:23] _sj_: but having a large group of biased people vote can at times come to equally good decisions 
[08:23] bastique: Maybe you can help with the criteria?
[08:23] britty_: SueGardner, no open call iirc
[08:24] SueGardner: K. I am not sure how we are going to resolve the bidding process questions.
[08:24] DamianFinol: Maybe have a vote with the two most strong bidders (picked by a jury), the voters must have attended WM in the past
[08:24] James_F: SueGardner> Make a decision. People will hate the decision, whatever it is. 
[08:24] bastique: And we need active moderators too
[08:24] brassratgirl_: we should write up a spectrum of possibilities; it's a little hard to keep track of
[08:25] James_F: DamianFinol> I think that that would (a) weight towards the populist over the best, (b) weight towards richer Wikimedians, and (c) assumes two (and no more) really good bits.
[08:25] bastique: People who will keep the jury in line and on track
[08:25] brassratgirl_: and what's wrong with populist, precisely, if all the bids are reasonable?
[08:26] DamianFinol: Exactly
[08:26] bastique: good point
[08:26] eia: brassratgirl: it's not the best, and not representative
[08:26] dungodung: wasn't andrew a mod last year?
[08:26] bastique: best is subjective
[08:26] eia: it favors the locals from last few years
[08:26] brassratgirl_: I mean, I'm not saying that one of the bids is "dan's backyard", but assuming all the bids are good
[08:26] DamianFinol: Plus it could be an online vote; if I couldn't make to this one, but to the Egyptian one because I lived in Egypt I can vote
[08:26] bastique: dungodung: *cough*
[08:26] brassratgirl_: andrew wasn't active, dungodung
[08:26] bastique: nominally
[08:26] DamianFinol: eia, But a jury picked by nobody IS representative?
[08:26] dungodung: I'm not saying anything 
[08:26] eia: and it is all about "can i attend" rather then the best choise
[08:26] dungodung: just reminding... not to make the same mistakes again 
[08:26] DamianFinol: Ok
[08:26] DamianFinol: How about this?
[08:27] _sj_: I think most variations on voting would always lean towards picking a place that is cheaper to get to / closer / run by people from the largest editing communities
[08:27] eia: DamianFinol: it doesn't have to be representative, but we should not pick a system because of that that is not it
[08:27] DamianFinol: Instead of a 'vote' you can say what you think of certain criteria of a bid
[08:27] _sj_: unless we radically change how we tell / inspire peoplea bout wikimania
[08:27] DamianFinol: Make it a survey
[08:27] brassratgirl_: and as I said, what is so terrible about that?
[08:27] Austin: sj's point is a good one.
[08:27] _sj_: damin: that would be great
[08:27] bastique: Moderator work will be time consuming
[08:27] _sj_: non-binding, but specific focused commentary
[08:27] DamianFinol: I think Miami has a venue: (pick from 1 to 10 where 10 is perfect)
[08:27] bastique: Yay Miami
[08:27] brassratgirl_: we're assuming a lot -- that rotation to far away places actually is a good idea, for instance
[08:27] DamianFinol: accesibility: (1 to 10), etc etc
[08:27] _sj_: let people who want to help do the legwork of researching prices and geting cites and local details do that
[08:27] SueGardner: y
[08:28] SueGardner: (Phoebe re assumptions.0
[08:28] brassratgirl left the chat room. (Connection timed out)
[08:28] brassratgirl_: what about asking people to help with evaluating bids?
[08:28] brassratgirl_: like SJ said
[08:28] brassratgirl_: if they want to help out, they can do the same work the jury does
[08:28] bastique: Sure
[08:28] DamianFinol: When thaty survey is over, just tally it up
[08:28] bastique: one of the juror complaints was that there was tm;dr
[08:28] _sj_: is there any reason the jury deliberations / assessments need to be private?
[08:28] Angela: they should definitely help to evaluate them, but that doesn't mean they need to be given a vote or position on the jury
[08:28] bastique: difficult to understand
[08:28] brassratgirl_: right
[08:29] bastique: _sj_: no
[08:29] brassratgirl_: but if someone evaluates a bid and says "this is terrible because x"
[08:29] Austin: Cary, well, that's what being on the jury involves.
[08:29] _sj_: are there important aspects of assesment that would be painful for bidders to see, requiring secrecy?
[08:29] bastique: no reason at all
[08:29] DamianFinol: anyone has any input on my idea?
[08:29] brassratgirl_: presumably that would sway the jury
[08:29] brassratgirl_: the thing is, the jury's work really is hard and boring
[08:29] brassratgirl_: and it would be nice to have help
[08:29] _sj_: I think most people would be happy with selection by jury if it were transparent
[08:29] bastique: Austin: Yes, but then we're blaming the jury for not trying hard enough
[08:29] _sj_: especially if there were a public sidechannel for ongoing discussion as well
[08:29] bastique: I got this complaint from a number of the previous jurors
[08:29] brassratgirl_: more transparent
[08:29] SueGardner: SJ: yes, it could theoretically get painful. The jury needs to make assumptions based on partial information, about the local team's competency.
[08:29] brassratgirl_: some things should be private, probably
[08:30] bastique: this tells me it should be fixed
[08:30] brassratgirl_: SueGardner: exactly
[08:30] Mido_ joined the chat room.
[08:30] DamianFinol: bah, well,
[08:30] DamianFinol: AFK I need to make some phone calls
[08:30] bastique: DamianFinol: which Idea
[08:30] DamianFinol: I was supposed to go to a protest today
[08:30] bastique: please summarize it again
[08:30] DamianFinol: at the supreme court in Venezuela
[08:30] bastique: take picture
[08:30] _sj_: sue: I can see that
[08:30] bastique: write a wikinews article
[08:30] DamianFinol: I got a profesionall camera for that
[08:31] DamianFinol: so I could do it bastique
[08:31] DamianFinol: well loaned it
[08:31] _sj_: though there are positive ways to present most differences in experience and competence
[08:31] DamianFinol: But missed it because of this meeting
[08:31] Austin: Another thing about openness is that confidential information could (and probably should) come into play.
[08:31] _sj_: we didn't insult all previous years pre-bidorganizational skill
[08:31] Austin: Lined-up sponsorships, budget information.
[08:31] _sj_: but one or two recent bids have been really fantastic in that regard.
[08:31] Austin: There should be a jury somewhere in the process that can evaluate that.
[08:31] _sj_: I don't think we would have insulted the previous teams even if they ahd all been bidding together in 2004
[08:31] _sj_: (even in private 
[08:32] _sj_: it seems to me that a transparent review process imposes extra burdens on the jurors
[08:32] DamianFinol: My idea was: instead of voting 'Do you prefer A or B?' we could go 'In terms of Venue do you think A's venue is from 1 to 10:, local team, budget, planning (from 1 to 10)' then do the same for bid B and bid C
[08:32] _sj_: incentive not to be crude
[08:32] britty_: dungodung, according to leibniz every single substance represents theirselves
[08:32] bastique: the process can be transparent.  Discussions can still be private
[08:32] MichaelSnow: At some point, you can't delegate a decision to some person or group and have the decision-making process remain completely transparent to you
[08:32] eia: you need to design it in a way that the jury can still make an independent decision...
[08:33] britty_: so you at least represent yourself as so created
[08:33] DamianFinol: You could make that binding, as in the one who has the strongest points wins, or non binding
[08:33] _sj_: and penalties / flame wars when people are
[08:33] DamianFinol: but still strong
[08:33] eia: ie, the survey should not seem to force the jury to a direction
[08:33] dungodung: britty_: I don't follow
[08:33] _sj_: but you could say the same thing about having private discussions on public talk pages.
[08:33] James_F: eia> Informative, not binding.
[08:33] SueGardner: I think we need to start thinking about wrapping up. Should we try a mailing list conversation for this, between now and Wednesday, maybe?
[08:33] SueGardner: Or would that possibly not help?
[08:33] eia: James_F: but wording can do a lot, so i say be careful witht ha too
[08:33] eia: that too
[08:33] MichaelSnow: SueGardner: Yes (to the first question)
[08:34] SueGardner: MichaelSnow wants breakfast too 
[08:34] _sj_: (-:
[08:34] eia: SueGardner: and we need sj's notes 
[08:34] • bastique has someone to cook for him
[08:34] bastique: _sj_: yes, please write notes
[08:34] _sj_: bastique, lucky dog
[08:34] eia: as in, soon 
[08:34] _sj_: bastique, stopping point?
[08:34] MichaelSnow: bastique: So do I, but she's still in bed
[08:34] bastique: well, it's a bagel and smoked salmon
[08:34] Mido__ joined the chat room.
[08:34] • bastique bangs the gavel