Preparation for the meeting in Berlin, 24 March

[Austin Hair]

Hi all,

As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template
page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that
most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at
the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with
your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you
can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your
own.

Meanwhile, the charter[2] has seen more edits, but still has some way
to go. It's probably worth checking every day or two just to see
what's changed, and edit if you feel so compelled.

Cheers,

Austin

[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_2011-3-11
[1] http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_meeting
[2] http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi all,

Post by Austin Hair
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template
page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that
most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at
the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with
your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you
can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your
own.

thinking about topics for working groups I realized that the schedule
on Saturday (after the workiing groups) privides a session
"Accountability and Legitimacy". The session, which was suggested by
Erik, takes place parallel to the GLAM-session and I believe both will
be attractive for chapters. GLAM becaus it is GLAM and "Erik's
session" because it picks up daily problems of chapters. Many mails on
the chapters' or internal mailing list and talks with chapter people
show that there are lots of questions about that. And compared to
movement roles issues this might be a topic which is very concrete to
many chapters. And this might be important because it makes this
session much more sexy than any of our working groups.

Accountability and legitimacy is an issue for movement roles as well,
maybe more abstract and more global. It would be fatal to step into
some kind of competition or even rivalry to this session. I would love
to see us getting the best out of both, but I doubt that movement
roles really rock the chapters. And therefore it sounds easy to
combine both approaches but I am pretty sure it isn't. Asking myself
how to realize it I have these ideas:

* ask Erik about the session's composition and estimated outcome
* find out overlappings and differences
* try to build up working groups considering this
** maybe a chapter related working group as preparation/supplement for
the session
** maybe a topic related working group to clarify that this is not ony
a chapters' issue
** maybe something completely different

* create the session's composition together with Erik and one of us
and organize it with both "speakers" and a facilitator

* attend the session and participate in the discussions; then extract
the outcomes into the charter


What do you think? Is this worth thinking about at all? Is there any
other way to push the movement roles theme? Maybe I am the only one
facing <s>a problem</ s> something to think about in the schedule. So
every comment is appreciated, even if you think there is no coherence.

Regards, Alice.

[Lodewijk]

Hi,

FIrst of all,

please - stop calling it "Erik's session" :) Sessions don't belong to
people. Erik merely suggested it, he doesn't own the topic or anything, nor
does he (imho) have a veto over it. (not because he's Erik, but that is a
principle :P )

Last friday we also discussed it, and asked Bence to try and fit the session
in a wider context - I believe he would be trying to do that. But thanks for
suggesting, it means that I clearly am not the only one to think of it :)
I don't see problems with the two sessions being at the same moment btw.
They involve different kind of people - GLAM is more practical, this is more
discussion-like.

Lodewijk

Post by Austin Hair
Hi all,

Post by Austin Hair
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template
page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that
most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at
the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with
your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you
can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your
own.

thinking about topics for working groups I realized that the schedule
on Saturday (after the workiing groups) privides a session
"Accountability and Legitimacy". The session, which was suggested by
Erik, takes place parallel to the GLAM-session and I believe both will
be attractive for chapters. GLAM becaus it is GLAM and "Erik's
session" because it picks up daily problems of chapters. Many mails on
the chapters' or internal mailing list and talks with chapter people
show that there are lots of questions about that. And compared to
movement roles issues this might be a topic which is very concrete to
many chapters. And this might be important because it makes this
session much more sexy than any of our working groups.
Accountability and legitimacy is an issue for movement roles as well,
maybe more abstract and more global. It would be fatal to step into
some kind of competition or even rivalry to this session. I would love
to see us getting the best out of both, but I doubt that movement
roles really rock the chapters. And therefore it sounds easy to
combine both approaches but I am pretty sure it isn't. Asking myself
* ask Erik about the session's composition and estimated outcome
* find out overlappings and differences
* try to build up working groups considering this
** maybe a chapter related working group as preparation/supplement for
the session
** maybe a topic related working group to clarify that this is not ony
a chapters' issue
** maybe something completely different
* create the session's composition together with Erik and one of us
and organize it with both "speakers" and a facilitator
* attend the session and participate in the discussions; then extract
the outcomes into the charter
What do you think? Is this worth thinking about at all? Is there any
other way to push the movement roles theme? Maybe I am the only one
facing <s>a problem</ s> something to think about in the schedule. So
every comment is appreciated, even if you think there is no coherence.
Regards, Alice.
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi Lodewijk,

Post by Lodewijk
Hi,
FIrst of all,
please - stop calling it "Erik's session" :) Sessions don't belong to
people. Erik merely suggested it, he doesn't own the topic or anything, nor
does he (imho) have a veto over it. (not because he's Erik, but that is a
principle :P )

that was the reason for putting it into quotes. But: It is Erik who is
preparig this session and who will make the introduction and setting
up the things to discuss, isn't it? There will be nobody else jumping
into this (speaking of experience).

Post by Lodewijk
Last friday we also discussed it, and asked Bence to try and fit the session
in a wider context - I believe he would be trying to do that. But thanks for
suggesting, it means that I clearly am not the only one to think of it :)

OK, I have to read the log ;)

Post by Lodewijk
I don't see problems with the two sessions being at the same moment btw.
They involve different kind of people - GLAM is more practical, this is more
discussion-like.

Indeed, but both may get high attraction (and I fear contrary to
movemenet roles).

Thanks for your thoughts, Alice.

[Delphine Ménard]

Post by Alice Wiegand
Hi Lodewijk,

Post by Lodewijk
Hi,
FIrst of all,
please - stop calling it "Erik's session" :) Sessions don't belong to
people. Erik merely suggested it, he doesn't own the topic or anything, nor
does he (imho) have a veto over it. (not because he's Erik, but that is a
principle :P )

that was the reason for putting it into quotes. But: It is Erik who is
preparig this session and who will make the introduction and setting
up the things to discuss, isn't it? There will be nobody else jumping
into this (speaking of experience).

Post by Lodewijk
Last friday we also discussed it, and asked Bence to try and fit the session
in a wider context - I believe he would be trying to do that. But thanks for
suggesting, it means that I clearly am not the only one to think of it :)

OK, I have to read the log ;)

Post by Lodewijk
I don't see problems with the two sessions being at the same moment btw.
They involve different kind of people - GLAM is more practical, this is more
discussion-like.

Indeed, but both may get high attraction (and I fear contrary to
movemenet roles).

I wouldn't be too worried about this. Historically, chapters have been
sending two representatives to the chapters meeting exactly for that
reason, ie. being able to break into two different sessions where the
need arises.

This said, I agree with you very much that this session needs to
involve MR. Would it be possible, since we do have a topic
"Accountability and legitimacy", to simply say that we'd also like to
present the outcomes of our thoughts on the matter? I think it would
make perfect sense as something we add to Erik's introduction. If
nothing else, it might give some direction as to what has already been
happening on this front.

Cheers,

Delphine

[Bishakha Datta]

Dear Alice,

Sorry to top post, but need a quick clarification - Are you suggesting that
in addition to the MR slot which is on day one, that there be an MR
presentation (for lack of a better word) on the last day's - 27 March
Accountability and Legitimacy session?

If so, I agree that it would be a good idea, since on day 1 - 25 March, the
MR slot is at the same time as four other sessions (Wiki loves monuments,
Chapter revitalization, Professionalization, Outreach to educational instns
[1]), so this would help us reach more people.

Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session, so
it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.

Cheers
Bishakha

[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2011/Schedule

Post by Austin Hair
Hi all,

Post by Austin Hair
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template
page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that
most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at
the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with
your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you
can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your
own.

thinking about topics for working groups I realized that the schedule
on Saturday (after the workiing groups) privides a session
"Accountability and Legitimacy". The session, which was suggested by
Erik, takes place parallel to the GLAM-session and I believe both will
be attractive for chapters. GLAM becaus it is GLAM and "Erik's
session" because it picks up daily problems of chapters. Many mails on
the chapters' or internal mailing list and talks with chapter people
show that there are lots of questions about that. And compared to
movement roles issues this might be a topic which is very concrete to
many chapters. And this might be important because it makes this
session much more sexy than any of our working groups.
Accountability and legitimacy is an issue for movement roles as well,
maybe more abstract and more global. It would be fatal to step into
some kind of competition or even rivalry to this session. I would love
to see us getting the best out of both, but I doubt that movement
roles really rock the chapters. And therefore it sounds easy to
combine both approaches but I am pretty sure it isn't. Asking myself
* ask Erik about the session's composition and estimated outcome
* find out overlappings and differences
* try to build up working groups considering this
** maybe a chapter related working group as preparation/supplement for
the session
** maybe a topic related working group to clarify that this is not ony
a chapters' issue
** maybe something completely different
* create the session's composition together with Erik and one of us
and organize it with both "speakers" and a facilitator
* attend the session and participate in the discussions; then extract
the outcomes into the charter
What do you think? Is this worth thinking about at all? Is there any
other way to push the movement roles theme? Maybe I am the only one
facing <s>a problem</ s> something to think about in the schedule. So
every comment is appreciated, even if you think there is no coherence.
Regards, Alice.
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Lodewijk]

Hi,

I think there is a little confusion going on :)

The slot on day 1 is plenery. Everybody will be there. However, it is only
45 minutes, and that will be merely enough time to make people understand
what MR is all about.

Then there will be workshops - if we prepare well, we might be able to
hijack some of them - on day 2.

Finally, there is the Accountability slot, which is in a track, where the
group is split in two, which is basically part of the Movement Roles
discussion, but somehow Erik seemed to have a preference not to have it as
part of that process - and several people suggested that it should be.

Since ABBA was going to write a post about accountability, it would make
sense to let that group also make a bit of preperation - but I am personally
against any presentation longer than 3 minutes.

Lodewijk

Post by Bishakha Datta
Dear Alice,
Sorry to top post, but need a quick clarification - Are you suggesting that
in addition to the MR slot which is on day one, that there be an MR
presentation (for lack of a better word) on the last day's - 27 March
Accountability and Legitimacy session?
If so, I agree that it would be a good idea, since on day 1 - 25 March, the
MR slot is at the same time as four other sessions (Wiki loves monuments,
Chapter revitalization, Professionalization, Outreach to educational instns
[1]), so this would help us reach more people.
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session, so
it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.
Cheers
Bishakha
[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2011/Schedule

Post by Austin Hair
Hi all,

Post by Austin Hair
As discussed at Friday's IRC meeting[0], I've started a template
page[1] to help organize our work for meeting on the 24th. I know that
most (if not all) of you have already made travel arrangements, so at
the very least, I'd appreciate it if you could update the table with
your attendance and dates. If you want to really make me happy, you
can help flesh out the items already listed and/or add some of your
own.

thinking about topics for working groups I realized that the schedule
on Saturday (after the workiing groups) privides a session
"Accountability and Legitimacy". The session, which was suggested by
Erik, takes place parallel to the GLAM-session and I believe both will
be attractive for chapters. GLAM becaus it is GLAM and "Erik's
session" because it picks up daily problems of chapters. Many mails on
the chapters' or internal mailing list and talks with chapter people
show that there are lots of questions about that. And compared to
movement roles issues this might be a topic which is very concrete to
many chapters. And this might be important because it makes this
session much more sexy than any of our working groups.
Accountability and legitimacy is an issue for movement roles as well,
maybe more abstract and more global. It would be fatal to step into
some kind of competition or even rivalry to this session. I would love
to see us getting the best out of both, but I doubt that movement
roles really rock the chapters. And therefore it sounds easy to
combine both approaches but I am pretty sure it isn't. Asking myself
* ask Erik about the session's composition and estimated outcome
* find out overlappings and differences
* try to build up working groups considering this
** maybe a chapter related working group as preparation/supplement for
the session
** maybe a topic related working group to clarify that this is not ony
a chapters' issue
** maybe something completely different
* create the session's composition together with Erik and one of us
and organize it with both "speakers" and a facilitator
* attend the session and participate in the discussions; then extract
the outcomes into the charter
What do you think? Is this worth thinking about at all? Is there any
other way to push the movement roles theme? Maybe I am the only one
facing <s>a problem</ s> something to think about in the schedule. So
every comment is appreciated, even if you think there is no coherence.
Regards, Alice.
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Delphine Ménard]

Post by Lodewijk
Hi,
I think there is a little confusion going on :)

Bishakha, you're reading horizontally, when this should be read
vertically (it's a per day vertical schedule) ;)

Delphine

[Bishakha Datta]

Got it now! :)

Post by Delphine Ménard

Post by Lodewijk
Hi,
I think there is a little confusion going on :)

Bishakha, you're reading horizontally, when this should be read
vertically (it's a per day vertical schedule) ;)
Delphine
--
@notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi Bishakha,

Post by Bishakha Datta
Sorry to top post, but need a quick clarification - Are you suggesting that
in addition to the MR slot which is on day one, that there be an MR
presentation (for lack of a better word) on the last day's - 27 March
Accountability and Legitimacy session?

Yes, something like that. Now there is no close up for MR, an if we
are interested in peoples input and interest, that could help. We have
the first MR session on friday (it is a single session for the whole
audience, the other sessions you mentioned are on saturday and sunday
and I made the same mistake first), then there are working groups. And
that's it. Nothing to summarize, to think about next steps, to make
people feel to be part of it.
And after all MR seems to be so close to the "Accountability and
Legitimacy"-session.

Post by Bishakha Datta
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session, so
it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.

Then the first MR-session will be without Arne and you?

***
I started to write this mail 2 hours ago, was interrupted and just
stop now after Delphine and Lodewijk answered ;)


Regards, Alice.

[Delphine Ménard]

Post by Alice Wiegand
Hi Bishakha,

Post by Bishakha Datta
Sorry to top post, but need a quick clarification - Are you suggesting that
in addition to the MR slot which is on day one, that there be an MR
presentation (for lack of a better word) on the last day's - 27 March
Accountability and Legitimacy session?

Yes, something like that. Now there is no close up for MR, an if we
are interested in peoples input and interest, that could help. We have
the first MR session on friday (it is a single session for the whole
audience, the other sessions you mentioned are on saturday and sunday
and I made the same mistake first), then there are working groups. And
that's it. Nothing to summarize, to think about next steps, to make
people feel to be part of it.
And after all MR seems to be so close to the "Accountability and
Legitimacy"-session.

Post by Bishakha Datta
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session, so
it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.

Then the first MR-session will be without Arne and you?

Yes, I was wondering this as well. This makes no sense whatsoever, if
we don't have board members for the MR session :/

Delphine

[Bence Damokos]

Post by Alice Wiegand

Post by Bishakha Datta
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session,

so

Post by Bishakha Datta
it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.

Then the first MR-session will be without Arne and you?
I hope not, I've asked Ting to consider the timing of the MR session in

building the agenda of the Board Meeting and allow at least Arne, Bishakha
and SJ to attend the session.

Best regards,
Bence

[Bishakha Datta]

Post by Bence Damokos

Post by Alice Wiegand

Post by Bishakha Datta
Also, our board meeting is at the same time as the 25 March MR session,

so

Post by Bishakha Datta
it would be good from that pov also to have MR be part of two sessions.

Then the first MR-session will be without Arne and you?
I hope not, I've asked Ting to consider the timing of the MR session in

building the agenda of the Board Meeting and allow at least Arne, Bishakha
and SJ to attend the session.

Sorry for causing unnecessary confusion on multiple fronts! Just checked the
board agenda and we are all attending the MR plenary, so that has been built
in.

Cheers
Bishakha