Movement roles/Working group meeting 2011-6-2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

1100 UTC (meeting 1 of 2)[edit]

timestamps in EST

(taking agenda from Talk:Movement roles project)
�01[07:11] <_sj_> thanks to everyone up early for this today.
�01[07:11] <_sj_> 1. Charter update and timeline (current status; sticking points)
�01[07:12] <_sj_> ^^^ the most complex thing we hope to do by wikimania is have a charter reflecting the spirit of the movement that formal entities will want to endorse
�01[07:12] <_sj_> I posted some of the general notes so far into an etherpad we can use: etherpad:movementcharter
[07:12] <eia-office> _sj_: was this also already somewhere on the wiki?
�01[07:13] <_sj_>
[07:13] <Theo10011> ya
�01[07:13] <_sj_> are there volunteers to help work on it this week?
�01[07:14] <_sj_> we need something nicely worded we can get more specific feedback on soon.
[07:14] <Theo10011> sure, I'll see if I can work on it.
[07:14] <Theo10011> But I'd need more input.
[07:15] <eia-office> I intend to work on it, but cannot promise if I can work on it. I agree with Theo10011 that I would definitely need more input/discussion on several topics probably
[07:15] <Jan_eissfeldt> _sj_: yo, i reserved two days for that at the end of this week after my plato block seminars until saturday
[07:15] <eia-office> but going through it, we could perhaps identify those
�01[07:15] <_sj_> good, thank you. I think we can highlight the hard sections, and get the easy ones into better shape
�01[07:15] <_sj_> jan: super!
[07:16] <Theo10011> Hoi Jan
[07:16] <Jan_eissfeldt> good morning Theo (:, _sj_ hopefully
�01[07:16] <_sj_> 1.1 Draft release cycle (every 2 wks?), meta RfC (in July?)
[07:16] <Theo10011> release cycle?
�01[07:16] <_sj_> ^^^ if we have something that can be publicized a bit in 2 weeks, someone can present it to people at the fundraising summit
�03[07:17] * bishakha (7bc9f89f@gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #wikimedia
[07:17] <Austin> Less than two weeks, maybe?
[07:17] <Theo10011> welcome bishakha
[07:17] <eia-office> Do you mean with cycle that we have multiple of those?
[07:17] <bishakha> Hey, finally made it!
�01[07:17] <_sj_> austin: maybe each week?
�01[07:17] <_sj_> bish: hurrah! thx for your talk page comments
[07:17] <eia-office> (In general 2 weeks seems like a nice cycle length though)
[07:17] <bishakha> sj: more on way this weekend :)
�01[07:18] <_sj_> eia: yes, something like "state of movement roles" each week as were were imagining earlier in the spring, but focusing just on the charter
�01[07:19] <_sj_> jon: the "why now?" doc is very helpful. for each section of the charter we might want to indicate the 'why now' aspects - historical examples of orgs that would have benefited from a better shared understanding in that area
[07:19] <Austin> A week sounds good to me, yeah
[07:19] <eia-office> hmm, a week is a bit too short for me - makes it likely that many people will miss a whole cycle due to other obligations
[07:20] <Jon___> thanks, SJ. I can do that
[07:20] <eia-office> if we want to have a RfC by end of July, we would have some 4 cycles of 2 weeks?
[07:20] <Theo10011> jon: the peer organization model is really helpful.
�01[07:20] <_sj_> if we want discussion in advance of wikimania, 2+ weeks for an rfc on meta before august 3 would be useful.
�01[07:21] <_sj_> eia: if we are editing publicly /continuously and have a news update every week, it's not terribly if someone misses a week
�01[07:21] <_sj_> but we can refine the timing later; just putting the idea out there
�01[07:22] <_sj_> Meta rfc: is mid-July too optimistic?
[07:23] <anirudh> No, I think that's essential if we are to have something concrete leading out to 'mania
[07:23] <Jan_eissfeldt> no, after boston would be fine and it has to be done before september anyway
[07:23] <eia-office> It depends a bit what we really want - if we want everything finished and rounded up, Wikimania might be a bit overoptimistic
�01[07:23] <_sj_> ok, good. let's aim for Bastille Day at the latest
[07:23] <aude> how is this being presented at wikimania?
�01[07:24] <_sj_> 1.2 Signing on - endorsement by / at Wikimania? discussion @ the chapters day there (Aug 3)
[07:24] <eia-office> if we want it to be a ood piece for discussion, it might be doable
�01[07:24] <_sj_> ^^^ good tie in to the next agenda point :)
�01[07:24] <_sj_> August 3 is a Chapters Day at Wikimania. Harel is working on how this could fit into the discussion there
�01[07:24] <_sj_> we can contribute to the proposed agenda for the day
[07:25] <aude> do non-chapters get to participate in that day?
[07:25] <eia-office> aude: afaik there has been barely discussion on that so far
�01[07:25] <_sj_> from an MR perspective, we could request that they do. I think the Wikimania hosts are defining what it will be like
[07:25] <aude> movement roles pertains to the larger community and not just current chapters
[07:25] <Theo10011> which day is the MR presentation?
�01[07:25] <_sj_> we will have an MR meeting on August 2, the day before
�01[07:26] <_sj_> where we will wrap up any last recommendations [to the Board, which also meets August 3, and to Chapters; and for a Charter -- which we could start to get endorsements for then]
�01[07:27] <_sj_> and note any work that wasn't completed / needs to be delegated to a different group
[07:27] <aude> hmm...
�01[07:27] <_sj_> aude: the MR meeting on august 2 is open to the larger community.
[07:27] <bishakha> sj: will chapters endorse verbally? or sign?
[07:28] <eia-office> will they endorse at all already then is the major question :)
[07:28] <aude> same time as hackathon but okay
[07:28] <eia-office> it was the original time table, I know
[07:28] <bishakha> yes, they may want to discuss with others in chapter
�01[07:28] <_sj_> eia: right :) bishakha: the group working on the final-charter target needs to work out those details
[07:28] <eia-office> but I can imagine they rather use the time for some serious discussion, and put forth the real decision a bit
[07:28] <Jan_eissfeldt> formal groups should sign it
�01[07:29] <_sj_> there will be an open Request for Comment for at least 2 weeks before that, so it won't be a surprise
[07:29] <bishakha> jan: agree, but we will have to think of a process leading up to the signing
[07:29] <eia-office> _sj_: but face to face discussions seem usually to be more effective
[07:29] <eia-office> so it makes sense for them to have these discussions in Haifa
�01[07:30] <_sj_> eia: yes, much
[07:30] <eia-office> then logically, if they dont agree 100%, they cannot sign it the next day yet, but it would probably take a bit longer
�01[07:30] <_sj_> perhaps the discussions are on aug 3, and if there is enough support, a signing ceremony at lunch during one of the days of WM
�01[07:31] <_sj_> hiya nota
[07:31] <Theo10011> hola Delphine
[07:31] <delphine> hi there
[07:31] <bishakha> sj: a signing ceremony sounds great, but....
�01[07:31] <_sj_> details to work out online
�01[07:32] <_sj_> simply getting agreement is important
[07:32] <bishakha> sj: agree on agreement needed as key step
[07:32] <Jan_eissfeldt> informal groups like the stammtisch network, which calls the shots in the german speaking countries, wouldn't anyway. you can make an amendment to the (each next) wmf-entity treaties, if they don't like to do it voluntary, bishakha
�01[07:33] <_sj_> hi arne!
�01[07:33] <_sj_> people interested in these details: please list yourselves by the "final charter" target:
[07:33] <bishakha> jan: i think it needs to be voluntary, no?
[07:33] <bishakha> hey arne!
[07:33] <aklempert> hi everybody
�06[07:33] * eia-office is afraid that signing ceremony will lead to all kind of unnecessary bureaucratic issues like getting board approval, signing authority blabla
�01[07:33] <_sj_> [we won't resolve the process here]
�01[07:33] <_sj_> eia: right
[07:34] <eia-office> I agree with you, getting the agreement is the bottle neck
[07:34] <Theo10011> Also, since a few people haven't signed up for a target yet.
[07:34] <bishakha> eia: good pt, let's resolve online
[07:34] <anirudh> I feel that the scope of our project is to have a persuasive value in the movement, rather than a binding agreement between all the participating organizations. Getting all the organizations to sign may not only turn out to be difficult, but controversial.
[07:34] <Theo10011> I would like to point to:
�01[07:34] <_sj_> 2. Other targets: schedule
[07:34] <eia-office> what way we "formalize" the outcome is then a matter of unimportant process
[07:35] <Jan_eissfeldt> it should, if you buy that all entities are bound to it anyway(what is the case in theory) but it's an other matter in practice and eia is right about the details for such stuff, i guess
�01[07:35] <_sj_> ani: that's the disadvantage of a signing ceremony; it makes anything less than 100% support awkward
[07:35] <anirudh> Indeed.
�01[07:35] <_sj_> please take a look at the list of targets -- and choose one that you can focus on in the coming week
[07:36] <Beria_> I'm sorry i just arrived, but who is supposed to sign the chart?
[07:36] <Theo10011> Bom dia Beria_
[07:36] <Beria_> Bom dia :)
�01[07:36] <_sj_> beria: it should be supported / supportable by these groups, at least:
�01[07:36] <_sj_>
[07:37] <Beria_> well, being realistic
[07:37] <Beria_> there are NO WAY IN HELL all that people will agree with the chart
[07:37] <Beria_> not with this one :
[07:38] <aude> _sj_: you have potential partner orgs and chapters mixed together there
[07:38] <Beria_> I saw that too
[07:38] <eia-office> Beria: it is about all organizations - at least all chapters, WMF and probably most of the other formalized organizations
[07:38] <Beria_> why=
[07:39] <Theo10011> Good point aude, That might be a bid difference.
[07:39] <Beria_> eia-office: WMF and chapters can't agree with chapters agreeement, can't agree with Trademark agreement, can't agree with fundraising agreement...
[07:39] <Millars> and these WM Loves Monuments eg, who will sign?
[07:39] <delphine> Beria_: any way you could say the same thing but be constructive? Such as propose amendments, directions etc?
�01[07:39] <_sj_> millars: page updated
[07:39] <eia-office> Millars: Wiki Loves Monuments is no organization, right?
[07:39] <Beria_> Millars: i supose the people who organize it
[07:39] <Millars> yes, but they are included
�01[07:40] <_sj_> the community groups (WM loves monuments, sibling communities, &c) are not in scope for the charter
[07:40] <Millars> or were
�01[07:40] <_sj_> but they are in scope for other aspects of MR work (which we've put off to the future)
�01[07:40] <_sj_> this year we are only addressing issues that affect formal organizations
�06[07:41] * eia-office is a bit confused by the last two categories :P
[07:41] <eia-office> btw, I'm missing one group
[07:42] <eia-office> the WMF :P
�01[07:42] <_sj_> it's there
�01[07:42] <_sj_> WMF: ED + senior staff, Board
[07:42] <eia-office> in "Groups supporting our targets" ?
[07:42] <aude> i am quite sure osm would sign anything at all
[07:42] <aude> would not
[07:42] <eia-office> ah, hmm ok :)
[07:42] <eia-office> aude: indeed
[07:43] <aude> translatewiki, possibly
[07:43] <Theo10011> huh
[07:43] <aude> maybe these are just examples, so okay
�01[07:43] <_sj_> yes, examples also of groups to offer feedback
[07:43] <aude> or as it says, orgs/folks to get feedback from
[07:43] <delphine> I changed one thing
[07:43] <eia-office> if I understood correctly, the idea was that sibling groups are possibly affected, but dont have to be included?
[07:44] <delphine> if you say "should not oppose", you're inciting opposition
�01[07:44] <_sj_> merci
[07:44] <delphine> if you say should feel comfortable (or anything else that's "positive"
�01[07:44] <_sj_> eia: right
[07:44] <delphine> then you foster positive stuff
�01[07:44] <_sj_> affected by transparency and other outcomes
�01[07:44] <_sj_> del: very true
[07:44] <Theo10011> There are still a lot of issues here that can't be addressed by wikimania.
�01[07:45] <_sj_> we can't address all of the targets.
[07:45] <Theo10011> I suggest we focus on what we can achieve.
�01[07:45] <_sj_> one reason to see who is planning to work on which targets is to figure that out
[07:45] <anirudh> yep
[07:45] <Beria_> any sugestions Theo10011 ?
[07:45] <Theo10011> So we started work on this -
[07:45] <Theo10011>
[07:46] <Theo10011> It according to the targets that we agreed on.
[07:46] <Theo10011> They are draft recommendations at this point, that would be presented to the board and the rest of the community.
[07:46] <aude> _sj_: when's the last time anything about movement roles was reported to the broader community (e.g. foundation-l, signpost)?
[07:46] <Theo10011> I believe instead of arguing about abstracts and scope, we can direct it in the recommendations.
[07:47] <Austin> Several weeks, unfortunately
[07:47] <aude> a status update to the community would be nice, perhaps, sometime before august with chance for feedback
[07:47] <Theo10011> Well all the work has been on Meta, so it has all been done in public. I agree it could be announced more.
[07:47] <Austin> That's a good idea indeed
�01[07:48] <_sj_> aude: great idea
�01[07:48] <_sj_> we can propose an update for next week's signpost
[07:48] <eia-office> was there already a discussion session proposed at Wikimania?\
[07:48] <aude> i stumbled upon this... trolling metawiki or something
[07:48] <eia-office> on MR?\
[07:48] <aude> most people don't troll metawiki for all the recent changes
[07:49] <eia-office> aude: also I didnt know of all the pages :P
[07:49] <Theo10011> I do.
[07:49] <Theo10011> ;)
[07:49] <eia-office> somehow there are always more :D
�01[07:49] <_sj_> aude: true. eia: I'll check with harel.
�01[07:49] <_sj_> I did not propose one, aside from one for the preliminary day
�06[07:50] * eia-office doesnt know if progcom still accepts something if it comes from a friendly smiling sj
�01[07:51] <_sj_> better yet, harel and I can jointly propose one. he has some responsibilities for the program, and is now working on MR...
[07:51] <aude> eia-office: there's some flexibility for WM program
�01[07:51] <_sj_> a workshop may be possible.
�06[07:51] * aude thinks it's important and can recommend a workshop or discussion session
[07:52] <aude> Beria_: what do you think?
�03[07:52] * huskyr_ (~huskyr@ has joined #wikimedia
[07:52] <bishakha> agree w aude
[07:52] <Beria_> Dunno if we had time Aude
[07:52] <eia-office> discussion would be helpful
[07:52] <Beria_> but is a very good idea :D
[07:53] <Beria_> if not in Wikimania itself, in the day before or after
�01[07:53] <_sj_> aude: can you work with harel on this to sort out what is possible?
[07:53] <Beria_> most people will be there for more than the 3 days of Wikimania anyway
[07:53] <aude> _sj_: we'll see what works with the scheudle
[07:54] <aude> it will be quite a packed agenda
[07:54] <eia-office> day after = tourism :D
[07:54] <eia-office> anyway :P
[07:54] <eia-office> sj: was there anything else to discuss?
[07:54] <eia-office> otherwise I'm going to listen to my body
[07:54] <eia-office> and get something to eat
�01[07:54] <_sj_> two future meetings
�01[07:55] <_sj_> there was a 'flow of funds' target we postponed discussing in March; that will be discussed in Vienna at the fundraising meeting
�01[07:55] <_sj_> (perhaps in a short meeting just after on Sunday afternoon)
[07:55] <eia-office> yeah, that seems to be out of our hands
[07:55] <Beria_> _sj_: i have a question about the recomendations page
�01[07:55] <_sj_> I'm waiting to hear from barry about that on Friday. he's working on a recommendation there.
�01[07:55] <_sj_> beria: go ahead
[07:56] <Beria_>
[07:56] <Beria_> "We recommend that creation of an association be a simple two step process: listing ones group, purpose and practices in a central place, and confirming the contact information of its liaison."
[07:56] <Beria_> one person?
[07:56] <Beria_> with money and power to use trademarks?
[07:56] <Beria_> i know for a fact that can create big problems
�01[07:56] <_sj_> just trademarks.
�01[07:57] <_sj_> feel free to edit mercilessly. associations are intended to be low ovrhead, easy to create and easy to disband.
[07:57] <Beria_> they need to set a bank account and a treasurer to have money
[07:57] <eia-office> Beria: yeah, I had some questions about that too, will probably post it on the talkpage/edit
�01[07:57] <_sj_> right.
[07:57] <Beria_> but nothing says can't be the "contact person"
[07:57] <eia-office> _sj_: would you mind if I rename them? :P
�01[07:57] <_sj_> yes, please rename
[07:57] <eia-office> because I associate "association" with something formal
[07:57] <eia-office> so it doesnt cover what you intended for me :)
�01[07:57] <_sj_> oho... list some suggestions. there weren't any really great rename ideas last time around
�01[07:57] <_sj_> so, you may be the one
�06[07:58] * eia-office was thinking about ambassador group
�01[07:58] <_sj_> and finally, we discussed having a one-day session to finalize the charter language
[07:58] <Beria_> when _sj_ ?
�01[07:58] <_sj_> around the end of this month. most people partaking online in an etherpad hacksession, once we have final comments in
�01[07:59] <_sj_> would the weekend of july 2 work for people?
[07:59] <eia-office> you mean online meeting, right?
[07:59] <bishakha> works for me
[08:00] <Beria_> btw, delphine , any sugestion about the change in recomendation page i made?
[08:00] <Theo10011> I would also urge the participants to take a look at the the recommendations page and work on it on-wiki until then.
[08:00] <eia-office> sunday would work best for me, probably
[08:00] <anirudh> works for me.
[08:00] <Abbasjnr> me too
[08:00] <Austin> Same here
[08:00] <aklempert> works for me
[08:00] <bishakha> theo: i'm a bit confused about the relationship between recommendation page and charter
[08:01] <delphine> Beria_: sorry, where?
[08:01] <Beria_> here :P
[08:01] <Beria_> [13:56] and on :P
[08:01] <Theo10011> Bishakha they came out of the targets from Sue's email.
[08:02] <bishakha> i know that, but...
[08:02] <delphine> Theo10011: urgh
�06[08:02] * delphine is answering Jon's questions
[08:02] <bishakha> i thought we were coming out with just the charter
[08:02] <delphine> and will then answer Sue's email
[08:02] <eia-office> which questions, which email?
[08:03] <delphine> eia-office: the old Sue email
[08:03] <delphine> Jon's questions to Sue
[08:03] <eia-office> a, the epic one
[08:03] <eia-office> ok
[08:03] <delphine> nothing new under the sun
[08:03] <delphine> yeah
[08:03] <delphine> I'm a bit concerned that our recommandations
[08:03] <Beria_> if is based in that, should not be in the page?
[08:03] <delphine> should originate from Sue's email ;)
�01[08:03] <_sj_> beria: I like your thought about associations. can we move discussion to the talkpage?
[08:03] <Beria_> no :D
[08:03] <Beria_> :P
�01[08:03] <_sj_> ')
[08:03] <Beria_> Sure :)
[08:04] <bishakha> theo: have we discussed sue's email enough to build consensus around recommednations from it?
[08:04] <eia-office> bishakha: Recommandations should imho mainly include "we did not get to this, or this falls outside our scope, but we noted this might be a good topic to discuss for you"
[08:04] <Theo10011> well sj has been working on it for a while.
[08:04] <bishakha> even within the MR group
[08:04] <delphine> _sj_: yes, careful associations might be construed in many languages as a pretty high maintenance kind of formal entity
�01[08:04] <_sj_> theo: I think the recs come from a number of places; first, the tough topics we discussed
[08:04] <Austin> I have to run, but I'll be back to read the log tonight
[08:04] <eia-office> bishakha: imho without giving any intended outcome
[08:04] <bishakha> eia: thank you, clearer now if that is the intent
�06[08:04] * delphine agrees with eia-office on that one
�01[08:05] <_sj_> then some specific suggestions for important roles that are missing
�02[08:05] * huskyr (~huskyr@ Quit (Read error: No route to host�)
[08:05] <Austin> I'll be back home on Saturday or Sunday, so I'll see what I can fit in this weekend
[08:05] <Beria_> but eia-office that is not our recomendation page
[08:05] <eia-office> bishakha: it is /my/ intent ;-)
[08:05] <Austin> Later all
[08:05] <eia-office> bye Austin
[08:05] <Theo10011> Later
�01[08:05] <_sj_> thx austin, ttyl
[08:05] <Beria_> bye Austin
�01[08:05] <_sj_> I don't feel that MR needs to directly answer sue's emailed questions
�01[08:05] <_sj_> but our existing conversations did touch on many of them
[08:05] <bishakha> sj: +1
[08:06] <Beria_> +1
[08:06] <delphine> _sj_: no, not MR
[08:06] <delphine> but it would be nice if this wasn't the only set of opinions out there
[08:06] <delphine> so I'm doing it in a personal capacity
�01[08:07] <_sj_> [some of her questions are still not addressed by our recs, which is fine. some of our recs are totally unrelated to her comments.]
�01[08:07] <_sj_> del: thanks.
�01[08:07] <_sj_> the new survey, which I think asaf is into once he has time, will ask a broad audiece q's in more detail similar to the q's asked Sue
�01[08:08] <_sj_> since a number of ppl said "why wasnt I asked such questions?" and we do want a broad baseline of ppl answering the same set
�06[08:08] * _sj_ notes we have moved beyond the agenda a bit :)
[08:09] <eia-office> are we done then? :P
�01[08:09] <_sj_> we're done.
[08:09] <eia-office> thank you :D
�03[08:09] * eia-office is now known as eia-food
�01[08:09] <_sj_> *** end of meeting ***

1900 UTC (meeting 2 of 2)[edit]

�01[15:12] <_sj_> *** MR meeting start ***
�01[15:13] <_sj_> agenda:
�01[15:13] <_sj_> this is mainly a recap for those who couldn't make the earlier meeting
�01[15:13] <_sj_>
�01[15:14] <_sj_> we're currently working on the charter on etherpad; aiming for weekly updates with people focusing on specific sections
�01[15:15] <_sj_> it was pointed out that this existing accountability charter (started by the YWCA, apparently) could seerve as most of our accountability section
�01[15:15] <_sj_>
�02[15:15] * TrevorParscal (~TrevorPar@ Quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds�)
�01[15:15] <_sj_> (though it is far more specific and broad than we would be)
�01[15:15] <_sj_> ***
�01[15:15] <_sj_> 1. Charter update and timeline (current status; sticking points)
�01[15:15] <_sj_> ***
�01[15:16] <_sj_> we hope to have a version of the charter ready for a meta rfc by jun 14
�01[15:16] <_sj_> jul 14*
�01[15:17] <_sj_> goma, dami: questions/comments?
[15:18] <Goma> I can't go to Viena
[15:18] <Goma> But I can provide a draft of the sections
�01[15:19] <_sj_> we're now working on it here: etherpad:movementcharter
[15:21] <Goma> well I have to coordinat with Abbas and Bary
[15:22] <Goma> Perhaps we can take a thopic each one and then reveiw others' proposals
�01[15:22] <_sj_> yes, you could make a draft in your userspace. when you're comfortable with a section, please update the wiki page
�01[15:22] <_sj_> the etherpad is just for groups working at the same time.
�01[15:23] <_sj_> ***
�01[15:23] <_sj_> 2. Other targets * schedule
�01[15:23] <_sj_> ***
�01[15:23] <_sj_> please look at the list of targets and add yourself to one you can work on in the coming weeks
�01[15:23] <_sj_>
[15:23] <Beria> in comming weeks is kinda problematic _sj_ :S
[15:24] <Beria> some people need to finish college exams (like me) :(
�01[15:24] <_sj_> this is an open process - the movement roles work is open to anyone interested in wikimedia
[15:24] <Goma> there are few thopics assigned to nobody.
�01[15:24] <_sj_> (beria and aude got involved quite recently b/c they were interested in specific topics)
[15:24] <Goma> Some of them may be important: Pan-movement mediation solution (for org-org disputes)
�01[15:24] <_sj_> goma: yes. we may not get to a 'quote of the day' if noone is interested
�01[15:25] <_sj_> we had some people v. interested this morning in the final charter process - how to approve and discuss it - but noone listed there yet.
[15:25] <Beria> yes, but my problem is that i can't put my name there because i can't promisse anything :S
[15:25] <Goma> Hi Beria nice to meet you
�01[15:25] <_sj_> beria: ok... pleae list yourself where interested, even though you don't have much time. (you can just note than in the edit summary)
[15:25] <Beria> Goma, ChapCom and the other one
[15:25] <Beria> what is the name _sj_ ? Of ChapCom copy? :P
[15:25] <ragesoss> This is interesting... "* All Wikimedia movement groups and entities are open to any Wikimedian who can contribute to the goals of the group or entity"
[15:26] <Goma> Beria: offen people who don't promise anything end being who work harder
[15:26] <ragesoss> How does something like the Wikipedia Ambassador Program fit into that, where one aspect of it is selectivity?
�01[15:26] <_sj_> AffCom :)
[15:26] <Beria> affCom is a ugly name
[15:26] <Beria> you said another one :P
[15:27] <Beria> ragesoss, Associations :P
�01[15:27] <_sj_> rage: can you imagine someone who could contribute to the goals of the Amb. Program who would not be welcome to participate in some way?
[15:28] <Beria> ragesoss,
�01[15:29] <_sj_> rage: it applies more obviously to membership orgs. It would be useful to have some examples of groups where selectivity or other needs require less openness
�01[15:29] <_sj_> for the discussion
[15:30] <James_F> _sj_> ArbCom/OverSight?
[15:30] <ragesoss> _sj_: well, sort of, yes. Just given the limited scale at which we can grow the program while maintaining standards, it's quite possible there will be people who could contribute in some way, but wouldn't be as effective contributors as some other applicants... and who are, (in any meaningful way) not able to participate.
[15:30] <James_F> _sj_> So, "Association of Priveleged Data Wikimedia Users" or something?
�01[15:30] <_sj_> James_F: clerks?
[15:31] <ragesoss> APDWU?
[15:31] <ragesoss> no, needs a better acronym.
�01[15:31] <_sj_> right. there are some privileged-data exceptions
[15:31] <James_F> _sj_> If the discussions are about and with priveleged access, it's by definition exclusiory.
�01[15:31] <_sj_> hi barry!
[15:31] <James_F> (Hi Barry.
[15:32] <ragesoss> (sorry to pop in and then pop out, but my team meeting is about to start, so I may be intermittent or may just lurk now.)
[15:32] <bnewstead> Hiya
�01[15:32] <_sj_> so, sage: better wording is needed, please note that. amb. program is a great example.
�01[15:33] <_sj_> all: if you know people interested in one of these targets (or one of the sections of the charter) please invite them to join the discussion
�01[15:33] <_sj_> brief examples of the recommendation targets are being gathered here:
�01[15:33] <_sj_>
�01[15:34] <_sj_> (those are very drafty and need work - they are mainly incitements to improve them at the moment)
�01[15:34] <_sj_> ***
�01[15:34] <_sj_> 3. Future meetings
�01[15:34] <_sj_> ***
�01[15:35] <_sj_> vienna fundraising meeting -- bnewstead, this relates to the three flow of funds targets
�01[15:35] <_sj_> we're thinking of having a MR discussion the sunday after that meeting
�01[15:36] <_sj_> do you think we can follow up on those january tough topics online in the coming week?
[15:37] <bnewstead> I'm going to put some time in on flow of funds tomorrow - building from the discussions in Feb/Mar/Apr on the fundraising agreement.
�01[15:38] <_sj_> ok. there's interest from goma and abbas to work on this too
[15:39] <Goma> I can't go to Vienna that week . But I can provide my views.
[15:39] <bnewstead> Sounds good. I'm sure we'll need a diversity of inputs on this area and glad that Abbas and Goma are in.
�01[15:39] <_sj_> barry - do you think jun 19 works for a lunch/afternoon meeting before people leave vienna?
�01[15:40] <_sj_> or is there some other way to fit it in that weekend?
�01[15:41] <_sj_> [we can follow up on that tomorrow as you're thinking about this]
[15:41] <bnewstead> I'm not going to be in Vienna. Are you thinking about a call or IRC?
�01[15:41] <_sj_> voice might be nice
�01[15:42] <_sj_> I just thought it might help inspire discussion to have some of the people thinking about this already together in a room
[15:42] <bnewstead> Shouldn't be a problem. We could use Webex. One issue is people's flights...they may all be traveling Sunday afternoon.
�01[15:42] <_sj_> we're also planning an online meeting the weekend of July 2, to finalize charter language - asking people working on the charter to be free for a day to work through all feedback.
�01[15:42] <_sj_> possibly that sunday.
�01[15:43] <_sj_> barry: right. is anyone going from the office?
[15:43] <bnewstead> SJ - July 2 will be a tough on for me, but you can go ahead.
�01[15:44] <_sj_> ok. that will be wordsmithing.
[15:44] <bnewstead> Folks from the fundraising team are going to Vienna: Pats Pena, Megan and not sure about anyone else.
�01[15:44] <_sj_> other questions, comments?
[15:45] <bnewstead> Just want to make sure I'm clear on what you'd like me to help out with...
�01[15:45] <_sj_> ah, and our wikimania meeting will be August 2
�01[15:45] <_sj_> the day before the chapters day and the wm board meeting
�01[15:46] <_sj_> we will send out a reminder soon re: travel planning.
[15:46] <bnewstead> Was supposed to spend a few days in India before Wikimania. Will get back to you on that.
[15:47] <Goma> me too. I understant I will provide my point of view about fundrising and also cooperate with Barry and Abbas to write a draft for the thopics e have assignet. Ok?
�01[15:47] <_sj_> yes, thank you
[15:48] <bnewstead> I'm going to work on some flow of funds thoughts and will provide some further input on the charter.
[15:49] <Goma> bnewstead: What if we take a topic each one instead of three thopics for three people
[15:49] <Goma> * Legitimacy standards for movement entities: representation, transparency, community support * Auditing and improvement standards: review process for chapters and committees, support models * Financial standards for movement groups (including for participating in direct fundraising)
[15:50] <bnewstead> Goma: I still need to figure my way through that list. Flow of funds isn't listed anywhere, but it is something that we need to have a look at.
�01[15:51] <_sj_> barry: you are right -- prioritization / resource allocation isn't there yet
�01[15:51] <_sj_> nor is a direct 'flow of funds' rec
[15:52] <Goma> Ok then we work all of them together. Each one of us can give a set of ideas and then ellaborete them.
�01[15:52] <_sj_> I think we need another round of discussion on this, since its very important and we punted it in march -- ideally that's what a meeting in 2 weeks would be. but the time is flexible
�01[15:53] <_sj_> that's all for this meeting. we'll stop logging now - please feel free to keep discussing here and online. thanks everyone.