User:Sue Gardner/Narrowing focus/Wikimania

Now that the Board's approved the Narrowing Focus recommendation, I want to move ahead with some further thinking about the Wikimania component (discussion to date is here). Hence this page. Anyone is welcome to contribute here, and I've left some questions below. I'm also going to ping the Wikimania lists to ask for their input. I intend to leave this page open for about a month, maybe a little longer. Sue Gardner (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Background and context

I am thinking about hiring a contractor to liaise between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimania local planning team. This would be a permanent role, liaising with each new local planning team for each Wikimania. Goals as follows:

1. To have a single first-point-of-contact for the local planning team when it needs something from the WMF. Rather than trying to guess who to get in touch with, the local team could get in touch with their contact, and that person would get them connected with the right people at the Wikimedia Foundation;

   +1 Theo10011 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2. To have a single first-point-of-contact for the WMF when it needs something from the local planning team.

   +1 Theo10011 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

3. To (eventually) enable year-over-year expertise for the local planning team. Currently the local team gets some guidance and support from the Wikimania jury, from individual volunteers who've been involved with Wikimania, and from the Wikimedia Foundation. But little is documented in a concise and understandable way, and there is no single person charged with the responsibility of briefing the local team on how Wikimania ordinarily works: timelines and pitfalls and so forth. This contractor position would document what's known, and brief the teams each year.

   This is an excellent goal, and one that has been discussed among jurors mostly in reference to the Wikimania community proposal (which IMO is a solid start, which lacked consensus only because nobody bothered to improve it based on discussion). I've done a great deal of organizing of what information I was able to find, esp. in the category structure here on Meta and on the Wikimania wikis. I believe a dedicated position like this might be exactly what is needed to finally get over the hump. -Pete F (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

   There is the Wikimania committee that's always kicking around, it might help retain some experience and make the process a bit more standardized, if employed. Theo10011 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

4. To handle the scholarships process (aspects that the WMF has been largely responsible for since 2008). The scholarships process is a significant piece of work, and we would like to outsource it. None of the work done by the community would be affected: they would simply work with a contractor rather than a WMF staff person.

   I would set an explicit expectation for timeframe: say someone who could help for 1-2 years, by the end of which time many of the other tasks / roles mentioned here should be clearly in the hands of a persistent wikimania community. –SJ talk  12:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   WMF's curent role in the scholarships process is coordinating the input of the community scholarship committee, selecting scholars based on committee's recommendation, communicating with applicants (along with Wikimania team), handling travel of scholars (with travel agency support), coordinating payment with scholars and Wikimania team. Jwild (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

5. To support the local planning team with sponsorships development. To date, Kul has provided some support for the local teams in developing Wikimania sponsorships, but not much. Each Wikimania has handled sponsorships differently: some have succeeded in fully off-setting the costs of the conference, and others have not. This contractor position would support the local teams in consistently developing sponsorships to cover the conference costs.

   Seems to me there are two significant aspects to sponsorships: local appeal of the team and global strength of the brand. Dedicated support, esp. for the global aspects, seems like a critically important role for WMF. -Pete F (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

6. To support the local team in other areas where they need help. Each local team is different and has faced different challenges. For some it's securing the venue, for others it's hotels, registration, coordinating partners, or basic project planning. The contractor would support the local teams wherever they have trouble.
7. To act as an authority figure from the WMF where that is helpful to the local team. To date, the local planning team has sometimes had difficulty closing deals with e.g. venues or partner institutions, because it isn't always taken seriously. Sometimes this is because they're volunteers: sometimes it's just that they're young. Occasionally the WMF has helped a local team by stepping in and playing the role of authoritative institutional partner, in effect vouching for the local team. The contractor would do this, whenever the local team found it useful.

   This might be really helpful when dealing with a young group of organizers or individuals without prior affiliation. Theo10011 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

8. To assess progress, and raise a flag when the team is slipping behind. I think it's tough for the local teams to know what's normal, since for each it is the first time they've staged Wikimania. Ideally, the contractor would be able to develop a sense of what normally happens by when, and could flag to the local team when they're falling behind. This would be useful if the team were in trouble, but I think its main function would be reassurance: likely the local teams are mostly fine, and I imagine it would be reassuring for them to know they're on track.

   Sue, this seems like mainly a project manager role. I'm curious: would you imagine local teams hiring a project manager in addition to this position, or do you see this person serving as a project manager? Seems some clarity about how this aspect of the role breaks down might be helpful. (Maybe it just needs to be flexible depending whether/what kind of PM is hired.) -Pete F (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

   The conference organizers definitely need their own locally-based planner to carry out conference logistics. I imagine the role at the WMF as a more supervisory one, managing the relationship between the Foundation and the local team. harej (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation

We will aim to reduce the time spent internally on managing the Wikimania scholarships process, and on supporting the Wikimania team, through a combination of community capacity development and reliance on professional contractors.

Rough timeline

This timeline is super-draft: just a hack. This process is not urgent. Likely the person will shadow-and-support during the last months of Wikimania 2013 preparation, possibly including handling the scholarships. If the timeline slips, that will likely not harm the outcome.

• Develop roles and responsibilities: who participates in the process and how: 7 January to finalize
• Develop RfP or position description: 28 January to publish
• Review proposals/CVs: 18 February to complete
• Phase one interviewing: 11 March to complete
• Phase two interviewing: 25 March to complete
• Selection of contractor and contractor begins work: 15 April to complete

Feedback/input

General feedback goes here

• Might be useful to contact like-minded organizations to see how such an Event Organizer role has worked for them. (E.g. Michelle Thorne, who's the Events Strategist at Mozilla) Abbasjnr (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. I've been talking with a few folks, and I'll talk with more. I don't know Michelle Thorne, but likely I can find her, or someone in a similar role at Mozilla. Sue Gardner (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Also, will the contractor be remote-based or working out of San Francisco? Abbasjnr (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Either would be fine: certainly I'd be open to the idea of having it be someone not in the Bay Area. If there were equally good candidates, one in the Bay Area and one not then I'd lean towards the Bay Area person, because it'd be better logistically: they could come into the office for meetings and so forth, and time zones wouldn't be an issue (with the office). There is no other as-good location, since the conference is somewhere different every year. But, a better candidate not in SF would be fine. Sue Gardner (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Just as a minor practical point: I'd also suggest a second point of contact :) We have seen things fail before because the primary contact got lost on the way. Effeietsanders (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'd try and suggest that from my reading, it seems we need two different individuals for the position, with 2 distinct set of specialties. They might not necessarily be a single person to do both. For example, the on-ground team support part would require someone with a lot of event organizing experience, familiarity with reservations, catering, contracts, that sort of thing, who, if need be, can pull up their sleeves and help the team on the ground. The other is a more off-ground position, namely someone to handle the scholarships, visas, travel arrangements, manage a budget and act as an authoritative liaison with the team. If a single person handles both, they might be overwhelmed, instead of providing them administrative support later, maybe its better to consider this as a 2 position job, and possibly make one part-time, or add in general office administration to the other position. Anyway, That would be my recommendation reading the requirements and goals here. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• I didn't want to clog up this page too much, so I just left some more extensive feedback on the talk page. -Pete F (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Will this achieve the goal

The purpose of this project is to reduce the amount of time the Wikimedia Foundation spends internally managing the Wikimania scholarships program and supporting the Wikimania team. If executed well, is it likely this process achieve that goal? Is there a better way to do it? Any refinements that should be considered?

• response

Easier for the local planning team?

Would having a single WMF point-of-contact for Wikimania make life easier for the local planning teams? Is it true this has been a pain point in the past?

• response

Wanted qualities and characteristics and skills

What qualities and characteristics and skills would someone need to be good at this work? (We will use input given here as we craft the RfP/position description.)

Need

• experience planning internationally-attended conferences, including budget and project plan development
• experience managing scholarships, travel and visas for international conference attendees
  • to me this sounds very specific, perhaps heavily limiting the number of qualified people. Doesn't the community and WMF already have much of this knowledge? Perhaps move to "want" below? -Pete F (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to stress here how important travel and visa requirements are for this position. I recently found out that some organizations and start-ups have "Visa-specialists". Since, their specialty is always needed with international events, and the need never changes, add that to someone who can make travel arrangements is something we desperately need. I'd suggest making event organizing, and travel prep. as the 2 highest criteria. Theo10011 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• experience developing sponsorship packages
• budget planning and tracking

Want

• attendance at past Wikimania or free culture event(s)
• experience with using wiki as a planning tool
• ability to travel to host city in advance of event
• has traveled extensively or lived/worked outside country of origin
• multiple languages a plus
• Wikimedia experience a plus
• comfortable in a highly transparent, collaborative environment
• submit portfolio of events attended/organized.

Potential downsides and risks

Are there any important downsides or risks in doing this that should be considered?

• There's always the risk that hiring someone to do a job will inhibit local communities or volunteers from doing it. While one of the many tasks listed above that would be expected of such a contractor addresses "year over year expertise" this role is pretty heavy on executive power and light on facilitation. That could end up being a net negative in overall work put into the conference.
  • This risk should be mitigated by making it clear that the job of the WMF liaison is not to be involved in the weeds of planning Wikimania, but to help make it easier. Consider the work of organizing Wikimania as two things: the fun, creative stuff and the pure business stuff. Volunteers should be able to spend more time on the former, since that's all the joy of planning Wikimania. They will have to do some of the latter anyway, but the Wikimedia Foundation (and a capable conference planner) should be able to assist.

What's missing

This draft plan assumes that the major activities inside the Wikimedia Foundation related to Wikimania are the scholarships process, the sponsorships process, and negotiating agreements with vendors and partners. What other activities are missing from that list?

• Transition to handling remote participation with telepresence (e.g. [1] and/or [2].)
• Post-event review and assessment (e.g., attendee/scholarship surveys, evaluation of diversity of participation) Jwild (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• [add more here]

Useful links

What are the most important information sources about Wikimania, that we would want to equip this person with? (Please put important links below.)

• Let's not reinvent the wheel on this page -- last year I did extensive curation of Wikimania content here on Meta and on the Wikimania wikis. The Wikimania Handbook aims to address this need (though there is much work to be done), and the Wikimania page and Wikimania category tree do as well. I would suggest that any work collecting the best links be done within the handbook. In fact, perhaps making a substantial improvement to the handbook should be a deliverable of the contract. -Pete F (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  +1000 Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  I have been working through the Handbook, section by section, and improving it based on my experiences. I have also prepared a Guide for Preparing Wikimania based on the 2012 experiences, including a comprehensive timetable; testimonials from the 2012 team; and all sorts of invoices, purchase orders, and RFPs. I've emailed the document to Sue Gardner, and I may be uploading it to Meta later. harej (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Contractor selection process

Who should be involved in selecting the contractor?

• My draft notion is Sue Gardner, Gayle Karen Young, Garfield Byrd, Jessie Wild and Asaf Bartov from the Wikimedia Foundation, plus two or three volunteers who've been involved with Wikimania for more than one year. These might include some of e.g., SJ, Phoebe, Delphine, and/or people who have served on local planning teams such as Deror Avi, Itzik Edri, James Hare, Tiffany Smith, Nicholas Bashour. Sue Gardner (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I would like to see the current Hong Kong team's immediate needs inform the process. As a juror considering the bids, I was impressed with their advance work in self-evaluating where they had strengths, and where they needed support; and since they will be an important stakeholder, it seems important to give them a role. -Pete F (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this would also be a very good opportunity for the WCA to get involved in the process—either to offer input or even to present a candidate from within the chapters' sphere. This would meet the WCA's mission and can become a nice example for showing how future collaboration between chapters and the WMF can evolve. Best, -Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• other thoughts

Timeline

When should we be aiming to have this person begin work? It would be useful to have some important milestone dates listed here, such as when planning begins for the sponsorships, when planning begins for the scholarships, etc.

• Scholarships: see Talk page for full timeline. Importnat to have this person onboard beginning at the latest in APRIL when the scholars are selected. Jwild (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Other

• stuff

Thank You

I'm the last person anyone would expect to give a compliment here, but Thank you for discussing these thoughts on the page itself *before* formulating them, instead of using it as a draft page. Thank you, Ms. Gardner. I agree with some of the goals, hiring a single-point-of-contact or a professional event-organizer is something a lot of people have suggested over the year. This is a good step in getting feedback before finalizing these changes, and I hope it continues. Now, if only if you would reconsider the position on fellowships...... ;). Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

+1. Thanks for doing this. Abbasjnr (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

+1. As a past Wikimania organizer I agree this is a step in the right direction. Wikimania is a huge endeavor for the Wikimedia Foundation, and there should be at least one dedicated person on the Foundation side to handle it. harej (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)