Grants talk:PEG/User:HstryQT - GLAMWiki US Consortium/Advisory Group Meeting

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1) How many meetings these people had done before in online ways? (Phone calls/Skype...) before reaching to a face-to-face meeting which involve flights? 2) Why Bob sleeping in Hostel and the others in Hotels? Is there more cheaper hotel option to consider? I paid 155$ when i was in D.C for a great hotel (State Plaza). --Itzike (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob volunteered to stay in the hostel using the group reservation rate that Wikimedia DC has available due to another event over the weekend before the meeting. Otherwise, though, Washington D.C. is a relatively expensive place to stay, and we're in the peak tourist season. I believe their estimates are based on hotels convenient to the downtown location, which is preferable, but they are reasonable people if that is impossible..
Your first question is a good one, and while the answer is that they haven't met a lot before, there are two important points I want to make. First, these are essentially the GLAM-Wiki key players in the US, so they are known quantities to the Wikimedia community. They have all been either deeply involved in GLAM projects of their own or are important supporters from the cultural world; they are the kind of people that are invested enough to go to a working meeting, not just attend an information session. And most of the attendees are attending using their own or their institution's own funding. Second, this is the first meeting of its kind, and we consider getting all of the advisory board members in a room together for a day to be a necessary prerequisite to making the Consortium viable. So, several of us have been in meetings together before at the same time, but never all at once. Dominic (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments/questions

  • Thanks for this application. I guess the burning issue with the funding of physical meetups is always: what value does the considerable expense of transport and accommodation add to online communications, including, as raised by Itzike above, skype audio meetings. I'm presuming that you guys need such a large dose of face-to-face to build personal and professional collaborative trust—in ways that might be more difficult using online channels. That argument, possibly in a little more detail, could have been added to your statement above, that "we consider getting all of the advisory board members in a room together for a day to be a necessary prerequisite to making the Consortium viable". After all, most of the communication/collaboration for the Consortium and the advisory group has already been and will continue to be online, I guess. You do hint at this in the "other benefits" at the bottom; but I suggest that this shouldn't be relegated to the extras, but part of the main theme.
  • I wonder to what extent you've decided on a meeting agenda, and whether it's possible for some draft text will be prepared and presented for "formalizing the core aims and principles" so that quicker progress can be made during the meeting. Will there will be a written summary of discussion and major decisions taken (and if so, who will be responsible for that).
  • What are the main hurdles to overcome, and what's the approximate timeframe if everything goes well?
  • Can you briefly say what the forward (mechanically) will be after the meeting, assuming it goes well? Are the two US chapters on board and supportive?
  • I'd like to grumble a bit about the hotel costs, as Itzike does; but I suppose Washington DC at this peak time is the obvious place for it under the circumstances.
  • Will the GAC receive a report reasonably soon after the meetup; and one that might be useful in terms of the Foundation's priority for "learning lessons" through the movement?
  • $2.1k is trifling if this moves forward what looks like a valuable way of adding cohesion to a sprawling country that lacks cohesive coverage by chapters. I'm inclined to support. Tony (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Regarding the reason for physical meeting when that entails considerably more expense than online communication, I should point out that the venue is being provided to us for free by the National Archives, and the majority of attendees are not requiring Wikimedia funding to attend. This reduced expense we were able to secure for the event was a major reason we decided it was worth it to hold a physical meeting then and there, when we have been hoping to have such a meeting for nearly a year now but wanted it to be a reasonable expense. We feel that an all-day, intensive strategy session with the main players in the same room immersed in the planning will produce more tangible outcomes than email and other online communications have so far. This is a special meeting, not a regularly planned occurrence, which should generate momentum for further online communications which will be more productive for having met in person.
    • A specific agenda is still being formulated; the meeting will likely be free-flowing, however, we are starting from a set list of questions and principles.
    • The chapters are supportive informally. I represent Wikimedia DC and communicate to them often, and WMNYC folks are also aware of the plans for Consortium. Bob, who is part of this grant request, comes from the New York Public Library, which has a Wikipedian in Residence who is a WMNYC board member, and he is in contact with WMNYC. The Consortium may become a chapter-supported Wikimedia affiliate (user group?) in the future.
    • There would have been a report anyway, as we want to maintain momentum after the meeting and possibly assign roles. We will also be reporting back to the GLAM-Wiki US blog and the public mailing list on what we did.
    • I also think the $2000 is a relatively small sum for the potential impact, since the majority of the expenses being incurred are not being funded by grant. We explored all other funding options for venue, travel, and accommodations, and are only requesting funding for the three attendees with no other possible source of funding. Dominic (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Why there is such a huge difference of cost of accommodation (i.e: Jenny Mikulay and Adrianne Russell: 239/day, 215/day, Bob Kosovsky: 38/day (hostel) ? Is it any problem to put all 3 of us in hostel? Except this the application is IMHO OK. Polimerek (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not think that putting up people in a hotel is a problem, nor find that the cost is so prohibitive, but do wonder why there are two different hotels rather than one (of course the cheapest one ;)). This is not so much about cost as about enhancing the whole "camaraderie" side of things (and because it's easier to process in the end, probably). I suppose all other participants are those listed here? Are all of them going to be there? Thanks. I fully support this project and am looking forward to seeing progress reports on the advisory group's work in the coming months. notafish }<';> 01:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Change to project budget approved[edit]

A change to this project budget was approved. Please see the discussion page of the grant report for more details. Regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 21:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)