Movement roles/Working group meeting 2010-10-21

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

On Thursday, 21 October 2010, there was a meeting on IRC (#wikimedia-roles on Freenode) to discuss the movement roles project. It was an open meeting, attended by members of the working group as well as other interested people.

Although there was no formal agenda, Jon Huggett listed three basic goals for the meeting after a brief round of introductions. Those goals were:

  • Give an update on progress to date
  • Lay out the process going forward
  • Make clear how interested participants can help

Links to the project page and the proposal were provided for everyone's reference.

The semi-private wiki and mailing list were brought up, and Arne noted that access to those media is granted fairly liberally to almost anyone who wants to participate. [See: Movement roles/Participants]

Jon brought up the questionnaire, and there was some discussion about how certain questions were framed. Particularly, Sebastian expressed a concern that some questions conflated the mission and vision of the Wikimedia Foundation versus the Wikimedia movement as a whole. Others expressed the view that the Foundation existed to support the movement, rather than the other way around, and that a few questions seemed to assume the reverse.

There was also some concern about the presumption that the recommendations of the strategy process are universally accepted by the entire movement.

Meeting attendees were encouraged to edit the questions, but reminded that the interview process was meant to begin as soon as possible and that the questions would be declared final within a matter of days.

With this, the meeting moved on to the matter of whom to interview. Several groups and individuals were brought up, and the list is now being compiled.

At the one-hour mark, several attendees were unable to stay longer, and the meeting ended. Austin invited anyone who wanted to participate to e-mail him for access to the list and wiki.

What follows is the unedited log of the session.

[Wikimedia Movement Roles Open IRC Meeting | http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group | Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Proposal]
[15:59] == Jon____ [56904508@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.144.69.8] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[15:59] <Jon____> hi all
[15:59] == test_ [5b246641@gateway/web/freenode/ip.91.36.102.65] has quit [Client Quit]
[15:59] <aklempert> hi jon
[15:59] <del_droid> hello
[15:59] <Jon____> hi Arne
[16:00] <Austin> Would that be the Jon of the Hugget variety?
[16:00] <Jon____> It is indeed Jon of the Huggett clan
[16:00] <Austin> Excellent
[16:00] <Jon____> Is that Austin of the Hair clan?
[16:01] <Austin> Indeed it is
[16:01] <Austin> Well met, sir.
[16:01] <del_droid> nope, it's the Jon of the 3 underscores variety ;)
[16:01] <Jon____> LOL
[16:01] <Austin> I count four
[16:01] <Jon____> hi del_droid.   :-)
[16:01] <del_droid> darn, blame my small screen
[16:02] <Andy123> It's time guys
[16:02] <Jon____> Welcome everybody
[16:02] <Jon____> Arne, do you want to lead off, or would you like me to?
[16:03] <aklempert> okay
[16:03] == eiaway [~chatzilla@wikimedia/effeietsanders] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[16:03] <Jon____> hi eiaway
[16:04] <aklempert> welcome, and thanks for being here (even if it's not as crowded as expected ;)
[16:04] == eiaway has changed nick to effeietsanders
[16:04] <Jon____> is that lodewijk?
[16:04] <effeietsanders> ssst
[16:04] <effeietsanders> dont tell ;-)
[16:04] <Jon____> LOL
[16:04] <effeietsanders> (but since you blew my cover - yeah it is me ;-) )
[16:04] <aklempert> the meeting is scheduled to last ~ 1hour
[16:05] <aklempert> we don't really have a formal agenda, so it's more or less up to you guys what we're doing here
[16:05] == Abbasjnr [3e186ffa@gateway/web/freenode/ip.62.24.111.250] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[16:05] <Abbasjnr> hello
[16:05] <aklempert> since it's just a small group, I would say we can have a quick round of introductions. So hat everybody knows who's behind these nicknames
[16:05] <del_droid> hello Abbasjnr!
[16:06] <Jon____> hi Abbas
[16:06]  * del_droid is delphine :P
[16:06] <effeietsanders> alien delphine
[16:06] <Jon____> Hi Delphine
[16:06]  * effeietsanders waves@Abbas
[16:06] <del_droid> hehe
[16:06] <effeietsanders> but lets start :)
[16:06] <Abbasjnr> Oh, thanks for claryfing that delphine
[16:07] <Andy123> hiya del_droid! (-:
[16:07] <Abbasjnr> hi Eff:-)
[16:07]  * aklempert is Arne Klempert, board member and one of the initiators of this movement roles process, based in germany
[16:07]  * dami_hun is Bence Damokos, from Hungary
[16:07]  * Andy123 is Anirudh Bhati, Wikimedia India.
[16:07] <Austin> I'm Austin, and I think most of you know me, but I'm an adviser for the working group based in the Netherlands (but totally American)
[16:07]  * lyzzy  is Aluce Wiegand, germany
[16:07] <Jon____> Jon____ is Jon Huggett, advisor and facilitator to the process – I am based in London and work with a number of other global NGO movements
[16:07]  * effeietsanders is lodewijk (the guy with the odd names), board member of WIkimedia Nederland, member of chapcom, founder of the association of stroopwafel addicts and backlogged in reading material on the roles thingy
[16:08] <Abbasjnr> *Abbasjnr is a Wikipedian from Kenya
[16:08] <Abbasjnr> Name: Abbas Mahmoud
[16:08] <aklempert> okay, great!
[16:08]  * del_droid can't type a full intro but hou know me :P
[16:09] == sebmol [~sebastian@Wikimedia/Sebmol] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[16:09] <aklempert> jon, would you like to give a brief introduction about where we currently are?
[16:09] <Jon____> sure
[16:09] <Jon____> There are really three things we want to accomplish: l be to update you on progress to date, lay out the process going forward, and to find out how you might be able to help us
[16:10]  * aklempert welcomes sebastian moleski, president of wikimedia germany
[16:10] <Jon____> So far we have created a team and received a brief from the board
[16:11] <Jon____> the details of the brief are in the proposal that was approved by the board
[16:11] <Jon____> the proposal that is on wiki
[16:11]  * sebmol feels welcomed
[16:11] <Jon____> we are now beginning the work of soliciting views from a wide range of wikimedians
[16:12] <Jon____> we will also, in parallel, look to other NGO networks to see if there is any learning that might be useful
[16:12] <effeietsanders> (just a housekeeping request - if you refer to wiki pages etc, it would be nice to also send around the link)
[16:12] <Jon____> OK. coming right up
[16:12] <Abbasjnr> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Proposal
[16:12] <Austin> Yes, sorry?the proposal is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Proposal
[16:13] == dami_hun changed the topic of #wikimedia-roles to: Wikimedia Movement Roles Open IRC Meeting | http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group | Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Proposal
[16:13] <Austin> Everything should be linked from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project
[16:13] <Jon____> thanks everybody
[16:14] <Andy123> Does the Movement have a formal mailing list?
[16:14] <effeietsanders> are the minutes of the last two meetings yet available?
[16:14] <Austin> Not yet, and that's my fault--I've temporarily misplaced them.
[16:14] <effeietsanders> (24/9 and 15/10)
[16:14] == wing2 [~wing2@dslb-084-058-089-100.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[16:14] <Jon____> hi wing 2
[16:14] <wing2> Hello all
[16:15] <wing2> sorry for being late
[16:15] <aklempert> we have. it's used by the members of the group, but we're currently considering to open it up for (almost) anybody who's interested
[16:15] <Jon____> the issues we want to investigate first are in the list of questions for initial interview http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Questionnaire
[16:15] <effeietsanders> aklempert: I guess that would be a good idea considering that the process was supposed to be open in the first place :)
[16:17] <Jon____> on these issues, we want to hear from a wide range of Wikipedians over the next couple of months
[16:17] <effeietsanders> Jon____: since you use the term "interview" does that mean you mainly want to ask questions, or do you want to stimulate discussion?
[16:17] <Jon____> all of the above
[16:17] <Jon____> these are questions we are asking
[16:17] <Jon____> we can ask them in an interview
[16:17] <Jon____> people can offer their opinions on the wiki
[16:17] <Jon____> and we can discuss them, too
[16:18] <sebmol> one thing I've noticed with these questions is that they seem to conflate the mission and vision of the Foundation
[16:18] <sebmol> and that of the movement
[16:18] <sebmol> as well as extrapolating from the strategic plan the Foundation has set for itself
[16:19] <sebmol> to assuming that this is a strategic plan to be executed for the whole movement
[16:19] <del_droid> conflate?
[16:19] <Austin> Well, the goal is to ask these questions in the context of the movement as a whole, but obviously the Foundation is a major stakeholder and a factor in the discussion.
[16:19] <sebmol> right
[16:19] <sebmol> no question about that
[16:19] <aklempert> .. and the strategy process wasn't very clear about its scope (wmf or movement)
[16:19] <sebmol> conflate=merge, assume to be the same
[16:20] <effeietsanders> Austin: but "how can the movement meet the goals of the foundation" ?
[16:20] <effeietsanders> (besides that I think that question is besides the scope because it is re-doing the strategy process :) )
[16:20] <aklempert> I'm not aware of any vision/mission that is explicitly for "the movement"
[16:20] <Andy123> It's the other way around, isn't it?
[16:20] <Andy123> The Foundation exists to support the Movement.
[16:21] <Austin> I actually don't remember that question, but I would have personally asked it the other way around.
[16:21] <Andy123> "How can the Wikimedia movement best meet the goals in the strategic plan adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation?"
[16:21] <effeietsanders> Austin: referring to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Questionnaire
[16:22] <sebmol> aklempert: indeed there's not
[16:22] <Austin> It's been pretty heavily edited in the last week, so I might have missed one or two in review.
[16:23] <aklempert> if anybody wants to improve the questions: feel free to edit them - but please do so very soon because we shouldn't change them once we started with the interviews
[16:23] <effeietsanders> Austin: a question I am missing is "which interactions with other groups in this movement are critical for your group to play its part"
[16:23] <Jon____> Andy, that is a good suggestion
[16:23] <effeietsanders> or other questios referring to the interaction between the different components
[16:24] <Jon____> can people make any suggestions or edits quickly, so that we can lock down the questions for the interviews?
[16:24] <effeietsanders> it would be nice to move away from the sum of the individuals
[16:24] <Jon____> Arne makes a good point that once we start gathering views we should keep the questions consistent
[16:24] <effeietsanders> and move towards synergy :)
[16:24] <del_droid> Andy123: doesn't that question assume thag the movement is subordinated to the foudation? or did i get that wrong?
[16:25] <Andy123> del_droid, I'm simply quoting from the Questionnaire page.
[16:25] <del_droid> ah sorry
[16:25] == wing3 [~wing2@dslb-084-058-089-100.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[16:25] <Andy123> And yes, I agree with you.  The Foundation exists to support the movment, and not the other way around.
[16:25] <del_droid> i tbought that was a new phrasing
[16:25] <del_droid> then my remark applies ;)
[16:26] <aklempert> del_droid: Template:Sofixit ;)
[16:26] <del_droid> i can't :P
[16:26] <Jon____> Two thoughts: (1) we need to ask questions in a "neutral" way; and (2) we need to meet our brief from the Foundation
[16:27] == delphine [~notafish@unaffiliated/delphine] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[16:27] <Jon____> the brief from the Foundation comes out of the strategic plan it adopted
[16:27] <effeietsanders> another thing I am missing somewhat is a question about a minimum of communication
[16:27] <effeietsanders> and what would be an effective method
[16:27] <Jon____> what would that question be?
[16:27] <effeietsanders> regarding to reporting for example
[16:28] <aklempert> isn't that too operational?
[16:28] <effeietsanders> aklempert: not if you want to make reports an obligation
[16:28] == wing2 [~wing2@dslb-084-058-089-100.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
[16:28] <Jon____> we were trying to get at that issue with the question on transparency
[16:28] <Andy123> Jon___, do we have a formal brief from the Foudation?
[16:28] <aklempert> this questionnaire is not the end of the process, it's the starting point
[16:28] <effeietsanders> what communication is critical to function properly
[16:29] <effeietsanders> Jon____: transparency is passive, communication is active
[16:29] == wing3 has changed nick to wing2
[16:29] <effeietsanders> might be that people say that no communication is necessary - I dont know, but would like to know what people think about it
[16:30] <delphine> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_roles%2FQuestionnaire&action=historysubmit&diff=2171368&oldid=2170149
[16:30] <delphine> effeietsanders: I still think this is operational
[16:30] <dami_hun> I think the strategy question would work in the current phrasing in the context (the follow up questions go through the various strategic goals); It might work a bit better with a preceding question on whether they agree with the goals listed or do they think they apply to the whole movement as opposed to just the WMF
[16:30] <dami_hun> but I see that Delphine had a similar idea :)
[16:30] <delphine> dami_hun: great minds ;)
[16:31] <Austin> I like it
[16:31] <Jon____> does that not run the risk of missing the brief from the Foundation?
[16:31] <Jon____> It seems that there are two questions here, each valid
[16:31] <delphine> we could get rid of "How can the Wikimedia movement best meet the goals in the strategic plan adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation?" and break down answers per strategic goal
[16:31] <delphine> or something
[16:32] <Jon____> The more specific the better
[16:32] <effeietsanders> Jon____: just to be clear, with "brief" you mean http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group/Proposal?oldid=2155562 ?
[16:32] <Jon____> Yes
[16:32] <delphine> Jon____: the question "How can the Wikimedia movement best meet the goals in the strategic plan adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation?" assumes that the Wikimedia Movement is going to follow.
[16:32] <Jon____> I don't think our brief is to unpick the strategy
[16:32] <delphine> no questions asked
[16:32] <delphine> Jon____: that's not what I had in mind.
[16:32] <Andy123> me neither
[16:33] <delphine> rather try and validate how "reachy" the strategic plan is
[16:33] <delphine> man, I can't find the word :)
[16:33] <Jon____> no reason to assume that the movement will follow blindly, but can we ask the question in a way that focuses on what it takes to meet goals, rather than revisit the strategy?
[16:34] <aklempert> i think the question linked above doesn't unpick the strategy. It seems like a very valid question about the perception of the strategy plan
[16:34] <delphine> I don't understand where you read that this means revisiting the strategy
[16:34] <delphine> the strategy is a given
[16:34] <effeietsanders> Jon____: but that assumes the whole movement should work along the WMF strategy :)
[16:34] <delphine> the question should focus on whether this strategy works for all organisations/entities etc.
[16:34] <Jon____> great.  if we all agreed on that then we on the same page
[16:35] <effeietsanders> while the whole time, everybody said that chapters might be for example a party that does complementary things there
[16:35] <Jon____> well, there are two questions, right - does the strategy work for you, and what would it take for the movement to meet the strategy
[16:35] <Jon____> both are fair questions
[16:35] <effeietsanders> the second assumes an answer on the first :)
[16:35] <delphine> the second is biased. It might be fair, but it's biased ;)
[16:36] <wing2> My personal opinion is that the strategic plan is in this context not that important, what is important is our mission
[16:36] <wing2> The strategic plan is ony for 5 years
[16:36] <effeietsanders> wing2: agreed
[16:36] <sebmol> the first couple of questions under "roles in the wikimedia movement" have the same issue
[16:36] <wing2> it is a small step on the road to fulfill our mission
[16:36] <wing2> in five years we may have other plans
[16:36] <sebmol> whose mission?
[16:36] <wing2> but the mission is the target
[16:36] <aklempert> sebmol: :)
[16:36] <effeietsanders> and the mission is more likely to be shared amongst the organizations
[16:37] <wing2> both for the foundation as well as for the movement
[16:37] <effeietsanders> partially or in whole
[16:37] <sebmol> well, the foundation has done the work of adopting a mission
[16:37] <sebmol> the movement in general hasn't
[16:37] <sebmol> aklempert pointed that out earlier too
[16:38] <aklempert> sebmol: well, there was a good level of community participation in the development of the movement (including chapters)
[16:38] <Jon____> it sounds like a key outcome for this work would be for us to have clarity on the mission of the movement, the foundation, and each entity ... and in particular to know where those are identical, where they overlap, and where they might conflict
[16:38] <aklempert> the first draft was a result of the very first chapters meeting in Frankfurt
[16:38] <sebmol> right Jon____
[16:38] == ragesoss [~ragesoss@wikimedia/ragesoss] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[16:39] <aklempert> +1
[16:39] <sebmol> aklempert: development of the mission or the movement?
[16:39] <sebmol> mistyped?
[16:39] <aklempert> mission
[16:39] <aklempert> sorry
[16:39] <sebmol> i agree
[16:39] <delphine> hi ragesoss :)
[16:40] <ragesoss> hi delphine :)
[16:40] <sebmol> that doesn't make them identical, whether they exist or not
[16:40] <sebmol> this process could serve as a means to develop such a shared mission
[16:40] <sebmol> like Jon____ said
[16:40] <sebmol> but then we shouldn't presuppose that they are identical
[16:40] <aklempert> sure
[16:40] <Jon____> if we can have clarity on the mission(s), we can be clear on the goals for the movement, the foundation, and other entities within the movement
[16:40] <Austin> Granted
[16:41] <Jon____> which helps us define the roles that each entity plays within the movement
[16:41] <sebmol> and looking at the WMF mission statement, it's clear they wouldn't be identical either
[16:41] <sebmol> unfortunately, after making this mess, I have to leave
[16:41] <effeietsanders> ok, what about opening up the question on mission
[16:41] == Abbasjnr [3e186ffa@gateway/web/freenode/ip.62.24.111.250] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
[16:41] <effeietsanders> "what is the mission of the wikimedia movement to your opinion"
[16:41] <sebmol> and leave this in your capable hands
[16:41] == sebmol [~sebastian@Wikimedia/Sebmol] has quit []
[16:41] <effeietsanders> and then work from there
[16:42] <effeietsanders> maybe add a side question "and where does this differ from the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation"
[16:42] <aklempert> effeietsanders: would be less biased with "where" in brackets ;)
[16:43] <effeietsanders> aklempert: a possible answer is nowhere
[16:43] <aklempert> just kidding
[16:44] <Jon____> from whom should we seek views?
[16:45] <Andy123> anyone who's willing to opine.
[16:46] <del_droid> people who we know have different views on the matter, for a start
[16:46] <effeietsanders> Andy123: I think that is too limited :)
[16:46] <effeietsanders> you need to involve them actively imho
[16:46] <Jon____> yup.  who should we involve actively?
[16:46] <effeietsanders> definitely try to cover 90% of the chapters
[16:46] <effeietsanders> with the suggestion to discuss it within their boards where possible time wise
[16:46] <lyzzy> every existing, planned and in-discussion chapter
[16:47] <lyzzy> + chapcom
[16:47] <effeietsanders> cover the non-chapters that we know to exist
[16:47] <effeietsanders> ask the individual chapcom members
[16:47] <effeietsanders> not as a body imho
[16:47] <dami_hun> WMF Board members and some of the former members
[16:47] <effeietsanders> (too diverse a group :) )
[16:47] <Andy123> Yes, that's a good start... individual suggestions.
[16:47] <Jon____> which are the "non-chapters" we should include?
[16:47] <effeietsanders> probably some relevant people on the advisory committee
[16:48] <effeietsanders> Jon____: at least the catalans, brazillians, macau
[16:48] <Andy123> afaik, kenya is still not a chapter, they are in planning stage.
[16:48] <dami_hun> WM Kansai probably
[16:48] <del_droid> catalans, brazilians, japanese
[16:48] <effeietsanders> dami_hun: yeah
[16:49] <effeietsanders> dont forget to approach some US-based groups
[16:49] <effeietsanders> (although I guess that is in safe hands...)
[16:49] <Jon____> any groups that are not geographic?
[16:49] <dami_hun> maybe one or two of the more established WP students clubs
[16:49] <dami_hun> also some of the people most active on the strategy wiki (Eugene might have some suggestions on this)
[16:50] <effeietsanders> i dont know of any non-geographical groups actually
[16:50] <del_droid> i would like to see people interviewed who are know for their non-involvement in wikiMedia but rather in wm projects
[16:50] <effeietsanders> usually they are not organized in a real life manner
[16:51] <Austin> Well, there was some talk about project-specific outreach groups.
[16:51] <Austin> On-wiki projects that reach out to real-world institutions.
[16:51] <effeietsanders> perhaps some folks from wikinews
[16:51] <Jon____> great thought Delphine
[16:51] <del_droid> austin, yes
[16:51] <aklempert> effeietsanders: a long time ago the esperanto community considered something
[16:51] <Austin> But perhaps don't organize themselves as a meatspace group.
[16:51] <effeietsanders> where there was talk before iirc to get something founded to acknowledge reporters and all
[16:51] <effeietsanders> but you should ask a wikinewsian to see how serious it was
[16:52] <wing2> effeietsanders, Ziko and the Esperanto folks
[16:52] <Austin> I'll ask one now :)
[16:52] <effeietsanders> probably talk with some failed chapters
[16:52] <effeietsanders> the folks from Wikimedia UK 1.0 for example
[16:52] <Andy123> NZ
[16:52] <effeietsanders> Taiwan
[16:53] <effeietsanders> or groups that never made it to recognition: Egypt, Canada, Belgium
[16:53] <effeietsanders> (to see what other alternatives they might suggest)
[16:55] <effeietsanders> did you think about how to present the outcomes of those conversations?
[16:56] <effeietsanders> because this will be a huge pile of data
[16:56] <effeietsanders> will you release all answers, or just summaries?
[16:56] <aklempert> we probably will need some help to put valid email addresses and names behind the groups mentioned
[16:56] <effeietsanders> how will you compile them together and draw some kind of conclusions?
[16:56] <Jon____> a key part of our brief is "... reaching parts of the world that currently lack a Wikimedia community" – is there any group or person that could give us special insight?
[16:56] == delphine has changed nick to delphine_away
[16:56]  * delphine_away est partie pêcher / has gone fishing
[16:57] <effeietsanders> Jon____: some of the groups I mentioned before might be a good begin
[16:57] <Jon____> two issues in reporting - what can be made public, and how to synthesize
[16:57] <effeietsanders> because in the end you need someone to talk with :)
[16:58] <Jon____> I'd suggest we make public whatever interview notes or feedback that we can ... unless someone says that they would like it to be off the record
[16:58] == Austin [~austin@wikimedia/Austin] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
[16:58] <Jon____> that is how they did the work on the strategy wiki
[16:58] <Jon____> the we will work on the synthesis as a team
[16:59] == austin [~austin@213.34.155.125] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[16:59] <Jon____> which will be possible if the questions are consistent
[16:59] == austin has changed nick to Austin
[16:59] == Austin [~austin@213.34.155.125] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
[17:00] == del_droid [~delphine@unaffiliated/delphine] has quit [Quit: Bye]
[17:00] == austin [~austin@213.34.155.125] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[17:00] == austin has changed nick to Austin
[17:00] == del_droid [~delphine@unaffiliated/delphine] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[17:00] <Jon____> looks like we are at 5pm and are losing people
[17:00] <Austin> So, I pinged a Wikinews bureaucrat and he said nothing ever came of an organization, at least for English.
[17:01] <effeietsanders> Jon____: hm, the method of synthesizing sounds vague
[17:01] <Austin> They stuck with the self-accrediting model.
[17:01] <effeietsanders> how can you make the whole of answers insightful - is it possible to ask the questions in a way they fit into a matrix for example?
[17:01] <Austin> It's worth talking to someone from Wikinews anyway, I think.
[17:01] <aklempert> effeietsanders: this is not the last questionnaire
[17:01] <Jon____> we will have a pile of qualitative data
[17:02] <aklempert> it's just a starting point to get more insight in possible issues.
[17:02] <Jon____> synthesis of qualitative data is not that complicated, just laborious
[17:02] <effeietsanders> aklempert: yes, i know
[17:02] <aklempert> in a next step there will be a more quantitative approach
[17:02] <effeietsanders> but still, if you want a constructive discussion, then you need insightful data
[17:02] <effeietsanders> and that is what I assume is one of the goals here, get people to discuss it
[17:02] <effeietsanders> draw conclusions
[17:03] <effeietsanders> work on consensus
[17:03] == delphine [~delphine@unaffiliated/delphine] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[17:03] <Jon____> not a plan yet to develop quantiative date
[17:03] <Jon____> yes, definitely get people to discuss it and draw conclusions
[17:04] <Jon____> and different people may draw different conclusions, which may prove to be the meat of the discussion
[17:04] <effeietsanders> (asking because if you know what you want to do with it, that might help in asking the questions :) )
[17:05] == del_droid [~delphine@unaffiliated/delphine] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
[17:06] <Jon____> Indeed.
[17:07] == dami_hun [54033446@gateway/web/freenode/ip.84.3.52.70] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
[17:07] <Jon____> we are now well past the hour ... and are losing people ... should wrap up?
[17:08] <effeietsanders> yeah, people loose their connection :)
[17:08] <effeietsanders> but more importantly: the conversation drops dead
[17:08] <Austin> Yeah, this McDonald's is filling up and I'm starting to feel like a jerk for taking up a table.  :)
[17:08] <Jon____> OK.  Shall we wrap and say thank you to everyone that is here?
[17:08] <effeietsanders> I guess it would be good to have more discussions though :)
[17:09]  * delphine is in her car
[17:09] <Jon____> absolutely
[17:09] <Jon____> delphine, are you doing IRC while driving?
[17:09] <Austin> I doubt there'll be any disagreement when I say that we should have more of these meetings in the future.
[17:09] <delphine> lol, i'm in a traffic jam
[17:09] <Andy123> Indeed.
[17:10] <Jon____> Until the next discussion
[17:10] <delphine> but i just left home :P
[17:10] <aklempert> quick question: is anybody here who's not on internal-l ?
[17:10] <effeietsanders> if Andy123 is there, everybody is
[17:10] == dami_hun [54033446@gateway/web/freenode/ip.84.3.52.70] has joined #wikimedia-roles
[17:11] <Andy123> yep, I am.
[17:11] <delphine> Jon____: meet the geek in me ;)
[17:11] <Jon____> LOL
[17:11] <effeietsanders> delphine: OMG
[17:11] <effeietsanders> congratulations!
[17:11] <effeietsanders> ;-)
[17:12] <dami_hun> what did I miss? :)
[17:12] <effeietsanders> dami_hun: [18:11:11]    <delphine>    Jon____: meet the geek in me ;)
[17:12] <aklempert> if anybody of you wants to participate in the process on a regular basis, please send an email to austin. we will then add you to the movement roles mailing list
[17:13] <Andy123> thanks aklempert, austin, can you let me in? (anirudhsbh@gmail.com)
[17:13]  * effeietsanders guesses he doesnt have to state the obvious
[17:13] <Jon____> Let's include Lodewijk, too!
[17:14] <Austin> Yup, adhair@gmail.com
[17:14] <Jon____> OK, I think we can say thanks to everyone
[17:14] <Jon____> this has been great, and a great start for more
[17:14] <Austin> I'll go ahead and add Anirudh
[17:14] <Austin> Anyone else, send me an e-mail
[17:15] <Jon____> any final thoughts before we wrap up?
[17:15] <Austin> Because I'm off to sit on hold at €.15/minute to talk to Telfort tech support in my limited Dutch
[17:16] <Jon____> OK.  Thanks everyone.  Talk to you soon.
[17:16] <wing2> Thank you very much. See you
[17:16] == wing2 [~wing2@dslb-084-058-089-100.pools.arcor-ip.net] has left #wikimedia-roles []