Movement roles meeting in Berlin

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi all,

I've been asked from organizers of the Wikimedia Conference for the
second time now, if Movement Roles is planning a meeting.
There have been registrations and questions from people involved in
movement roles, but it seems as if there are still a lot of questions.
Sadly I have no idea who else want to join a meeting in Berlin, except
of Anirudh, who also has contacted me personally. I don't believe that
we are getting further if we don't start to inform us and the
organizers about the what and the who.

What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday
should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a
limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such
general conditions for their meeting. If movement roles should be part
of the conference we need to discuss this with the program organizer
Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR, those who are not
representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the general
meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone
before.)

I don't have an idea if there is any budget for a movement roles
meeting, so this is still one of the open questions. SJ, do you have
more information?
Another one is, who would like to attend the meeting on thursday.

To fix the latter I've created
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
Please sign in if you want to join the meeting.

Regards, Alice.

[aude]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been asked from organizers of the Wikimedia Conference for the
> second time now, if Movement Roles is planning a meeting.
> There have been registrations and questions from people involved in
> movement roles, but it seems as if there are still a lot of questions.
>

I think movement roles is an important and relevant topic at the
conference, though not sure what extent things will be decided before then
or what.

I am available and will happen to be in Berlin at the time anyway
(unrelated to chapters meeting), but not sure about there being a movement
roles meeting.

Cheers,
Katie



> Sadly I have no idea who else want to join a meeting in Berlin, except
> of Anirudh, who also has contacted me personally. I don't believe that
> we are getting further if we don't start to inform us and the
> organizers about the what and the who.
>
> What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday
> should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a
> limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such
> general conditions for their meeting. If movement roles should be part
> of the conference we need to discuss this with the program organizer
> Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR, those who are not
> representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the general
> meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone
> before.)
>
> I don't have an idea if there is any budget for a movement roles
> meeting, so this is still one of the open questions. SJ, do you have
> more information?
> Another one is, who would like to attend the meeting on thursday.
>
> To fix the latter I've created
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
> Please sign in if you want to join the meeting.
>
> Regards, Alice.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>



--
President, Wikimedia District of Columbia
http://wikimediadc.org
@wikimediadc / @wikimania2012

[Abbas Mahmood]

Hi all,
I'm not sure whether one session (presumably 1hr) during the Chapters Meeting will be enough to iron out all the details left. Perhaps a session during the Chapters Meeting in addition to the MR meeting prior to the Chapters Meeting will be a better choice.
Or would it be better if we would have a session during the Chapters Meeting then an MR meeting after the Chapters Meeting? That way, we will have gotten input from the chapters before finalizing the MR stuff.
--Abbas.

From: aude.wiki-***@public.gmane.org
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:56:22 -0500
To: me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org
CC: movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org; harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [Movementroles] Movement roles meeting in Berlin

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Alice Wiegand <***@googlemail.com> wrote:


Hi all,



I've been asked from organizers of the Wikimedia Conference for the

second time now, if Movement Roles is planning a meeting.

There have been registrations and questions from people involved in

movement roles, but it seems as if there are still a lot of questions.

I think movement roles is an important and relevant topic at the conference, though not sure what extent things will be decided before then or what.


I am available and will happen to be in Berlin at the time anyway (unrelated to chapters meeting), but not sure about there being a movement roles meeting.
Cheers,Katie



Sadly I have no idea who else want to join a meeting in Berlin, except

of Anirudh, who also has contacted me personally. I don't believe that

we are getting further if we don't start to inform us and the

organizers about the what and the who.



What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday

should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a

limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such

general conditions for their meeting. If movement roles should be part

of the conference we need to discuss this with the program organizer

Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR, those who are not

representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the general

meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone

before.)



I don't have an idea if there is any budget for a movement roles

meeting, so this is still one of the open questions. SJ, do you have

more information?

Another one is, who would like to attend the meeting on thursday.



To fix the latter I've created

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29

Please sign in if you want to join the meeting.



Regards, Alice.



_______________________________________________

Movementroles mailing list

Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles



--

President, Wikimedia District of Columbia

http://wikimediadc.org

@wikimediadc / @wikimania2012

[Harel Cain]

Hi everyone,

[Adding Nicole and Asaf]

A quick note as I have to leave soon: the issue here is not whether people
who will anyways be at the conference (because of their other roles or
"titles") can/should/will hold an MR meeting and whether that meeting will
be formal or informal, before/during/after the conference - this is totally
up to you and you're welcome to hold any meeting you want.

The issue at hand is whether people who are currently *not* on the list of
participants (as chapter representatives or WMF board members) should join
the conference, and the real matter here is who will pick up the tab for
their flight tickets and accommodation costs. Yes, it's about money (much
more than it is about meeting space). The way I understand it, WMDE was not
planning to bear this cost of extra attendees who are joining of their own
accord just because there is an MR meeting (without a clear list of
attendees).

Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and
whose participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?

Also, the way I understand it and from what I've been told, the MR work is
winding down and this is more or less its final stages. How many people do
we need on the meeting, and how many of them (*if at all*) need to be
funded especially so they can join the MR work?

My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at the
conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
from donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in
a process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other decision
must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the cost.



Harel Cain
Program manager for Chapters Conference 2012



On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 05:37, Abbas Mahmood <abbasjnr-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm not sure whether one session (presumably 1hr) during the Chapters
> Meeting will be enough to iron out all the details left. Perhaps a session
> during the Chapters Meeting in addition to the MR meeting prior to the
> Chapters Meeting will be a better choice.
>
> Or would it be better if we would have a session during the Chapters
> Meeting then an MR meeting after the Chapters Meeting? That way, we will
> have gotten input from the chapters before finalizing the MR stuff.
>
> --Abbas.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: aude.wiki-***@public.gmane.org
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:56:22 -0500
> To: me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org
> CC: movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org; harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org
> Subject: Re: [Movementroles] Movement roles meeting in Berlin
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been asked from organizers of the Wikimedia Conference for the
> second time now, if Movement Roles is planning a meeting.
> There have been registrations and questions from people involved in
> movement roles, but it seems as if there are still a lot of questions.
>
>
> I think movement roles is an important and relevant topic at the
> conference, though not sure what extent things will be decided before then
> or what.
>
> I am available and will happen to be in Berlin at the time anyway
> (unrelated to chapters meeting), but not sure about there being a movement
> roles meeting.
>
> Cheers,
> Katie
>
>
>
> Sadly I have no idea who else want to join a meeting in Berlin, except
> of Anirudh, who also has contacted me personally. I don't believe that
> we are getting further if we don't start to inform us and the
> organizers about the what and the who.
>
> What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday
> should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a
> limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such
> general conditions for their meeting. If movement roles should be part
> of the conference we need to discuss this with the program organizer
> Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR, those who are not
> representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the general
> meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone
> before.)
>
> I don't have an idea if there is any budget for a movement roles
> meeting, so this is still one of the open questions. SJ, do you have
> more information?
> Another one is, who would like to attend the meeting on thursday.
>
> To fix the latter I've created
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
> Please sign in if you want to join the meeting.
>
> Regards, Alice.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>
>
>
> --
> President, Wikimedia District of Columbia
> http://wikimediadc.org
> @wikimediadc / @wikimania2012
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>


--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi Harel,

On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and whose
> participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?

No, that's why I've created
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29


> My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at the
> conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying from
> donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
> process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other decision
> must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the cost.

That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.

Regards, Alice.

[Anirudh Bhati]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Hi Harel,
>
> On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and
> whose
> > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?
>
> No, that's why I've created
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
>
>
> > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at the
> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
> from
> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
> > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other decision
> > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the cost.
>
> That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.
>

Thank you, Alice. We will need to know the decision on this so we can all
plan our month ahead. I personally have other commitments that I will have
to postpone if I am to make it there in time. :-)

But I do believe that since we started this project, we need to conclude it
appropriately, and that will require participation from the core team of
contributors, and not just those who are incidentally present at the
conference. I think we need to be very clear on what ideas should and
should not be attributed to our work.

In any case, I hope we all make it to the MR meeting, and in case a
decision to the contrary is to be made, I'd appreciate if it is
communicated to us soon. Thanks!

anirudh

[Lodewijk]

Hi,

I must admit I have my doubts on multiple of the involved questions. While
I agree it is an important topic, I think the most appropriate thing would
be to bring this discussion to a larger stage - where it should have been a
long time ago according to our planning. Especially since time seems to be
catching up with us (discussions are happening without this groups
involvement *as a group*) I am not sure how people would respond if we were
to have yet another real life meeting right before the chapters meeting. I
think it would be received critically and rightfully so.

If movement roles (the topic, not the group) is a significant part of the
agenda, and adding someone who has now quite some experience thinking about
that topic would be helpful and not too costly - I think it would be a good
idea. Not because that person deserved that right through this group but
because the expertise would be helpful. In general I think it would be good
if the organizers (hint to Harel to add to considerations next year!) would
consider in the future to add some 'expert' non-representative slots when
the topics on the agenda ask for that.

Best,
Lodewijk

No dia 27 de Fevereiro de 2012 10:49, Anirudh Bhati
<anirudhsbh-***@public.gmane.org>escreveu:

> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Harel,
>>
>> On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and
>> whose
>> > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?
>>
>> No, that's why I've created
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
>>
>>
>> > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at
>> the
>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
>> from
>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other decision
>> > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the
>> cost.
>>
>> That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.
>>
>
> Thank you, Alice. We will need to know the decision on this so we can all
> plan our month ahead. I personally have other commitments that I will have
> to postpone if I am to make it there in time. :-)
>
> But I do believe that since we started this project, we need to conclude
> it appropriately, and that will require participation from the core team of
> contributors, and not just those who are incidentally present at the
> conference. I think we need to be very clear on what ideas should and
> should not be attributed to our work.
>
> In any case, I hope we all make it to the MR meeting, and in case a
> decision to the contrary is to be made, I'd appreciate if it is
> communicated to us soon. Thanks!
>
> anirudh
>
> _______________________________________________
>> Movementroles mailing list
>> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>

[Samuel Klein]

Hello all,

It will be good to have time aside before the meeting for those
interested in movement roles.
But the important discussions of the working group should be held
online, and in advance of the conference.

The main opportunity in Berlin is not to have discussions among
ourselves that we could have now online; it is to connect with those
who will already be there -- in our role as facilitators of discussion
among chapters.

Similarly, there should be open discussions of movement-wide
responsibilities at Wikimania and the Wikimedia Conference every year.
But I don't think we should fly people in just to take part in those
discussions.


Bence writes:
> I think it would be worthwhile to see who will be there in Berlin and whether they can
> form one or small concentrated working groups to finish work that will be happening
> online (involving everyone) in the few weeks leading up to Berlin. If it turns out that
> one or two of the active participants would not be in Berlin, it would make sense
< to fly them in; but I don't think that... flying in everyone makes sense.

Agreed - our focus should be on finishing work online. The group does
not currently have a budget; if there are one or two active
participants who could get there easily and whom it makes sense to
invite, we can ask for support for them.

SJ

[Bishakha Datta]

Comments inline,
Bishakha

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Hi Harel,
>
> On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and
> whose
> > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?
>
> No, that's why I've created
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
>
>
> > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at the
> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
> from
> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
> > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other decision
> > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the cost.
>
> That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.
>

I just looked at the minutes of our last IRC chat on 12 Feb - and this was
what we agreed to by way of winding up Movement Roles:

Minutes: "We agreed on these steps:
1. Engage in the new models and standards discussions on meta.
- Identify concerns with the new models framework
2. Communicate what came out of our work
- Summarize important MR work, and organize an overview linking to
them (probably the MR main page)
3. Indicate a path for the future
- Identify clusters of open topics to be carried forward, and parallel
work taking place today.
- Create a future roadmap, showing what group is responsible for
working on each parts and follow-up area"

Berlin was mentioned, but not specifically. Meaning, we agreed to meet in
Berlin, but did not discuss the point raised here: funding group members
specially to attend this meeting.

Given that we are winding down, I too would personally be in favour of
doing what's needed online before Berlin to wrap up MR, with a small 'tail'
in Berlin.

I also support this observation made on this list:

Harel: "My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already
at the
> conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
from
> donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
> process that's basically approaching its final stage."

So I too would be in favour of a small meeting on Thursday 29 March, the
day before the official conference begins, with those who are present and
can attend, or need minimum additional support to attend this - rather than
bringing in individuals specially for this.

Chapters Committee is having a meeting that day too, which may make it
difficult for some to attend both a ChapCom meeting and a Movement Roles
meeting on the same day.

Best
Bishakha

[Béria Lima]

The problem with that Bishakha is that no one can after say that this is
the result of "MR". If I get together with 2 other MR people who happens to
be in the same city I am, we can't call that a "Movement Roles" meeting.
That would be a meetup to the best.
_____
*
*

*[image: Inline images 1]*

*Béria Lima*

* *

* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*



*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**







*
** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 27 February 2012 09:18, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Comments inline,
> Bishakha
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Harel,
>>
>> On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and
>> whose
>> > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?
>>
>> No, that's why I've created
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
>>
>>
>> > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at
>> the
>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
>> from
>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other decision
>> > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the
>> cost.
>>
>> That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.
>>
>
> I just looked at the minutes of our last IRC chat on 12 Feb - and this was
> what we agreed to by way of winding up Movement Roles:
>
> Minutes: "We agreed on these steps:
> 1. Engage in the new models and standards discussions on meta.
> - Identify concerns with the new models framework
> 2. Communicate what came out of our work
> - Summarize important MR work, and organize an overview linking to
> them (probably the MR main page)
> 3. Indicate a path for the future
> - Identify clusters of open topics to be carried forward, and parallel
> work taking place today.
> - Create a future roadmap, showing what group is responsible for
> working on each parts and follow-up area"
>
> Berlin was mentioned, but not specifically. Meaning, we agreed to meet in
> Berlin, but did not discuss the point raised here: funding group members
> specially to attend this meeting.
>
> Given that we are winding down, I too would personally be in favour of
> doing what's needed online before Berlin to wrap up MR, with a small 'tail'
> in Berlin.
>
> I also support this observation made on this list:
>
> Harel: "My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are
> already at the
> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
> from
> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
> > process that's basically approaching its final stage."
>
> So I too would be in favour of a small meeting on Thursday 29 March, the
> day before the official conference begins, with those who are present and
> can attend, or need minimum additional support to attend this - rather than
> bringing in individuals specially for this.
>
> Chapters Committee is having a meeting that day too, which may make it
> difficult for some to attend both a ChapCom meeting and a Movement Roles
> meeting on the same day.
>
> Best
> Bishakha
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>

[Lodewijk]

I think calling things 'the result of MR' is extremely dangerous anyway. As
soon as we need the working group to defend an outcome - that means it is
obviously a bad outcome.

But aside from that I agree that it wouldn't be a 'real' MR meeting - and
I'm fine with that personally.

Best,
Lodewijk

No dia 27 de Fevereiro de 2012 13:35, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org>escreveu:

> The problem with that Bishakha is that no one can after say that this is
> the result of "MR". If I get together with 2 other MR people who happens to
> be in the same city I am, we can't call that a "Movement Roles" meeting.
> That would be a meetup to the best.
> _____
> *
> *
>
> *[image: Inline images 1]*
>
> *Béria Lima*
>
> * *
>
> * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*
>
>
>
> *Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> ** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 27 February 2012 09:18, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> Comments inline,
>> Bishakha
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Harel,
>>>
>>> On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and
>>> whose
>>> > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?
>>>
>>> No, that's why I've created
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
>>>
>>>
>>> > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at
>>> the
>>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify
>>> paying from
>>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
>>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other
>>> decision
>>> > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the
>>> cost.
>>>
>>> That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.
>>>
>>
>> I just looked at the minutes of our last IRC chat on 12 Feb - and this
>> was what we agreed to by way of winding up Movement Roles:
>>
>> Minutes: "We agreed on these steps:
>> 1. Engage in the new models and standards discussions on meta.
>> - Identify concerns with the new models framework
>> 2. Communicate what came out of our work
>> - Summarize important MR work, and organize an overview linking to
>> them (probably the MR main page)
>> 3. Indicate a path for the future
>> - Identify clusters of open topics to be carried forward, and parallel
>> work taking place today.
>> - Create a future roadmap, showing what group is responsible for
>> working on each parts and follow-up area"
>>
>> Berlin was mentioned, but not specifically. Meaning, we agreed to meet in
>> Berlin, but did not discuss the point raised here: funding group members
>> specially to attend this meeting.
>>
>> Given that we are winding down, I too would personally be in favour of
>> doing what's needed online before Berlin to wrap up MR, with a small 'tail'
>> in Berlin.
>>
>> I also support this observation made on this list:
>>
>> Harel: "My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are
>> already at the
>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify
>> paying from
>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage."
>>
>> So I too would be in favour of a small meeting on Thursday 29 March, the
>> day before the official conference begins, with those who are present and
>> can attend, or need minimum additional support to attend this - rather than
>> bringing in individuals specially for this.
>>
>> Chapters Committee is having a meeting that day too, which may make it
>> difficult for some to attend both a ChapCom meeting and a Movement Roles
>> meeting on the same day.
>>
>> Best
>> Bishakha
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Movementroles mailing list
>> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>

[Theo10011]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Comments inline,
> Bishakha
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Harel,
>>
>> On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and
>> whose
>> > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?
>>
>> No, that's why I've created
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
>>
>>
>> > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at
>> the
>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
>> from
>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other decision
>> > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the
>> cost.
>>
>> That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.
>>
>
> I just looked at the minutes of our last IRC chat on 12 Feb - and this was
> what we agreed to by way of winding up Movement Roles:
>
> Minutes: "We agreed on these steps:
> 1. Engage in the new models and standards discussions on meta.
> - Identify concerns with the new models framework
> 2. Communicate what came out of our work
> - Summarize important MR work, and organize an overview linking to
> them (probably the MR main page)
> 3. Indicate a path for the future
> - Identify clusters of open topics to be carried forward, and parallel
> work taking place today.
> - Create a future roadmap, showing what group is responsible for
> working on each parts and follow-up area"
>
> Berlin was mentioned, but not specifically. Meaning, we agreed to meet in
> Berlin, but did not discuss the point raised here: funding group members
> specially to attend this meeting.
>
> Given that we are winding down, I too would personally be in favour of
> doing what's needed online before Berlin to wrap up MR, with a small 'tail'
> in Berlin.
>
> I also support this observation made on this list:
>
> Harel: "My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are
> already at the
> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
> from
> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
> > process that's basically approaching its final stage."
>
> So I too would be in favour of a small meeting on Thursday 29 March, the
> day before the official conference begins, with those who are present and
> can attend, or need minimum additional support to attend this - rather than
> bringing in individuals specially for this.
>
> Chapters Committee is having a meeting that day too, which may make it
> difficult for some to attend both a ChapCom meeting and a Movement Roles
> meeting on the same day.
>
>
So just to reiterate, we are finalizing the recognition model for other
entities, not only before the meeting, but now without the majority of
the participants?

ChapCom was proposed as the entity for recognition a month ago without
prior discussion, at the time, it was suggested that it would be discussed
within the group, and now it is being suggested, it is better to work with
only those that are incidentally there.

I'm not sure what is going on here. Issues about donor money and
responsibility seem a bit unaligned with the realities. This group is
discussing some major changes - a recognition model for non-chapters, a
council, what roles would chapters and the foundation occupy, and so on.
These recommendations might have a large impact on the future of not just
chapters but other entities. I would think this is actually a much more
worthwhile use of donor fund, than several other ongoing projects. I
thought the lack of physical meetings was one of the main reason why
activity within the group stalled.

Lodewijk, I can't help but think, that not discussing it or reaching a
consensus within the group first, and finalizing these, would also be met
with as much criticism, not just from outside, but from the participants
themselves.

Harel, It is nice to see your spirit of inclusiveness as the program
manager. I recall you suggested inviting some of the "other entities" we
are discussing within the group, just last month. I have felt that certain
things are being pushed through in a hurried fashion, and now, when we
actually do need to hammer out the specifics, we are suggesting working
with whoever is there.

I completely disagree with Harel and Bishakha on this.

As Anriudh said, I would really appreciate a direct answer on this soon.
Most of us have other commitments and jobs, if the funding and the need for
this meeting is in question, than please mention that next time someone
questions the recommendations.

Regards
Theo

[Béria Lima]

>
> *Harel, It is nice to see your spirit of inclusiveness as the program
> manager. I recall you suggested inviting some of the "other entities" we
> are discussing within the group, just last month.*
>

That is actually very true. If WMDE was willing to spend LOTS of money to
bring people from other no chapters entities to the meeting...

.... why not use the same money to bring the MR people? They are much more
valuable and you can't go with your first idea anyway.
_____
*
*

*Béria Lima*

* *

* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.* *Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**







*
** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 27 February 2012 09:46, Theo10011 <de10011-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> Comments inline,
>> Bishakha
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Harel,
>>>
>>> On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR and
>>> whose
>>> > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?
>>>
>>> No, that's why I've created
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
>>>
>>>
>>> > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at
>>> the
>>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify
>>> paying from
>>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
>>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other
>>> decision
>>> > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the
>>> cost.
>>>
>>> That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.
>>>
>>
>> I just looked at the minutes of our last IRC chat on 12 Feb - and this
>> was what we agreed to by way of winding up Movement Roles:
>>
>> Minutes: "We agreed on these steps:
>> 1. Engage in the new models and standards discussions on meta.
>> - Identify concerns with the new models framework
>> 2. Communicate what came out of our work
>> - Summarize important MR work, and organize an overview linking to
>> them (probably the MR main page)
>> 3. Indicate a path for the future
>> - Identify clusters of open topics to be carried forward, and parallel
>> work taking place today.
>> - Create a future roadmap, showing what group is responsible for
>> working on each parts and follow-up area"
>>
>> Berlin was mentioned, but not specifically. Meaning, we agreed to meet in
>> Berlin, but did not discuss the point raised here: funding group members
>> specially to attend this meeting.
>>
>> Given that we are winding down, I too would personally be in favour of
>> doing what's needed online before Berlin to wrap up MR, with a small 'tail'
>> in Berlin.
>>
>> I also support this observation made on this list:
>>
>> Harel: "My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are
>> already at the
>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify
>> paying from
>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage."
>>
>> So I too would be in favour of a small meeting on Thursday 29 March, the
>> day before the official conference begins, with those who are present and
>> can attend, or need minimum additional support to attend this - rather than
>> bringing in individuals specially for this.
>>
>> Chapters Committee is having a meeting that day too, which may make it
>> difficult for some to attend both a ChapCom meeting and a Movement Roles
>> meeting on the same day.
>>
>>
> So just to reiterate, we are finalizing the recognition model for other
> entities, not only before the meeting, but now without the majority of
> the participants?
>
> ChapCom was proposed as the entity for recognition a month ago without
> prior discussion, at the time, it was suggested that it would be discussed
> within the group, and now it is being suggested, it is better to work with
> only those that are incidentally there.
>
> I'm not sure what is going on here. Issues about donor money and
> responsibility seem a bit unaligned with the realities. This group is
> discussing some major changes - a recognition model for non-chapters, a
> council, what roles would chapters and the foundation occupy, and so on.
> These recommendations might have a large impact on the future of not just
> chapters but other entities. I would think this is actually a much more
> worthwhile use of donor fund, than several other ongoing projects. I
> thought the lack of physical meetings was one of the main reason why
> activity within the group stalled.
>
> Lodewijk, I can't help but think, that not discussing it or reaching a
> consensus within the group first, and finalizing these, would also be met
> with as much criticism, not just from outside, but from the participants
> themselves.
>
> Harel, It is nice to see your spirit of inclusiveness as the program
> manager. I recall you suggested inviting some of the "other entities" we
> are discussing within the group, just last month. I have felt that certain
> things are being pushed through in a hurried fashion, and now, when we
> actually do need to hammer out the specifics, we are suggesting working
> with whoever is there.
>
> I completely disagree with Harel and Bishakha on this.
>
> As Anriudh said, I would really appreciate a direct answer on this soon.
> Most of us have other commitments and jobs, if the funding and the need for
> this meeting is in question, than please mention that next time someone
> questions the recommendations.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>

[Alice Wiegand]

On 27 February 2012 13:54, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> *Harel, It is nice to see your spirit of inclusiveness as the program
>> manager. I recall you suggested inviting some of the "other entities" we
>> are discussing within the group, just last month.*
>>
>
> That is actually very true. If WMDE was willing to spend LOTS of money to
> bring people from other no chapters entities to the meeting...
>
> .... why not use the same money to bring the MR people? They are much more
> valuable and you can't go with your first idea anyway.
>

I'm not sure if I understand what you wanted to say, Béria. Which no
chapters entities are you speaking of?

Seven days ago I've written a mail about starting the wrap up and there was
nearly no response. And at the same time people started to registrate for
the conference in Berlin before there was any discussion about the
circumstances of such a meeting. I'm very glad that it starts now although
I'm quite surprised that you are still discussing as if there is still "a
group" and I don't want to manifest this picture.

The work that needs to be done must be done before this or any other
meeting and then the meeting can be a small and short exchange.

It would be still very helpful to have some more hands working on the
wrap-up:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Wrap_up

Best, Alice.

[Béria Lima]

>
> *I'm not sure if I understand what you wanted to say, Béria. Which no
> chapters entities are you speaking of?*
> *
> *

http://lists.wikimedia.ch/private/chapters/2012-February/004230.html -
Harel almost invited them (with WMDE blessing). The only reason he didn't
was the overwhelming refusal from pretty much all the people in the mailing
list.

*Seven days ago I've written a mail about starting the wrap up and there
> was nearly no response. *
>

And? That in some way invalidate the meeting? How old are we to react with
a "*No one answered me, so now I don't wanna play anymore?*"


> *And at the same time people started to registrate for the conference in
> Berlin before there was any discussion about the circumstances of such a
> meeting.
> *


http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29-
created by you BTW. What the problem with discuss the meeting now? If
we
don't discuss things with a 3 months notice, they aren't valid? We all knew
would have a MR meeting in Chapters Conference (We knew so much that when
Harel created the registration page he created the MR spot:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Participants&oldid=3227652).
And that was only 15 days ago.

*The work that needs to be done must be done before this or any other
> meeting and then the meeting can be a small and short exchange. *
>

I'm very glad you believe the work will be that easy, Alice. But if is easy
or not, isn't in question here. What is in question is that we need
representation to call this a MR meeting, and now we don't.
_____
*
*

*[image: Inline images 1]*

*Béria Lima*

* *

* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*



*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**







*
** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 27 February 2012 10:27, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 27 February 2012 13:54, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> *Harel, It is nice to see your spirit of inclusiveness as the program
>>> manager. I recall you suggested inviting some of the "other entities" we
>>> are discussing within the group, just last month.*
>>>
>>
>> That is actually very true. If WMDE was willing to spend LOTS of money to
>> bring people from other no chapters entities to the meeting...
>>
>> .... why not use the same money to bring the MR people? They are much
>> more valuable and you can't go with your first idea anyway.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if I understand what you wanted to say, Béria. Which no
> chapters entities are you speaking of?
>
> Seven days ago I've written a mail about starting the wrap up and there
> was nearly no response. And at the same time people started to registrate
> for the conference in Berlin before there was any discussion about the
> circumstances of such a meeting. I'm very glad that it starts now although
> I'm quite surprised that you are still discussing as if there is still "a
> group" and I don't want to manifest this picture.
>
> The work that needs to be done must be done before this or any other
> meeting and then the meeting can be a small and short exchange.
>
> It would be still very helpful to have some more hands working on the
> wrap-up:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Wrap_up
>
> Best, Alice.
>
>
>
>

[Alice Wiegand]

27 February 2012 14:46, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> *I'm not sure if I understand what you wanted to say, Béria. Which no
>> chapters entities are you speaking of?*
>> *
>> *
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/private/chapters/2012-February/004230.html -
> Harel almost invited them (with WMDE blessing). The only reason he didn't
> was the overwhelming refusal from pretty much all the people in the mailing
> list.
>

I don't have access to chapters-l.



>
> *Seven days ago I've written a mail about starting the wrap up and there
>> was nearly no response. *
>>
>
> And? That in some way invalidate the meeting? How old are we to react with
> a "*No one answered me, so now I don't wanna play anymore?*"


That is nor what I wanted to say nor what I said or even think. It is the
essential preparation for any kind of finalizing what we are doing and I
didn't get the impression that anyone is really interested in doing this
work.


>
>
>
>> *And at the same time people started to registrate for the conference in
>> Berlin before there was any discussion about the circumstances of such a
>> meeting.
>> *
>
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29- created by you BTW. What the problem with discuss the meeting now? If we
> don't discuss things with a 3 months notice, they aren't valid? We all knew
> would have a MR meeting in Chapters Conference (We knew so much that when
> Harel created the registration page he created the MR spot:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Participants&oldid=3227652).
> And that was only 15 days ago.
>
> *The work that needs to be done must be done before this or any other
>> meeting and then the meeting can be a small and short exchange. *
>>
>
> I'm very glad you believe the work will be that easy, Alice. But if is
> easy or not, isn't in question here. What is in question is that we need
> representation to call this a MR meeting, and now we don't.
>

I would be very glad if people didn't try interprete my words as they want
to. I didn't say that it's easy, the point I wanted to make is that we
cannot do all the work at a meeting. We must do it now.

Thanks, Alice.

[Joan Goma]

2012/2/27 Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>

> 27 February 2012 14:46, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> *I'm not sure if I understand what you wanted to say, Béria. Which no
>>> chapters entities are you speaking of?*
>>> *
>>> *
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/private/chapters/2012-February/004230.html -
>> Harel almost invited them (with WMDE blessing). The only reason he didn't
>> was the overwhelming refusal from pretty much all the people in the mailing
>> list.
>>
>
> I don't have access to chapters-l.
>

Nor me. Please elaborate.

[Theo10011]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Joan Goma <jrgoma-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 2012/2/27 Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>
>
>> 27 February 2012 14:46, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>> *I'm not sure if I understand what you wanted to say, Béria. Which no
>>>> chapters entities are you speaking of?*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/private/chapters/2012-February/004230.html -
>>> Harel almost invited them (with WMDE blessing). The only reason he didn't
>>> was the overwhelming refusal from pretty much all the people in the mailing
>>> list.
>>>
>>
>> I don't have access to chapters-l.
>>
>
> Nor me. Please elaborate.
>

No one will be elaborating. A reference was made to a discussion on a
private list among other participants.

Goma, you requested access to Iberocoop a while ago, to which a similar
discussion might have happened. Most discussions about access and votes,
happen privately with existing participants. I made a similar point to you
on Meta. You are entitled to that discussion as much as the one on
Iberocoop, or anyone else who is refused access to a list. The existing
participants are entitled to privacy and their own opinions. References
being made, is different from explanation being sought elsewhere.

As for my personal take, you are more than welcome to seek me out in any of
the meetings or email me directly, and I will explain my position to you. I
will be happy to defend my positions openly or in person. I was looking
forward to discussing the change for the criteria with you in person, and
the implications thereof, but I don't think most of us will be able to make
it there.

As to the original subject, I respect Sj's position on this, and will wait
for his clarification if there is going to be a meeting or not. I have
removed my name from the attending list until further clarification. I just
hope a direct answer is given soon.

Regards
Theo

[Béria Lima]

>
> *I would be very glad if people didn't try interprete my words as they
> want to.
> *


I'm sorry if i misinterpreted you

*I didn't say that it's easy, the point I wanted to make is that we cannot
> do all the work at a meeting. We must do it now.*


With that I do agree. We should start work now.
_____
*
*

*[image: Inline images 1]*

*Béria Lima*

* *

* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*



*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**







*
** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 27 February 2012 10:55, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 27 February 2012 14:46, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> *I'm not sure if I understand what you wanted to say, Béria. Which no
>>> chapters entities are you speaking of?*
>>> *
>>> *
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/private/chapters/2012-February/004230.html -
>> Harel almost invited them (with WMDE blessing). The only reason he didn't
>> was the overwhelming refusal from pretty much all the people in the mailing
>> list.
>>
>
> I don't have access to chapters-l.
>
>
>
>>
>> *Seven days ago I've written a mail about starting the wrap up and there
>>> was nearly no response. *
>>>
>>
>> And? That in some way invalidate the meeting? How old are we to react
>> with a "*No one answered me, so now I don't wanna play anymore?*"
>
>
> That is nor what I wanted to say nor what I said or even think. It is the
> essential preparation for any kind of finalizing what we are doing and I
> didn't get the impression that anyone is really interested in doing this
> work.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> *And at the same time people started to registrate for the conference
>>> in Berlin before there was any discussion about the circumstances of such a
>>> meeting.
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29- created by you BTW. What the problem with discuss the meeting now? If we
>> don't discuss things with a 3 months notice, they aren't valid? We all knew
>> would have a MR meeting in Chapters Conference (We knew so much that when
>> Harel created the registration page he created the MR spot:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Participants&oldid=3227652).
>> And that was only 15 days ago.
>>
>> *The work that needs to be done must be done before this or any other
>>> meeting and then the meeting can be a small and short exchange. *
>>>
>>
>> I'm very glad you believe the work will be that easy, Alice. But if is
>> easy or not, isn't in question here. What is in question is that we need
>> representation to call this a MR meeting, and now we don't.
>>
>
> I would be very glad if people didn't try interprete my words as they want
> to. I didn't say that it's easy, the point I wanted to make is that we
> cannot do all the work at a meeting. We must do it now.
>
> Thanks, Alice.
>

[Morgan Pak San Chan]

I also agree that the movement roles project should come an good ending
with a real meeting. Although I myself am not a very active participant, as
i am struggling for my examination for university, I still think this group
has made a lot of great things like what i was seen in Frankfurt and the
IRC meeting in the early days. I am sorry for some of us may not hang on to
the last minute, but we have had kept on eyes on this project and mailing
list, so i hope a complete ending can be done and it can be taken seriously.

For the problem of the attendees of the meeting, i think we don't need to
argue about the responsibilities of WMDE or somebody else. If somebody in
the mailing list wants to go, I think SJ or WMDE will certainly deal with
it. The participation in the group is always appreciated.

Anyway, i think movement roles working group can be continue to exist, as i
can see the Wikimedia projects are changing by the times and none of a
model can be applied forever.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> *I would be very glad if people didn't try interprete my words as they
>> want to.
>> *
>
>
> I'm sorry if i misinterpreted you
>
>
> *I didn't say that it's easy, the point I wanted to make is that we
>> cannot do all the work at a meeting. We must do it now.*
>
>
> With that I do agree. We should start work now.
>
> _____
> *
> *
>
> *[image: Inline images 1]*
>
> *Béria Lima*
>
> * *
>
> * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*
>
>
>
> *Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> ** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 27 February 2012 10:55, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> 27 February 2012 14:46, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>> *I'm not sure if I understand what you wanted to say, Béria. Which no
>>>> chapters entities are you speaking of?*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/private/chapters/2012-February/004230.html -
>>> Harel almost invited them (with WMDE blessing). The only reason he didn't
>>> was the overwhelming refusal from pretty much all the people in the mailing
>>> list.
>>>
>>
>> I don't have access to chapters-l.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *Seven days ago I've written a mail about starting the wrap up and
>>>> there was nearly no response. *
>>>>
>>>
>>> And? That in some way invalidate the meeting? How old are we to react
>>> with a "*No one answered me, so now I don't wanna play anymore?*"
>>
>>
>> That is nor what I wanted to say nor what I said or even think. It is the
>> essential preparation for any kind of finalizing what we are doing and I
>> didn't get the impression that anyone is really interested in doing this
>> work.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> *And at the same time people started to registrate for the conference
>>>> in Berlin before there was any discussion about the circumstances of such a
>>>> meeting.
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29- created by you BTW. What the problem with discuss the meeting now? If we
>>> don't discuss things with a 3 months notice, they aren't valid? We all knew
>>> would have a MR meeting in Chapters Conference (We knew so much that when
>>> Harel created the registration page he created the MR spot:
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Participants&oldid=3227652).
>>> And that was only 15 days ago.
>>>
>>> *The work that needs to be done must be done before this or any other
>>>> meeting and then the meeting can be a small and short exchange. *
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm very glad you believe the work will be that easy, Alice. But if is
>>> easy or not, isn't in question here. What is in question is that we need
>>> representation to call this a MR meeting, and now we don't.
>>>
>>
>> I would be very glad if people didn't try interprete my words as they
>> want to. I didn't say that it's easy, the point I wanted to make is that we
>> cannot do all the work at a meeting. We must do it now.
>>
>> Thanks, Alice.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>


--
Cheers,
Morgan

Sent from my Ubuntu

[Harel Cain]

It doesn't necessarily work that way. Bringing in non-chapters is an
investment in future bodies of volunteers, and the objective was to bring
in "established" non-chapters and let them choose their reps.
With MR people, it's all a personal matter - do we invite X or do we invite
Y, and the investment is more in the past than in the future.

Ultimately, it's all for WMDE to decide how they want to spend their money.

Also another comment: when I make this edit
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Participants&oldid=3227652not
15 days but about 45 days ago, the MR section heading was a kind of
leftover from last year, not some formal announcement that MR is meeting or
that anyone is going to pay for flying people from all over the world for
that.


Harel

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 14:54, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> *Harel, It is nice to see your spirit of inclusiveness as the program
>> manager. I recall you suggested inviting some of the "other entities" we
>> are discussing within the group, just last month.*
>>
>
> That is actually very true. If WMDE was willing to spend LOTS of money to
> bring people from other no chapters entities to the meeting...
>
> .... why not use the same money to bring the MR people? They are much more
> valuable and you can't go with your first idea anyway.
> _____
>
> *
> *
>
> *Béria Lima*
>
> * *
>
> * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.* *Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> ** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 27 February 2012 09:46, Theo10011 <de10011-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Comments inline,
>>> Bishakha
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/***@public.gmane.orgm
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Harel,
>>>>
>>>> On 27 February 2012 08:02, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Does anyone have a clear list of who was actually involved with MR
>>>> and whose
>>>> > participation should/must be provided for, and by whom exactly?
>>>>
>>>> No, that's why I've created
>>>>
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-29
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are already at
>>>> the
>>>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify
>>>> paying from
>>>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in
>>>> a
>>>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage. Any other
>>>> decision
>>>> > must come with a commitment by some organization [WMF?] to bear the
>>>> cost.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I've asked SJ about the budget.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just looked at the minutes of our last IRC chat on 12 Feb - and this
>>> was what we agreed to by way of winding up Movement Roles:
>>>
>>> Minutes: "We agreed on these steps:
>>> 1. Engage in the new models and standards discussions on meta.
>>> - Identify concerns with the new models framework
>>> 2. Communicate what came out of our work
>>> - Summarize important MR work, and organize an overview linking to
>>> them (probably the MR main page)
>>> 3. Indicate a path for the future
>>> - Identify clusters of open topics to be carried forward, and parallel
>>> work taking place today.
>>> - Create a future roadmap, showing what group is responsible for
>>> working on each parts and follow-up area"
>>>
>>> Berlin was mentioned, but not specifically. Meaning, we agreed to meet
>>> in Berlin, but did not discuss the point raised here: funding group members
>>> specially to attend this meeting.
>>>
>>> Given that we are winding down, I too would personally be in favour of
>>> doing what's needed online before Berlin to wrap up MR, with a small 'tail'
>>> in Berlin.
>>>
>>> I also support this observation made on this list:
>>>
>>> Harel: "My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are
>>> already at the
>>> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify
>>> paying from
>>> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
>>> > process that's basically approaching its final stage."
>>>
>>> So I too would be in favour of a small meeting on Thursday 29 March, the
>>> day before the official conference begins, with those who are present and
>>> can attend, or need minimum additional support to attend this - rather than
>>> bringing in individuals specially for this.
>>>
>>> Chapters Committee is having a meeting that day too, which may make it
>>> difficult for some to attend both a ChapCom meeting and a Movement Roles
>>> meeting on the same day.
>>>
>>>
>> So just to reiterate, we are finalizing the recognition model for other
>> entities, not only before the meeting, but now without the majority of
>> the participants?
>>
>> ChapCom was proposed as the entity for recognition a month ago without
>> prior discussion, at the time, it was suggested that it would be discussed
>> within the group, and now it is being suggested, it is better to work with
>> only those that are incidentally there.
>>
>> I'm not sure what is going on here. Issues about donor money and
>> responsibility seem a bit unaligned with the realities. This group is
>> discussing some major changes - a recognition model for non-chapters, a
>> council, what roles would chapters and the foundation occupy, and so on.
>> These recommendations might have a large impact on the future of not just
>> chapters but other entities. I would think this is actually a much more
>> worthwhile use of donor fund, than several other ongoing projects. I
>> thought the lack of physical meetings was one of the main reason why
>> activity within the group stalled.
>>
>> Lodewijk, I can't help but think, that not discussing it or reaching a
>> consensus within the group first, and finalizing these, would also be met
>> with as much criticism, not just from outside, but from the participants
>> themselves.
>>
>> Harel, It is nice to see your spirit of inclusiveness as the program
>> manager. I recall you suggested inviting some of the "other entities" we
>> are discussing within the group, just last month. I have felt that certain
>> things are being pushed through in a hurried fashion, and now, when we
>> actually do need to hammer out the specifics, we are suggesting working
>> with whoever is there.
>>
>> I completely disagree with Harel and Bishakha on this.
>>
>> As Anriudh said, I would really appreciate a direct answer on this soon.
>> Most of us have other commitments and jobs, if the funding and the need for
>> this meeting is in question, than please mention that next time someone
>> questions the recommendations.
>>
>> Regards
>> Theo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Movementroles mailing list
>> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>


--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

[Samuel Klein]

On clerking:

> of the X people who went ahead without ever being formally encouraged to
so and registered for the conference
> with MR as the justification, who is WMDE as a host going to reject and
who to accept?

Can you add anyone who has registered that way to the list on Meta?
(leaving blanks where unknown):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Meeting_2012-03-29

> May I suggest that Sj specify who he thinks is important enough to the
process so as to
> bring him in specially for that - and then WMF and WMDE will need to
decide if they
> want to fund this.

Let us settle details of the MR session on this list, and who plans to
attend, and I will get back to you in a couple of days.
We had not planned to fly people in; those who can come will be welcome.
And if we make this an afternoon session, I expect we will again have
participation from other attendees to the chapters meeting.

Thank you for all of your help in organizing the conference this year.


Theo10011 writes:
> This has been ongoing for over an year... is it unreasonable to suggest
that the conclusion involve some internal consensus?

That is quite reasonable. A consensus online, I think; not in person. We
will not be able to get all of the active participants together in a room,
and as Anirudh notes, this process will take more than a short day's
discussion.

SJ

[Lodewijk]

Hi Theo,

No dia 27 de Fevereiro de 2012 13:46, Theo10011 <de10011-***@public.gmane.org>escreveu:

> So just to reiterate, we are finalizing the recognition model for other
> entities, not only before the meeting, but now without the majority of
> the participants?
>
> ChapCom was proposed as the entity for recognition a month ago without
> prior discussion, at the time, it was suggested that it would be discussed
> within the group, and now it is being suggested, it is better to work with
> only those that are incidentally there.
>

Chapcom as this entity has been mentioned earlier to be honest - but yes,
not in any great detail because we consciously avoided that decision. I
think the most relevant body here to ask would be chapcom. However
considering there will be a major turnover in chapcom in a matter of weeks,
I think that it is not unreasonable not to expect a clear opinion of those
involved there. I do agree that these questions do deserve a larger stage
indeed though.


>
> I'm not sure what is going on here. Issues about donor money and
> responsibility seem a bit unaligned with the realities. This group is
> discussing some major changes - a recognition model for non-chapters, a
> council, what roles would chapters and the foundation occupy, and so on.
> These recommendations might have a large impact on the future of not just
> chapters but other entities. I would think this is actually a much more
> worthwhile use of donor fund, than several other ongoing projects. I
> thought the lack of physical meetings was one of the main reason why
> activity within the group stalled.
>

Lets take a step back here. The model for non-chapters is something that
ought to be discussed indeed. The fact that such model is needed seems to
meet broad agreement - but the many details require public discussion. Lets
recognize that and move on there.
The council I have heard in many shapes. One was the chapters council -
reality caught up with us there. At the same time there are a few more
councils being invented here and there (one of them by the community
department a few weeks ago) so I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to wait
with any broader community council a bit and discuss it in depth at the
appropriate stage: WIkimania.
The roles to take up indeed seem to be important - but I have the feeling
also there reality caught up once again. In Paris many of these discussions
were had and I don't remember a significant portion of our members being
present there (no matter the reason, just stating the fact).

In my experience the activity stalled because we basically couldn't do our
work because at the same time there were too many heated discussions
already going on, and things moved faster than we could keep up with. At
the same time we failed at most extent in involving people from the wider
movement outside the few in this group in the discussions.


>
> Lodewijk, I can't help but think, that not discussing it or reaching a
> consensus within the group first, and finalizing these, would also be met
> with as much criticism, not just from outside, but from the participants
> themselves.
>
>
I indeed think that the time for extensive internal discussions within our
group should be over. We keep discussing internally and not moving on at
the same time. Let's cut our losses, finalize what we have, write down what
we don't have and pass that on. Then I hope that Harel will clear enough
space in the schedule for the specific topics that need more discussion,
and that we will be able to move things forth there in a broader circle.
The major downside is of course that once again the board seems to be
unable to attend those sessions, so it will probably be a one-sided
discussion.

So I agree Theo: it ain't perfect. But I don't see how another physical MR
meeting will resolve this, and I rather expect it to make things worse
because it will at the same time rise suspicions, increase uneasyness for
people to not be allowed in these discussions and for example hinder
chapcom discussions.

[...]

As Anriudh said, I would really appreciate a direct answer on this soon.
> Most of us have other commitments and jobs, if the funding and the need for
> this meeting is in question, than please mention that next time someone
> questions the recommendations.
>
>
I agree with that :)

Best,
Lodewijk

[Theo10011]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
> I indeed think that the time for extensive internal discussions within our
> group should be over. We keep discussing internally and not moving on at
> the same time. Let's cut our losses, finalize what we have, write down what
> we don't have and pass that on. Then I hope that Harel will clear enough
> space in the schedule for the specific topics that need more discussion,
> and that we will be able to move things forth there in a broader circle.
> The major downside is of course that once again the board seems to be
> unable to attend those sessions, so it will probably be a one-sided
> discussion.
>
> So I agree Theo: it ain't perfect. But I don't see how another physical MR
> meeting will resolve this, and I rather expect it to make things worse
> because it will at the same time rise suspicions, increase uneasyness for
> people to not be allowed in these discussions and for example hinder
> chapcom discussions.
>
>
I think you are conflicting yourself a bit there. ;)

I am all for a final discussion to agree on what we have, but we *do need*
a final meeting, this can not just go away with a whimper. There is a lot
that has happened, not just within the group but externally. We would be
ignorant to not acknowledge that; opinions might have changed or other
factors we didn't consider earlier might have come up. I don't think you
will disagree, that a lot has happened since the last physical meeting. You
said we kept avoiding the discussion about some important issues, so the
solution now is to conclude without them at all? I believe the timing with
the board meetings is a relatively minor scheduling issue that is being
blows out-of-proportion.

I am not as concerned about uneasy-ness, or suspicions as you might be. I
never got that sense the last time, or after, I did hear wider criticism on
not coming to a conclusion last year. My main point is, before we bring
this to any larger stage or the board hurriedly approves, it is vitally
important we have consensus internally.

If this is how recommendations are to be finalized, anyone can discuss the
issues with 2 other participants in private, we can agree to abolish all
entities, proclaim Lodewijk high-lord king of the chapters (you don't have
a choice), and increase the scope of the council to include the Milky way
and the Andromeda galaxy. I believe they would have as much legitimacy as
the ones that will be finalized in Berlin with "whoever shows up".

Regards
Theo

[Anirudh Bhati]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Comments inline,
> Bishakha
>
> I also support this observation made on this list:
>
> Harel: "My personal take here: have a meeting of MR people who are
> already at the
> > conference, and that's it. I find it rather difficult to justify paying
> from
> > donors' money for more people on top of that, for one more meeting in a
> > process that's basically approaching its final stage."
>
> So I too would be in favour of a small meeting on Thursday 29 March, the
> day before the official conference begins, with those who are present and
> can attend, or need minimum additional support to attend this - rather than
> bringing in individuals specially for this.
>

I feel that there couldn't be a better way of spending donor money than
having appropriate representation during a concluding meeting on the
Movement roles project, a group which has played a significant role in
generating series of movement-wide conversations. Like Beria says above, a
meeting without proper representation cannot be said to represent the views
of the group as a whole.

In fact, we would require more than a single day to effectively conclude
the discussions around this project, so that we can properly convey our
ideas and thought-processes involved to the participants at the WM
Conference.


>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>

[Bence Damokos]

Hi all,

This thread is getting a bit hostile and offensive again, and I feel that
some people somehow feel entitled to a trip to a concluding meeting. This
shouldn't be the right attitude (both on the perspective of personal
entitlement and having meetings for meetings' sake).

Let us remember, that the original goal of the group was to come up with
recommendations (a "charter") that would be accepted by both the WMF Board
and chapters. The group was meant to facilitate a wider discussion and
synthesize some concrete recommendations that would be accepted by all.
This was one of the reasons that the original core groups was expanded to
include everyone who was ready to roll back his sleeves and provide some
work towards this end.

In this regard, it is less important whether some recommendations represent
the collective view of all the dozens of people who at one time contributed
or thought they would contribute or whether they represent the collective
view of those half a dozen people who actually took the time to work on
them and that are later found worthy to accept by the wider community.

Personally, I have not been very active in the movement roles process, so
if I wasn't in Berlin, flying me in for just this meeting would not be the
best possible way of spending donor money (even if MR is a very worthy
cause to spend money and resources on). There are a number of people, both
those who will happen to be in Berlin and some that would not necessarily
be there, who their continued contribution have been invaluable to the MR
process, and therefore whose attendance at a possible meeting would be a
good investment in donor money.

As has been noted, there is going to be a Chapcom meeting at the same time,
so some of the members of the MR group would be unable to attend. I think
it would be worthwhile to see who will be there in Berlin and whether they
can form one or small concentrated working groups to finish the work that
will be happening online (involving everyone) in the few weeks leading up
to Berlin. If it turns out that one or two of the active participants would
not be in Berlin, it would make sense to fly them in; but I don't think
that – without a set agenda and ideas of what the larger group would
discuss that can't do online – flying in everyone makes sense.

Best regards,
Bence

P.S. Please stop attacking WM DE, they are already doing a very huge
service to the movement by hosting and sponsoring the event (and to a
smaller degree, contributing to the costs of the Chapcom meeting). It is
inconceivable that they would have any financial responsibility or
obligation for funding the MR meeting just by placing an empty section on
an unofficial list of participants. It is up to as MR to convince either
the WMF or WM DE or the other chapters that our travel costs should be
funded.
P.P.S. While the majority of posts on the chapters-l list might have leaned
in one direction, it might not have expressed the majority opinion of every
participant. (Although, those who expressed their opinion were quite
strongly standing by them and certainly represented a bigger group.)

[Harel Cain]

I read the whole thread quickly and I'll admit rather superficially. I
don't want to get into the whole global politics issue again or to hold a
competition of who was the most productive member of MR, I just need to be
a petty clerk here and just ask a very practical and very immediate
question:
* who needs to be at the meeting and is currently not paid for, and who in
that case is going to pay for his/her attendance.
In other words:
* of the X people who went ahead without ever being formally encouraged to
so and registered for the conference with MR as the justification, who is
WMDE as a host going to reject and who to accept?

Any potential money here is not mine - it's either WMF's or WMDE's or owned
by some organization and it's not for me to decide. I already told you my
personal recommendation - there are enough people already meant to be at
the conference to hold an effective MR meeting, even if it the quorum is
not full (so what? was it ever full?). May I suggest that Sj specify who he
thinks is important enough to the process so as to bring him in specially
for that - and then WMF and WMDE will need to decide if they want to fund
this.


Harel



On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 18:36, Bence Damokos <bdamokos-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This thread is getting a bit hostile and offensive again, and I feel that
> some people somehow feel entitled to a trip to a concluding meeting. This
> shouldn't be the right attitude (both on the perspective of personal
> entitlement and having meetings for meetings' sake).
>
> Let us remember, that the original goal of the group was to come up with
> recommendations (a "charter") that would be accepted by both the WMF Board
> and chapters. The group was meant to facilitate a wider discussion and
> synthesize some concrete recommendations that would be accepted by all.
> This was one of the reasons that the original core groups was expanded to
> include everyone who was ready to roll back his sleeves and provide some
> work towards this end.
>
> In this regard, it is less important whether some recommendations
> represent the collective view of all the dozens of people who at one time
> contributed or thought they would contribute or whether they represent the
> collective view of those half a dozen people who actually took the time to
> work on them and that are later found worthy to accept by the wider
> community.
>
> Personally, I have not been very active in the movement roles process, so
> if I wasn't in Berlin, flying me in for just this meeting would not be the
> best possible way of spending donor money (even if MR is a very worthy
> cause to spend money and resources on). There are a number of people, both
> those who will happen to be in Berlin and some that would not necessarily
> be there, who their continued contribution have been invaluable to the MR
> process, and therefore whose attendance at a possible meeting would be a
> good investment in donor money.
>
> As has been noted, there is going to be a Chapcom meeting at the same
> time, so some of the members of the MR group would be unable to attend. I
> think it would be worthwhile to see who will be there in Berlin and whether
> they can form one or small concentrated working groups to finish the work
> that will be happening online (involving everyone) in the few weeks leading
> up to Berlin. If it turns out that one or two of the active participants
> would not be in Berlin, it would make sense to fly them in; but I don't
> think that – without a set agenda and ideas of what the larger group would
> discuss that can't do online – flying in everyone makes sense.
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> P.S. Please stop attacking WM DE, they are already doing a very huge
> service to the movement by hosting and sponsoring the event (and to a
> smaller degree, contributing to the costs of the Chapcom meeting). It is
> inconceivable that they would have any financial responsibility or
> obligation for funding the MR meeting just by placing an empty section on
> an unofficial list of participants. It is up to as MR to convince either
> the WMF or WM DE or the other chapters that our travel costs should be
> funded.
> P.P.S. While the majority of posts on the chapters-l list might have
> leaned in one direction, it might not have expressed the majority opinion
> of every participant. (Although, those who expressed their opinion were
> quite strongly standing by them and certainly represented a bigger group.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>


--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

[Theo10011]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Harel Cain <harel.cain-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> I read the whole thread quickly and I'll admit rather superficially. I
> don't want to get into the whole global politics issue again or to hold a
> competition of who was the most productive member of MR, I just need to be
> a petty clerk here and just ask a very practical and very immediate
> question:
> * who needs to be at the meeting and is currently not paid for, and who in
> that case is going to pay for his/her attendance.
> In other words:
> * of the X people who went ahead without ever being formally encouraged to
> so and registered for the conference with MR as the justification, who is
> WMDE as a host going to reject and who to accept?
>
> Any potential money here is not mine - it's either WMF's or WMDE's or
> owned by some organization and it's not for me to decide. I already told
> you my personal recommendation - there are enough people already meant to
> be at the conference to hold an effective MR meeting, even if it the quorum
> is not full (so what? was it ever full?). May I suggest that Sj specify who
> he thinks is important enough to the process so as to bring him in
> specially for that - and then WMF and WMDE will need to decide if they want
> to fund this.
>
>
It seems from your response that this entire issue is an organizational
one, which needs to be discussed with WMF and the board about funding. As
you said, you are not going to be the one deciding, neither are the people
who commented so far here. To which I would have suggested discussing this
WMF and the board *before* the group members, since they don't have a say
either way.

Bence, I agree with most of your points, except this - Is it too much to
ask to see a conclusion to this? This has been ongoing for over an year,
I don't know about others, but my contributions are there for most of the
time I have been involved. I have defended them so far, is it unreasonable
to suggest that the conclusion involve some internal consensus? I really
don't like your characterization of entitlement here. Attending the meeting
in Berlin last year would have been entitlement, or the one in Frankfurt,
or the one in Haifa. I only attended one in Berlin, and paid for it myself
entirely. I am strongly opposed to your characterization of it, as
entitlement.

In light of how this is being handled now, and how welcoming the hosts are,
I am inclined towards abstaining from the physical meeting. I wish the ones
that do attend my best.

Regards
Theo


>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 18:36, Bence Damokos <bdamokos-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This thread is getting a bit hostile and offensive again, and I feel that
>> some people somehow feel entitled to a trip to a concluding meeting. This
>> shouldn't be the right attitude (both on the perspective of personal
>> entitlement and having meetings for meetings' sake).
>>
>> Let us remember, that the original goal of the group was to come up with
>> recommendations (a "charter") that would be accepted by both the WMF Board
>> and chapters. The group was meant to facilitate a wider discussion and
>> synthesize some concrete recommendations that would be accepted by all.
>> This was one of the reasons that the original core groups was expanded to
>> include everyone who was ready to roll back his sleeves and provide some
>> work towards this end.
>>
>> In this regard, it is less important whether some recommendations
>> represent the collective view of all the dozens of people who at one time
>> contributed or thought they would contribute or whether they represent the
>> collective view of those half a dozen people who actually took the time to
>> work on them and that are later found worthy to accept by the wider
>> community.
>>
>> Personally, I have not been very active in the movement roles process, so
>> if I wasn't in Berlin, flying me in for just this meeting would not be the
>> best possible way of spending donor money (even if MR is a very worthy
>> cause to spend money and resources on). There are a number of people, both
>> those who will happen to be in Berlin and some that would not necessarily
>> be there, who their continued contribution have been invaluable to the MR
>> process, and therefore whose attendance at a possible meeting would be a
>> good investment in donor money.
>>
>> As has been noted, there is going to be a Chapcom meeting at the same
>> time, so some of the members of the MR group would be unable to attend. I
>> think it would be worthwhile to see who will be there in Berlin and whether
>> they can form one or small concentrated working groups to finish the work
>> that will be happening online (involving everyone) in the few weeks leading
>> up to Berlin. If it turns out that one or two of the active participants
>> would not be in Berlin, it would make sense to fly them in; but I don't
>> think that – without a set agenda and ideas of what the larger group would
>> discuss that can't do online – flying in everyone makes sense.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bence
>>
>> P.S. Please stop attacking WM DE, they are already doing a very huge
>> service to the movement by hosting and sponsoring the event (and to a
>> smaller degree, contributing to the costs of the Chapcom meeting). It is
>> inconceivable that they would have any financial responsibility or
>> obligation for funding the MR meeting just by placing an empty section on
>> an unofficial list of participants. It is up to as MR to convince either
>> the WMF or WM DE or the other chapters that our travel costs should be
>> funded.
>> P.P.S. While the majority of posts on the chapters-l list might have
>> leaned in one direction, it might not have expressed the majority opinion
>> of every participant. (Although, those who expressed their opinion were
>> quite strongly standing by them and certainly represented a bigger group.)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Movementroles mailing list
>> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday
> should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a
> limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such
> general conditions for their meeting. We need to discuss this with the
> program organizer Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR, those
> who are not representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the
> general meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone
> before.)

I agree with this - we would have to ask the organizers if MR
participants can join the chapters meeting as observers. I also agree
with Lodewijk (below) that there should be an annual process for
people who are not chapters reps to be invited, due to their related
work or other relevance to the agenda.

SJ

Lodewijk writes:
> If movement roles (the topic, not the group) is a significant part of the
> agenda, and adding someone who has now quite some experience
> thinking about that topic would be helpful and not too costly - I think
< it would be a good idea... because the expertise would be helpful. In
> general I think it would be good if the organizers (hint to Harel to add
> to considerations next year!) would consider in the future to add some
< 'expert' non-representative slots when topics on the agenda ask for that.

[Samuel Klein]

Dear list,

We have a number of people who will join for a MR meeting in Berlin.

I suggest a Thursday afternoon session to discuss movement roles, and
a brief joint discussion with ChapCom -- we can see if they have time
for a joint session just before lunch.

Please help edit the proposed agenda, and encourage friends and
colleagues to join if available.:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Meeting_2012-03-29

SJ


On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday
>> should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a
>> limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such
>> general conditions for their meeting.  We need to discuss this with the
>> program organizer Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR, those
>> who are not representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the
>> general meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone
>> before.)
>
> I agree with this - we would have to ask the organizers if MR
> participants can join the chapters meeting as observers.  I also agree
> with Lodewijk (below) that there should be an annual process for
> people who are not chapters reps to be invited, due to their related
> work or other relevance to the agenda.
>
> SJ
>
> Lodewijk writes:
>> If movement roles (the topic, not the group) is a significant part of the
>> agenda, and adding someone who has now quite some experience
>> thinking about that topic would be helpful and not too costly - I think
> < it would be a good idea...  because the expertise would be helpful. In
>> general I think it would be good if the organizers (hint to Harel to add
>> to considerations next year!) would consider in the future to add some
> < 'expert' non-representative slots when topics on the agenda ask for that.



--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          [phone]

[Béria Lima]

why do you removed Arinudh Sj?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_roles%2FMeeting_2012-03-29&diff=3531854&oldid=3514013
_____
*
*

*[image: Inline images 1]*

*Béria Lima*

* *

* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*



*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**







*
** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 3 March 2012 04:06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> We have a number of people who will join for a MR meeting in Berlin.
>
> I suggest a Thursday afternoon session to discuss movement roles, and
> a brief joint discussion with ChapCom -- we can see if they have time
> for a joint session just before lunch.
>
> Please help edit the proposed agenda, and encourage friends and
> colleagues to join if available.:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Meeting_2012-03-29
>
> SJ
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/Ye1E23mwN+***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday
> >> should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a
> >> limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such
> >> general conditions for their meeting. We need to discuss this with the
> >> program organizer Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR, those
> >> who are not representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the
> >> general meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone
> >> before.)
> >
> > I agree with this - we would have to ask the organizers if MR
> > participants can join the chapters meeting as observers. I also agree
> > with Lodewijk (below) that there should be an annual process for
> > people who are not chapters reps to be invited, due to their related
> > work or other relevance to the agenda.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > Lodewijk writes:
> >> If movement roles (the topic, not the group) is a significant part of
> the
> >> agenda, and adding someone who has now quite some experience
> >> thinking about that topic would be helpful and not too costly - I think
> > < it would be a good idea... because the expertise would be helpful. In
> >> general I think it would be good if the organizers (hint to Harel to add
> >> to considerations next year!) would consider in the future to add some
> > < 'expert' non-representative slots when topics on the agenda ask for
> that.
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617
> 529 4266
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>

[Lodewijk]

As you can see in the edit history, the name was remove by Anirudh
himself:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_roles%2FMeeting_2012-03-29&diff=3527128&oldid=3514228


No dia 3 de Março de 2012 12:54, Béria Lima <berialima-***@public.gmane.org> escreveu:

> why do you removed Arinudh Sj?
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_roles%2FMeeting_2012-03-29&diff=3531854&oldid=3514013
> _____
> *
> *
>
> *[image: Inline images 1]*
>
> *Béria Lima*
>
> * *
>
> * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*
>
>
>
> *Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> ** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 3 March 2012 04:06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> We have a number of people who will join for a MR meeting in Berlin.
>>
>> I suggest a Thursday afternoon session to discuss movement roles, and
>> a brief joint discussion with ChapCom -- we can see if they have time
>> for a joint session just before lunch.
>>
>> Please help edit the proposed agenda, and encourage friends and
>> colleagues to join if available.:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Meeting_2012-03-29
>>
>> SJ
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy-gM/***@public.gmane.orgm>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday
>> >> should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a
>> >> limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such
>> >> general conditions for their meeting. We need to discuss this with the
>> >> program organizer Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR,
>> those
>> >> who are not representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the
>> >> general meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone
>> >> before.)
>> >
>> > I agree with this - we would have to ask the organizers if MR
>> > participants can join the chapters meeting as observers. I also agree
>> > with Lodewijk (below) that there should be an annual process for
>> > people who are not chapters reps to be invited, due to their related
>> > work or other relevance to the agenda.
>> >
>> > SJ
>> >
>> > Lodewijk writes:
>> >> If movement roles (the topic, not the group) is a significant part of
>> the
>> >> agenda, and adding someone who has now quite some experience
>> >> thinking about that topic would be helpful and not too costly - I think
>> > < it would be a good idea... because the expertise would be helpful. In
>> >> general I think it would be good if the organizers (hint to Harel to
>> add
>> >> to considerations next year!) would consider in the future to add some
>> > < 'expert' non-representative slots when topics on the agenda ask for
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617
>> 529 4266
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Movementroles mailing list
>> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Movementroles mailing list
> Movementroles-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+***@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
>
>