Movement roles/Working group meeting 2010-11-19

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
--- Log opened Fri Nov 19 07:02:54 2010
10:44 -!- anirudh [SirNichola@wikimedia/Sir-Nicholas-de-Mimsy-Porpington] has joined #wikimedia-roles
13:59 -!- Jon_H [7d3f9949@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
14:18 -!- Jon_H [7d3f9949@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
15:30 < anirudh> all set?
15:30 < anirudh> :)
15:54 < anirudh> austin, so are we having the party or what?
15:54 -!- bishakha [] has joined #wikimedia-roles
15:55  * anirudh waves bishakha
15:55 < bishakha> hey anirudh!
15:55 < anirudh> good evening. :)
15:55 < bishakha> glad to hear about ahmedabad meeting. :)
15:55 -!- Morgan_ [ca8c6527@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
15:56 < anirudh> hiya morgan.
15:56 < Morgan_> hi all :-)
15:56 < bishakha> hi :)
15:56 < anirudh> bishakha, thanks. it's mostly SEOs and marketers turning up.
15:56 < anirudh> ;-)
15:56 -!- Jon_H [7d3f9949@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
15:57 < anirudh> hey jon_h
15:57 < Jon_H> hi all
15:57 < Morgan_> hi Jon
15:57 < Jon_H> hey anirudh
15:57 < Jon_H> Hi Morgan
15:57 -!- dami_hun [54033446@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
15:58 < Jon_H> hi Bence
15:58 < dami_hun> hi all
15:58 < anirudh> hi dami_hun
15:58 < Morgan_> hi Bence
15:58 < anirudh> just in time. are we expecting arne?
15:58 -!- Ijon_ [4fb37384@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
15:58 < Jon_H> yes, we are
15:58 < Ijon_> Hello, everyone.  Asaf Bartov, Wikimedia Israel.
15:58 -!- Ijon_ is now known as Asaf
15:59 < Jon_H> I spoke with Arne just a little earlier, and he said he would be here
15:59 < bishakha> hi asaf
15:59 < Jon_H> Hi Asaf
15:59 < Morgan_> hi Asaf
15:59 < Jon_H> Austin said he would not be here, but would leave his chat client open, which it looks like he has done
15:59 -!- aklempert [~chatzilla@] has joined #wikimedia-roles
15:59 < Jon_H> hi Arne
16:00 < aklempert> hi everybody
16:00 < bishakha> hey arne
16:00 < anirudh> hi arne
16:00  * anirudh waves asaf
16:01 < Jon_H> Any more introductions?  kibble?
16:01 < anirudh> kibble is casey brown.
16:01 < Jon_H> hi Casey!
16:02 -!- bnewstead [~chatzilla@] has joined #wikimedia-roles
16:02 < Jon_H> hi Barry
16:03 < Jon_H> Shall we start?
16:03 < bishakha> let's
16:03 < Jon_H> Did everyone get the agenda
16:03 < bnewstead> Hi all - ready to go
16:04 < Jon_H> The first item is to be sure that we have set up the wiki to be ready to hear from everyone
16:04 < Jon_H> since last time we've set up a number of pages
16:04 -!- Morgan_ [ca8c6527@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:04 < Jon_H> if we are all OK, we can go to the second item on the agenda
16:04 < Jon_H> but if there are things that we need to do, please say now
16:05 -!- Morgan_ [ca8c6526@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
16:05 < aklempert> question: did everybody had a look at the modified meta pages?
16:05 -!- Asaf [4fb37384@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:06 < Jon_H> from here for the next couple of months we'd like to try to hear from as many people as possible - so the modified pages on meta should be ready to receive everyone's views
16:06 < bishakha> yes, blog looks good
16:06 < Jon_H> great
16:06 < anirudh> yep.
16:07 < Jon_H> if everyone is OK, we can brainstorm how to encourage participation from as broad a range of Wikimedians as possible
16:07 < bnewstead> Sure
16:08 < dami_hun> maybe we could e-mail out the new entries on the blog to the wikimedia-announce list whenever they are put up?
16:08 < Morgan_> ok
16:08 < anirudh> and internal-l
16:08 < bishakha> yes
16:08 < Jon_H> great.  we can do that now.   and foundation-l as well?
16:09 < Jon_H> any other lists or places to post?
16:09 < Morgan_> yes, as foundation-l is open to public
16:09 < bishakha> i think foundation-l as well
16:09 < aklempert> announce-l is sent to foundatin-l anyway
16:09 -!- Asaf [4fb37384@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
16:09 < Asaf> Sorry, got disconnected.
16:09 < Jon_H> NP, welcome back
16:09 < aklempert> but we should be careful and not use this channel for any single blogpost
16:10 < anirudh> country specific lists too, many interested community members are probably not subscribed to foundation-l / wikimedia-announce
16:11 < bishakha> we can post to the various india city lists too
16:11 < Morgan_> How about right after the donation page?
16:11 < dami_hun> I think a question a week would not be too much spamy -
16:11 < dami_hun> -y
16:11 < aklempert> anirudh: good point. we should mention that in our mail, encouraging people to spread the link in their local communities
16:11 < Jon_H> is there any list we should not send to?
16:12 < Asaf> Perhaps also in friendly organizations, e.g. Creative Commons, free culture clubs?
16:12 < anirudh> jon_h, encyclopediadramatica-l?
16:12 < bnewstead> I like Asaf's suggestion
16:13 < anirudh> yep
16:13 < Jon_H> thanks.  we want to hear from as many wikimedians as possible
16:14 < Jon_H> I like Bence's thought about opening a new topic once a week.  does that sound right to everyone?
16:14 < bishakha> yes, once a week will keep the momentum going between now and jan
16:14 < aklempert> +1
16:15 < Jon_H> perfect
16:15 < Asaf> It depends on whether we think a new question may divert focus from a good discussion on a previous question.  But it probably matches the timeline we need.
16:15 < Jon_H> let's pick the next couple of topics so that we can get ready up to the next call
16:16 < Jon_H> which should we pick from the options?
16:16 < Asaf> Perhaps one-a-week can be adopted as a rule of thumb, but we can play it by ear as we see which questions get more traction.
16:17 < aklempert> Asaf: sure (ignore all rules!)
16:17 < Jon_H> let's get ready for one a week, and see what happens ...
16:19 < bishakha> so one thing: since there are many more qs than weeks between now and Jan, does that mean we will get fewer responses to those we don't pick for the blog?
16:19 < Asaf> I guess the strategic goals question would be a good next step.
16:20 < bishakha> since we've picked a sub-question for the first week?
16:20 < bishakha> or are we looking at whole sections as questions?
16:20 < dami_hun> a lot of questions form a group (follow-up on each other) so we might need to group  more questions together, otherwise it will be difficult to come up with a blog-like narrative to elicit answers
16:21 < bishakha> yes, i think so too;
16:21 < dami_hun> and keep the interest up from week to week
16:21 < Morgan_> we have about 7 weeks before Jan
16:21 < Morgan_> and there are 8 sections
16:22 < anirudh> bishakha, no, we weren't originally, but I would support the idea of taking sections rather than individual questions.  Connected qs can trigger a lot more discourse and more ideas.
16:22 < bishakha> yes, so 1 section a week?
16:22 < Asaf> If we want build-up, I guess the do-you-share-the-vision question is the logical beginning.
16:22 < bishakha> i think the downside to the section is that there are many more qs to answer
16:22 < bishakha> but can't see how we will circulate all otherwise
16:23 < bishakha> or do we pick one question from each section each week?
16:23 < bishakha> which we feel will enthuse more people to reply to that one?
16:23 < Jon_H> I think we should craft our questions to generate the best discussion
16:23 < Asaf> there are advantages to posing multiple questions in a single blog post: 1. you increase the chances of engaging the reader on at least one of them.  2. you deliver more information (questions are information too) per reader-attention-opportunity.  An irrelevant single-question post could make a reader classify the entire series as irrelevant.
16:24 < Jon_H> people can also contribute by answering all of the questions in one g o
16:24 < anirudh> Indeed, also chances are that they will understand the context better with more more questions (that are connected, of course)
16:25 < Morgan_> i doubt that how many people will answer all the questions
16:25 < Jon_H> on the next call, we can pick or design future questions in the light of the discussions we see over the next two weeks
16:25 < bnewstead> We shouldn't over think this.
16:26 < bishakha> all good points, I'm leaning more towards putting out connected qs rather than single
16:26 < bnewstead> We really need a few good questions to spark the dialogue...
16:26 < Asaf> we don't particularly need any one person to answer all the questions.  We need aggregates of answers, and we need people to answer questions that engage them, that they find relevant or appealing or inspiring.
16:26 < bnewstead> then we can use the contents of the dialogue to spark further dialogue and bring new people in,
16:27 < bishakha> i guess it depends on how we see the aim of the blog
16:27 < bishakha> is it to get diversity - wider reach?
16:27 < bishakha> or comprehensiveness: all questions answered?
16:27 < Morgan_> honestly, open-end questions is not very interesting for people to answer, if compare to the MC questions, so i prefer less questions
16:27 < bnewstead> We (mainly Jon and Austin) can work with those engaged in the wiki to cover questions we need
16:27 < Jon_H> how about the next question being "How can the Wikimedia movement best meet its strategic goals?" with a list to remind folks of those goals
16:28 < bnewstead> I see the blog as a way to *market* MR to bring in people
16:28 < bishakha> agree, barry
16:28 < Jon_H> once we have brought them in, we can engage them more
16:29 < Jon_H> for the third question, we could ask "What do you think should be the core tasks and roles in the movement of a chapter or sub-national chapter?
16:29 < Asaf> All the more reason to pose multiple questions in a single post -- generate maximum interest in responding to at least one of them, thus drawing people into involvement.
16:30 < aklempert> Jon_H: this is probably not the best question to engage a broad audience (too specific)
16:30 < bnewstead> I think a question focused on problems/challenges would attract a lot of interest.
16:30 < Morgan_> agree
16:30 < Asaf> ...And requires a lot of background.  Many, many Wikimedians are not involved with chapter work, and know next to nothing about chapters.
16:30 < Jon_H> how would you word that?
16:30 < bishakha> jon: would you club chapter and sub-national in one question? it's provocative
16:31 < bnewstead> While it may generate complaints about the movement, it would hook people in and give us fodder for discussion
16:31 < anirudh> Jon_H: It is an open-ended question that needs a lot of context.  I suggest a major portion of the blog post should contain details that challenge the reader to put their ideas forward.
16:31 < Jon_H> my thought of bringing national and sub-national chapters together was to spark some discussion, although some may not like that
16:31 < bishakha> provocative may be good though; may spark discussion as you said
16:31 < bishakha> people will react
16:32 < bnewstead> my concern with this is that we only really engage the Catalan issue - wouldn't be good
16:32 < Jon_H> anirudh: how best to provide that context?
16:33 < bishakha> barry, there may be comments from other contexts too
16:33 < Asaf> Perhaps the whole chapter area can be represented more generally -- e.g. "What structure should Wikimedia develop to best pursue its goals _globally_?  What should be the roles of entities other than the Wikimedia Foundation itself?"
16:33 < aklempert> bishakha: unlikely that we will get somebody to engage when CAT and ES people are already fighting :(
16:33 < bnewstead> Possibly, but I don't see national/sub as a huge animating question.
16:34 < anirudh> Jon_H: perhaps multiple questions that are specific in nature?  some thought-provoking examples? to give the readers a jump-start
16:34 < Jon_H> barry: what kind of question about problems or challenges do you think would animate people?
16:34 < bishakha> ok, ok, point taken :)
16:35 < bnewstead> I think it would be more fruitful to engage questions like: what are the community needs that aren't well supported by WMF, chapters, etc. today?
16:35  * aklempert was about to write something similar to what barry just said :)
16:36 < bnewstead> Also, how do we reconcile the fact that we are so centered on the industrialized world (organizationally and financially), but our future is in the developing world?
16:37 < Jon_H> that should spark some discussion
16:37 < dami_hun> I think questioning the Foundation's role would in some way could really animate people (like Barry's question, but could work with a similar dichotomy as the chapter/subchapter question: e.g. where is the border between the foundation's role and the chapters'. who should assume this role if wmf/chapter is not present in an area)
16:37 < bnewstead> I can go on...
16:37 < aklempert> and these questions both make clear what "movement roles" is all about
16:37 < Jon_H> how about if we put these topics onto the page
16:38 < Jon_H> invite everyone to edit between now and this time next weeik
16:38 -!- Asaf [4fb37384@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:38 < Jon_H> then we can pick the top one a week from now?
16:38 < bishakha> yes, good idea. should not lose them
16:38 < bishakha> also, these qs are diff from the ones in Initial Qs but good discussion ones for the blog
16:38 < bnewstead> There is a whole stream of tough questions about accountability to the community and how that is realized or not in the way we structure entities and make decisions about where resources go?
16:39 < Jon_H> and a some questions about transparency that follow on, too
16:40 < bnewstead> The questions are different, but they follow the theme.
16:40 < bishakha> agree, barry
16:40 < Jon_H> let's put these ideas up on the MR wiki for a week so the team can edit and improve
16:40 < anirudh> bnewstead, most important of the bunch.
16:40 < bnewstead> The challenge with the interview questions is that they are good for an interview, but aren't provocative enough to draw people in.
16:41 < Jon_H> do we want to pick the second question now, or leave these ideas on the MR wiki page for a week for us to edit and ponder?
16:41 < aklempert> Jon_H: let's work on ideas on-wiki and then you or austin just pick one
16:42 < anirudh> +1
16:42 < Jon_H> thx
16:42 < bishakha> these qs will also give us leads on how to frame later qs for the blog to spark talk
16:42 < bnewstead> Is it possible to propose the two questions now and then we can push forward?
16:43 -!- Asaf [4fb37384@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
16:43 < bnewstead> I'm worried we'll lose more time, if we deliberate more on it.
16:44 < Jon_H> this has been a good discussion. it would be good to move on ... should we leave it on MR wiki and decide in a week, or decide now?
16:44 < Jon_H> barry, arne: i think you were making different suggestions ... am I right?
16:45 < bnewstead> Since my thought was received with stoney silence...
16:45 < bnewstead> let's go the wiki, but let's get it done by Monday.
16:45 < bnewstead> ;)
16:45 < Asaf> oh, everyone was silent?  I re-connected because I figured my connection must have frozen... :)
16:45 < aklempert> i don't see any need for a time-consuming deliberation. let's just put questions on the mr-wiki. i don't expect any discussion about that
16:45 < Jon_H> great.  the next question is about
16:45 < bishakha> i will confess my silence was due to other distractions :)
16:45 < aklempert> (since we seem to be all on the same page about this)
16:46 < Jon_H> who beyond those on should we be inviting to participate?
16:47 < Jon_H> and, while we are on the topic, who else should we reach out to interview directly?
16:48 < Jon_H> I think we should encourage as many people to contribute on wiki as possible
16:48 < bishakha> jon, remember last irc we said we wanted to limit the number of interviews to the bare minimum? so do we need more names for interviews?
16:49 < bnewstead> I'm adding a couple of names to the interview list...for non-chapter people
16:49 < Jon_H> the list of interviews should be short, Bishakha, which it is right now
16:49 < anirudh> I would suggest someone from the Wikimedia India chapter (apart from me).  WMIN is unique for now, because we will be working with WMF in India (as they are setting up their office soon).
16:49 < Jon_H> but if there is someone to include, let me know now
16:49 < Jon_H> and if there is someone on the list we should encourage to contribute on wiki, and not interview directly, let's take them off the list of interviews
16:50 < bishakha> anirudh: can the chapter person write in on wiki? since that's the hope for most chapters?
16:51 < Asaf> I think we need to hear some voices by Wikimedians who are not likely to *ever* have a chapter speak for them -- e.g. Wikimedians working on projects in Yiddish, Latin, Esperanto, Simple English, etc.
16:51 < bishakha> +1
16:52 < Asaf> precisely because chapters are _obviously_ not an option for them, it would be interesting to hear what structure they feel would support them.
16:53 < anirudh> That would mean sharing resources and close collaboration.  It's best if MR address  similar possible future endeavours with the community to define the relationship.
16:53 < Asaf> thoughts?
16:53 < aklempert> asaf: good point. especially yiddish and esperanto seem interesting
16:53 < Jon_H> someone suggested Chuck Smith for the Esperantists ... who should we talk to for Yiddish, Latin, Simple English etc.?
16:54 < anirudh> bishakha, best to have a real-time discussion.  I can get all the EC people involved.
16:54 < aklempert> Asaf: latin and simple english are less relevant imho - because these communities don't have a common culture
16:54 < Morgan_> How about the Wikimedians from Japan? They are working on the chapter proposal.
16:55 < Jon_H> thanks.  while we are on this topic, I'm planning on doing a chunk of the interviews myself ... does anyone else also want to do any interviews?
16:55 < anirudh> I can talk to Chuck Smith.
16:56 -!- Asaf2 [4fb37384@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikimedia-roles
16:56 < Jon_H> thanks, anirudh.  can you put your name on against Chuck's name?
16:56 < Morgan_> I can talk to WM Macau
16:56 < bnewstead> All, I need to sign-off to prep for a call in 3 minutes.  Good discussion today.
16:56 < Asaf2> was anything said after Morgan's question about Wikimedians in Japan?  I think my link seized up again.
16:57 < Jon_H> thanks barry. take care
16:57 < anirudh> bye barry
16:57 -!- bnewstead [~chatzilla@] has left #wikimedia-roles []
16:57 < Morgan_> bye barry
16:57 < Jon_H> that is a good idea.  we can add that to the list on
16:57 -!- Asaf [4fb37384@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:57 < Jon_H> Morgan, great if you can talk to Macau ... can you sign up on
16:58 < Morgan_> ok
16:58 < Asaf2> I'm not sure you got a previous line I sent: I wrote that the Latin projects are mainly a hobby for self-exercise in the language.  They are to a great extent write-only projects, i.e. their contribution to fulfilling the Wikimedia Vision is the least.
16:58 < Jon_H> thx
16:58 < Jon_H> BTW, as we are approaching the hour ... it is fair to say that we have covered all of the key questions ... if anyone needs to leave, there are no new questions to raise
16:59 < Asaf2> But Simple English, on the other hand, is possibly quite relevant to the Vision.  I'm not sure what state the Simple English community is in, though.  Is it a healthy project?
16:59 < Jon_H> from my end
16:59 < Jon_H> good questions
16:59 < Jon_H> who would know about simple english?
16:59 < aklempert> Asaf2: the project itself are not our scope
16:59 < Asaf2> I don't know.  kibble: do you know anyone there?
16:59 < bishakha> i'm off then, bye all
17:00 < Jon_H> thanks, Bishakha.  be well!
17:00 < anirudh> bye bishakha
17:00 < Asaf2> aklempert: sure, but if the Simple English people feel the movement could be more accommodating to their activity, e.g. some outreach, offline efforts, etc. -- we probably want to know.
17:00 -!- bishakha [] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:01 < aklempert> i don't. because it's not relevant for our work
17:01 < aklempert> simple english is a project with international scope
17:01 < aklempert> if they need something, they will get it from the wmf
17:01 < Asaf2> I see.  ok.
17:01 < aklempert> but they're unlikely to form any kind of organizational structure
17:03 < Jon_H> I'm going to start to reach out to the interviewees on, so if you would like to interview anyone sign up now
17:03 < aklempert> sorry for being so negative, but is see more coming on our plate every week and we didn't get much stuff done yet
17:03 < aklempert> ... but *I* see ...
17:03 < Asaf2> sure, we need to prioritize.  I thought we were still in the gather-everything-possibly-relevant stage.
17:04 < Jon_H> I'd suggest we encourage Simple English to contribute to the blog and give answers to our initial questions on the wiki
17:05 < aklempert> i would say we're now in the "filling the gaps" mode. if we missed something important we should add it
17:05 < Jon_H> there our resources are not limited, but for interviews our resources are finite (our time)
17:05 < Asaf2> sure, okay.
17:05 < Asaf2> okay, goodbye everyone.
17:06 < Jon_H> good bye Asaf2
17:06 < Jon_H> anyone else have anything to add right now before we all sign off?
17:06 -!- Asaf2 [4fb37384@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
17:07 < Jon_H> Arne, Bence, Anirudh, Morgan?
17:07 < Morgan_> nope
17:07 < dami_hun> no
17:07 < aklempert> nope
17:07 < aklempert> just a reminder to sign up for the january meeting if you didn't do that yet
17:08 < anirudh> Nope.
17:08 < Jon_H> thanks, gents.  that was a very productive call
17:08 < anirudh> aklempert, is there a possibility to include travel funding for a chapter rep from India?
17:08 < aklempert> Jon_H: thanks for facilitating it :)
17:09 < Morgan_> thank you, and happy interviews :p
17:09 < anirudh> given our prospective relationship wtih the WMF office in India?
17:09 < anirudh> thanks guys.
17:09 < Jon_H> Thanks, Morgan
17:10 < aklempert> anirudh: do you think of any specific person? the meeting is less about getting new information, more on putting the stuff together
17:10 < anirudh> aklempert, I will have to discuss that with the EC.  It will be a long-term Wikipedian.
17:11 < aklempert> i personally don't think that inviting someone to the meeting in january who's not already activley participating here in this group, doesn't make any sense (just my opinion)
17:12 < anirudh> Since the original MR team will be pivotal in channeling community discourse, I feel that participation from an Indian chapter would be healthy.
17:13 < anirudh> Yes, I agree with that.
17:14 < anirudh> But this is merely the beginning and an EC member can be delegated this responsibility.  I will (obviously) express my interest, but there are very capable members in the committee.
17:14 < aklempert> since one or two europeans which recently joined the mr mailing list indicated that they want to participate, it seems just to be fair to think about bringing people from other parts of the world in
17:15 < aklempert> but i have to check - since our originial idea was that just the official members get funding and the others can come on their own expense
17:15 < anirudh> my thoughts exactly.
17:16 < anirudh> yes, please, thanks. :)
17:16 < Jon_H> I think it important that whoever comes has been part of the process ... the meeting will be about pulling together what we have heard, rather than bringing in new ideas
17:18 < aklempert> anirudh: just to be clear: if you get funding. it's you as an active participant from india. not as a delegate of WM-India
17:19 < aklempert> of course you can and probably should discuss this with your board.
17:21 < Jon_H> but just to be sure, the meeting in January is not a meeting of "representatives", but those who have been working together on the MR project
17:21 < aklempert> oaky. i have to go
17:21 < anirudh> hm, I don't wish to complicate the process. I proposed this because I think the Indian community is a significant stakeholder and should be a part of the conversation.  I understand that the movement roles will hugely impact Wikimedia's efforts.
17:21 < aklempert> thanks to everybody for this great meeting
17:22 < anirudh> thank you arne.
17:22 < Jon_H> thank you anirudh
17:22 < Morgan_> :-)
17:22 < Jon_H> thanks Arne
17:22 < Jon_H> thanks Morgan
17:22 < anirudh> *waves Jon_H
17:22 < Jon_H> TTFN
17:22 -!- aklempert [~chatzilla@] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.12/20101026210630]]
17:23 < Morgan_> anirudh: I think the Indian representatives can attend the chapters meeting in March, and discuss the MR stuff in the meeting.
17:25 < Morgan_> For the Jan meeting, it seems it is a working meeting more than a discussion meeting
17:26 < anirudh> I understand, and that makes sense.
17:26 < Morgan_> so i would like to see more indian representatives in chapters meeting :p
17:27 < Morgan_> try to ask for more than 2 representatives if you wish
17:27 < anirudh> but only an MR working committee member will be able to join such a meeting during the chapters meet
17:27 < Morgan_> i dunno whether it works, but i think you could try
17:28 < Morgan_> i am not sure the MR meeting section in Chapter Meeting, i guess it will have section which is open to all the participants
17:29 < Morgan_> you have to ask Jon anyway
17:29 < anirudh> will do, thanks.
17:29 < Morgan_> welcome :-)
17:31 < Morgan_> I gotta sleep
17:31 < Morgan_> 0031 in HK
17:31 < Morgan_> see you guys and good night :p
17:32 -!- Morgan_ [ca8c6526@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has left #wikimedia-roles []
17:35 -!- Jon_H [7d3f9949@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Quit: Page closed]