[2011-02-05 23:30:05] <phoebe> OK, everyone is eager so let's get started
[2011-02-05 23:30:09] <phoebe> thanks for coming
[2011-02-05 23:30:18] * Sargoff is ready
[2011-02-05 23:30:19] <wing2> Hello everyone
[2011-02-05 23:30:20] <phoebe> to the revival of IRC community meetings :)
[2011-02-05 23:30:28] <ChristineM> yay!
[2011-02-05 23:30:29] <phoebe> hey wing :)
[2011-02-05 23:30:32] <phoebe> here's the agenda: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings
[2011-02-05 23:30:46] <phoebe> it's pretty big, so let's try and get through it in a timely manner, without getting too distracted
[2011-02-05 23:30:49] * Multichil proposes to create #wikimedia-gender-gap ;-)
[2011-02-05 23:30:53] <phoebe> people can always chat in other channels
[2011-02-05 23:31:05] <phoebe> for now, PeterSymonds and I will be moderating
[2011-02-05 23:31:30] <phoebe> OK. so the first thing is
[2011-02-05 23:31:39] <phoebe> continuing Wikipedia 10 events; Wikimania/local events rotation
[2011-02-05 23:31:42] <phoebe> I put this on the agenda
[2011-02-05 23:31:50] <effeietsanders> can we split that up?
[2011-02-05 23:31:54] <phoebe> becuase there was so much enthusiasm around Wikipedia 10
[2011-02-05 23:32:07] <phoebe> I thought that it would be nice to have a discussion around how to continue that momentum
[2011-02-05 23:32:17] <phoebe> Effe: sure, let's put the last part with the wikimania item
[2011-02-05 23:32:20] <apergos> given that it is the tenth anniversary all year long
[2011-02-05 23:32:22] <phoebe> if it makes sense.
[2011-02-05 23:32:29] <apergos> it make a good deal of sense.
[2011-02-05 23:32:33] <Multichil> Most bigger wiki's started not that long after the enwp. I guess they all have parties planned (we do)
[2011-02-05 23:32:38] <phoebe> And one organizational note: we've got about 10-15 mins for each topic
[2011-02-05 23:32:48] <Theo10011> well I've stated my opinion on the mailing lists, I wouldn't want Wikimania to be skipped every other year.
[2011-02-05 23:32:49] <phoebe> so let's keep it on-topic and focused :)
[2011-02-05 23:32:56] <phoebe> OK
[2011-02-05 23:33:04] <phoebe> multichil, anniversary parties for the big wikis?
[2011-02-05 23:33:18] <phoebe> or all of the wikis.
[2011-02-05 23:33:24] <phoebe> is there a list of starting dates somewhere?
[2011-02-05 23:33:26] <jsalsman> okay, I promised I would try to look for campus sponsors to revive the Stanford bid, and I got further than I did last time, but Karen Sue Rolph, formerly with Stanford Management Co. leadership, thinks it's a bad idea and Stanford just severely limited their visiting researcher full text access, so I'm no longer interested in persuing that
[2011-02-05 23:33:30] <guillom> I'd like more events all year long, and they would help local groups gain experience, so people would find it less daunting to organize Wikimania or Wikimedia conferences
[2011-02-05 23:33:33] <Multichil> effeietsanders : You probably know that
[2011-02-05 23:33:36] <effeietsanders> so for Wiki10 there are basically two questions how to continue for 2011 and b) how to do it for wiki11, wiki12 etc
[2011-02-05 23:33:39] <phoebe> jsalsman: we're not talking about wikimania right now
[2011-02-05 23:33:53] <apergos> "a bad idea"? :-(
[2011-02-05 23:33:55] <apergos> ok that's a bummer
[2011-02-05 23:33:58] <effeietsanders> phoebe: the overview should be on ten.wikipedia.org , but most likely not complete
[2011-02-05 23:34:15] <Theo10011> ya guillom but would chapters be interested in organizing more events?
[2011-02-05 23:34:21] <effeietsanders> because some organization still has to be done
[2011-02-05 23:34:32] <effeietsanders> i know the french at least plan all their parties still - they did nothing!
[2011-02-05 23:34:34] <harej> If anything about DC comes up, please poke me.
[2011-02-05 23:34:44] <guillom> Theo10011, I think they should; and in any case, you don't need a chapter to organize an event
[2011-02-05 23:34:47] <Theo10011> will do harej
[2011-02-05 23:34:55] <guillom> effeietsanders, I know! :(
[2011-02-05 23:35:08] <jsalsman> okay, but during the 10th events Jon and the Wikimania bid committee sent email and that's when I made those promises, so in the context that that's when people were asking me about it.
[2011-02-05 23:35:08] <effeietsanders> guillom: you better make it up...
[2011-02-05 23:35:09] <Theo10011> ya but it goes back to focusing on the local meetups.
[2011-02-05 23:35:20] <Theo10011> which aren't exactly events.
[2011-02-05 23:35:24] <guillom> effeietsanders, I'm a simple (inactive) member.
[2011-02-05 23:35:33] <effeietsanders> guillom: like you said, no excuse :P
[2011-02-05 23:35:36] <guillom> :P
[2011-02-05 23:35:44] <TucsonDavid> Is there a list of events already propsed or otherwise
[2011-02-05 23:35:48] <phoebe> one thing I was interested in was that for wiki10 there was so much interest in local meetups from areas that had never had them before, at least in the US
[2011-02-05 23:35:49] <Theo10011> see
[2011-02-05 23:35:52] <jsalsman> apergos: maybe not a bad idea so much as any public school in the SF Bay Area would be a very substantially better idea
[2011-02-05 23:36:09] <Theo10011> even outside US phoebe
[2011-02-05 23:36:13] <Ziko> by the way, what about wikimedia commons, wikisource etc. - will they wait with their parties until 2004 f?
[2011-02-05 23:36:14] <Theo10011> there were events in Nepal
[2011-02-05 23:36:19] <Theo10011> 3 of them
[2011-02-05 23:36:22] <effeietsanders> phoebe: what i think was great was the low threshold
[2011-02-05 23:36:27] <Theo10011> 49 in India
[2011-02-05 23:36:33] <effeietsanders> phoebe: and the help that was provided with the kits and all
[2011-02-05 23:36:34] <Pharos> we should have regular "meetup days" or something
[2011-02-05 23:36:38] <phoebe> effeitsanders: yes!
[2011-02-05 23:36:43] <effeietsanders> maybe there is a way to make that more permanent with low costs
[2011-02-05 23:37:09] <Multichil> Small things can grow over time. Take for example the London meetup group
[2011-02-05 23:37:17] <phoebe> to what degree do you think central coordination helped? like could we keep going without the celebration aspects?
[2011-02-05 23:37:24] <phoebe> the London meetup group is epic :)
[2011-02-05 23:37:45] <Multichil> And all the German Stammtisch events
[2011-02-05 23:37:49] <Theo10011> the central notice tied with geolocation, we found was extremely effective
[2011-02-05 23:37:52] <effeietsanders> phoebe: it helped people to get over that threshold i think, they felt they were not just alone, but it was appreciated, and it would be special
[2011-02-05 23:37:59] <phoebe> yeah
[2011-02-05 23:38:24] <effeietsanders> it doesnt have to be done by staff btw
[2011-02-05 23:38:26] <apergos> our meetups involved people travelling for 8 hours (some of them) etc... so haivng a special reason was useful
[2011-02-05 23:38:31] <Pharos> the high-publicity sitenotice also helped a lot
[2011-02-05 23:38:33] <effeietsanders> it would also help if volunteers offer their experience
[2011-02-05 23:38:36] <Multichil> effeietsanders : Yeah, I agree, it helps to get people over the barrier
[2011-02-05 23:39:20] <effeietsanders> apergos: where is "our meetups" ?
[2011-02-05 23:39:25] <apergos> ah sorry
[2011-02-05 23:39:53] <apergos> there was a meetign in Athens (there were three events there, one was a WP user meetup, the other two were different so I won't discuss them here)
[2011-02-05 23:39:54] <Pharos> a lot of groups and causes have "global meetups" on a regular basis
[2011-02-05 23:40:09] <Multichil> I guess we have a whole scale of meetups. From small local ones on a regular basis to Wikimania once a year
[2011-02-05 23:40:11] <effeietsanders> ah, greece :D (just talked about you earlier today ;-) )
[2011-02-05 23:40:41] <phoebe> multichil, pharos - yes
[2011-02-05 23:40:43] <HaeB> (for people who wonder what the gelocated central notices are about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geonotice )
[2011-02-05 23:40:54] <effeietsanders> HaeB: that is actually somethign else
[2011-02-05 23:40:59] <phoebe> so are there things we can do for the future to make it better/easier/keep momentum going?
[2011-02-05 23:41:13] <jeremyb> HaeB: geonotice is different
[2011-02-05 23:41:15] <phoebe> do we have a "to-do" list coming out of the wiki10 experience?
[2011-02-05 23:41:18] <Multichil> apergos : About WLM (that's on later this meeting)
[2011-02-05 23:41:37] <HaeB> it was used for wp10 events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geonotice#Wiki_10_Celebration.2C_Bristol
[2011-02-05 23:41:38] <Pharos> we should make the wikipedia day thing permanent
[2011-02-05 23:41:47] <phoebe> I want to somehow support all those new little meetup groups, but I'm not sure how
[2011-02-05 23:41:49] <Multichil> Pharos +1
[2011-02-05 23:41:50] <effeietsanders> phoebe: it would be great if the WMF/chapters could offer swag-packs on a regular basis
[2011-02-05 23:41:54] <Pharos> with mention in sitenotice after the fundraiser every year
[2011-02-05 23:41:58] <Theo10011> Annual celebration ?
[2011-02-05 23:41:59] <apergos> +1 Pharos, give people an excuse to have a large meetup at least once a year
[2011-02-05 23:42:03] <Theo10011> thats a great idea.
[2011-02-05 23:42:05] <effeietsanders> phoebe: perhaps by offering some kind of voucher for web shops
[2011-02-05 23:42:09] <phoebe> (even if it is in january)
[2011-02-05 23:42:14] <Multichil> People always just need to have an excuse for a party
[2011-02-05 23:42:18] <effeietsanders> (to avoid that the staff has to handle everything)
[2011-02-05 23:42:19] <Theo10011> small meetups all over the world on the Anniversary.
[2011-02-05 23:42:24] <Theo10011> love that idea.
[2011-02-05 23:42:24] <aude> to-do: make geonotice into an extension? that could be a good project for me or someone
[2011-02-05 23:42:25] <Neozoon> I like the Idea of an Global Wikipedia day
[2011-02-05 23:42:31] <phoebe> effeietsanders: agreed the chapters should get in on it too
[2011-02-05 23:42:37] <effeietsanders> and then specifically to first-time meetups
[2011-02-05 23:42:51] <ChristineM> Global Wikipedia Day could be really cool
[2011-02-05 23:42:51] <effeietsanders> to help them get started
[2011-02-05 23:42:58] <Jan_eissfeldt> stammtisch is a very specific concept of weekly/monthly/xy stuff, entirely run by the local communities of the towns/areas since 2003, Multichill. i would propose to focus on london, new york, the events in india and so on to come up with a more general model for everyone
[2011-02-05 23:43:15] * aude made little effort to advertise our wikixdc event but had great response & had to cut off signups for our event
[2011-02-05 23:43:16] <Ziko> January... I wish there could be a warmer time of the year for a Global Wikipedia day
[2011-02-05 23:43:22] <apergos> :-D
[2011-02-05 23:43:42] <apergos> that's WIkimania, but we're not there yet ;-)
[2011-02-05 23:43:43] <effeietsanders> yes, i suggest change the date of wikipedia day ;-)
[2011-02-05 23:43:44] <Multichil> What do we want? Bottom up or top down?
[2011-02-05 23:43:46] <effeietsanders> to may 21? :P
[2011-02-05 23:43:49] <phoebe> maybe we can have a half-year birthday in June for those of us in northern climes :)
[2011-02-05 23:43:59] <staffwaterboy|af> May?
[2011-02-05 23:44:09] <Neozoon> What about first of May as Wikipedia day?
[2011-02-05 23:44:12] <effeietsanders> staffwaterboy|af: wasnt that when the really important languages were created?
[2011-02-05 23:44:14] <Theo10011> nah, jan. is fine
[2011-02-05 23:44:23] <Multichil> Nah, the date is great. We have a New Years reception around that time anyway
[2011-02-05 23:44:25] * effeietsanders is kidding of course
[2011-02-05 23:44:26] <Pharos> january works i think
[2011-02-05 23:44:27] <Ziko> effeietsanders: why not august 7th? :-)
[2011-02-05 23:44:29] <Theo10011> there is a reason behind that particular day, you know the founding day
[2011-02-05 23:44:33] <Theo10011> we can't change that.
[2011-02-05 23:44:53] <phoebe> lol, I think effe knows that :)
[2011-02-05 23:44:59] <effeietsanders> oh lol
[2011-02-05 23:45:07] <effeietsanders> Brion Vibber day is much more convenient
[2011-02-05 23:45:07] <phoebe> OK, maybe this is a good place to break to the next topic?
[2011-02-05 23:45:20] <Theo10011> +1 for Brion Vibber day.
[2011-02-05 23:45:22] <phoebe> any last thoughts on wiki10? I think we should keep the mailing list around
[2011-02-05 23:45:28] <phoebe> +2 for BV day
[2011-02-05 23:45:32] * effeietsanders suggests hackathons around the world on June 1
[2011-02-05 23:45:41] <Multichil> More hackathons!
[2011-02-05 23:45:43] <staffwaterboy|af> ^ Great idea
[2011-02-05 23:45:49] <apergos> I wonder what day the first edit to another language edition happened
[2011-02-05 23:46:14] <phoebe> pretty early on! with german & esperanto
[2011-02-05 23:46:18] <effeietsanders> but ehm
[2011-02-05 23:46:19] <apergos> ... and whether it was brion on eo :-D
[2011-02-05 23:46:24] <effeietsanders> to finalize the topic
[2011-02-05 23:46:28] <Multichil> phoebe : To wrap up: We should document stuff. How we did it so that other people can learn from it and copy the stuff they like.
[2011-02-05 23:46:29] * sj| wonders what happened to the giant brian figures to celebrate BV day
[2011-02-05 23:46:36] <effeietsanders> could someone report a wrapup of this to the wmf?
[2011-02-05 23:46:37] <Vriullop> 16th march in Catalan
[2011-02-05 23:46:41] <effeietsanders> and see what is posible here?
[2011-02-05 23:46:47] <phoebe> sounds great. Yes, it will be in the minutes
[2011-02-05 23:47:00] <phoebe> OK, gender gap!
[2011-02-05 23:47:04] <phoebe> a hot topic in the news
[2011-02-05 23:47:08] <jsalsman> on the gender imbalance problem, there is a discussion on a mailing list but it's not as solutions-focused as I think everyone hopes, so please help brainstorm and add ideas for addressing the gender imbalance in editors to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_increasing_female_editors -- it's less than a day old and needs more ideas
[2011-02-05 23:47:12] <Ainali> WMSE will probably do something at the 10th birthday of svwp (May 3)
[2011-02-05 23:47:15] <Chzz> Is there any reason to believe that the gender-gap issue re wiki?edia is any different to the gender gap on other websites, e.g. myspace, or WoW? Or in the computing field in general, %age employees?
[2011-02-05 23:47:15] <Chzz> ie "why is it *our* problem" as opposed to a generic society problem?
[2011-02-05 23:47:19] <phoebe> btw, if you are here and you proposed this topic, can you please introduce it?
[2011-02-05 23:47:31] <apergos> do we have to argue about whether there is one or can we move on to supporting work on addressing it?
[2011-02-05 23:47:33] <Theo10011> I think its sad that ten wiki is not going to be used anymoe.
[2011-02-05 23:47:50] <guillom> Theo10011, we should merge tenwiki and outreachwiki into meta ;)
[2011-02-05 23:47:54] <Theo10011> maybe we can move the content to a more permanent location where we use the material for future WP day.
[2011-02-05 23:47:55] <Pharos> ooo, gender gap!
[2011-02-05 23:47:59] <Theo10011> or BV day
[2011-02-05 23:48:02] <harej> Merge *into* Meta? Yikes.
[2011-02-05 23:48:06] <Neozoon> There is no problem with the gender since nobody is forced to tell his gender in Wikipedia
[2011-02-05 23:48:10] <Pharos> merge into meta, yes!
[2011-02-05 23:48:12] <wing2> chzz I think this is not a wp-specific problem, but that is no excuse for us to try to change it
[2011-02-05 23:48:14] <phoebe> the topic as proposed is actually two topics: ways to address the gender gap in editors, other gaps in contribution, circles of inclusion
[2011-02-05 23:48:29] <jsalsman> Chzz: it's our problem because we have much more of a gender imbalance than society, and that hurts the improvement of topics of interest to women, and topics which can help keep girls healthy, too
[2011-02-05 23:48:46] <effeietsanders> guillom: merging wiki's - put it up for next meeting please, and we'll have a whole meeting for it ;-)
[2011-02-05 23:48:48] <apergos> I think it;s our problem because it hinders us from realizing our mission
[2011-02-05 23:49:01] <apergos> so we should address it independently of what other sites or society does
[2011-02-05 23:49:07] <Pharos> WMNYC has been planning a wiki women's workshop
[2011-02-05 23:49:14] <Pharos> and outreach to the girl scouts!
[2011-02-05 23:49:15] <phoebe> pharos: cool! tell us about it
[2011-02-05 23:49:17] <Chzz> what about the age gap? the generation gap? or, the enormous UC-centric bias? Same kinda thing
[2011-02-05 23:49:29] <Neozoon> There is no bit of discrimination against Gender within Wikipedia from my point of view
[2011-02-05 23:49:32] <Chzz> *US
[2011-02-05 23:49:36] <jsalsman> I don't think RL outreach is the most effective use of time and resources
[2011-02-05 23:49:37] <Multichil> Sure, the gender gap sucks. Wikipedia was created by a bunch of techie white guys and they made it the way they like it. That's probably not really the way all people like it.
[2011-02-05 23:49:37] <Pharos> the workshop we're planning with Girls in Tech NYC
[2011-02-05 23:50:05] <jsalsman> structural changes in the community seem a lot more important, but I'm not opposed to real life outreach at all
[2011-02-05 23:50:12] <Pharos> trying to get a Wikipedian in Residence at the girl scouts
[2011-02-05 23:50:12] <guillom> Pharos, booo, you're going to worsen the nerdgap on Wikipedia!
[2011-02-05 23:50:15] <lyzzy> Chzz: su, there are many gaps, so just let us start with the gender one and then take the next step
[2011-02-05 23:50:19] <Ziko> in general, when we organize lessons and courses, they don't make many people stick with us
[2011-02-05 23:50:58] <phoebe> have people from chapters and other places that aren't the english wikipedia gotten media attention about this?
[2011-02-05 23:50:58] <Pharos> sorry, nerdgap is unassailable
[2011-02-05 23:51:01] <jsalsman> Chzz: I don't think the age gap produces as many problems with health issues. In part because everyone either was or expects to be various ages?
[2011-02-05 23:51:02] <effeietsanders> Ziko: not or just a small percentage?
[2011-02-05 23:51:07] <phoebe> I am curious because the NYT story is big here
[2011-02-05 23:51:16] <Theo10011> I would be the first one to call for more participation from all aspects.
[2011-02-05 23:51:17] <effeietsanders> lyzzy: i think the lower-educated-gap is bigger actually
[2011-02-05 23:51:18] <phoebe> (in the US)
[2011-02-05 23:51:30] <Theo10011> but we can't exactly pick and choose our community either.
[2011-02-05 23:51:33] <phoebe> nerdgap!
[2011-02-05 23:51:37] <Chzz> jsalsman so we're gonna work on solving the world heath problems now? I thought it was an encyclopaedia
[2011-02-05 23:51:45] <Multichil> This channel is filled with
ugly tech with guys. We're not going to solve the problem here ;-)
[2011-02-05 23:51:48] <effeietsanders> phoebe: in NL just a few minor mentions, it is kinda stating the obvious
[2011-02-05 23:51:49] <sj|> guillom: I'd work with you on making a place for anniversary info on meta. or on the more ambitious props that have been floating around the lists
[2011-02-05 23:51:59] <PeterSymonds> jsalsman / Chzz: Let's please focus on gender for now, since that is an agreed subject.
[2011-02-05 23:52:01] <jsalsman> Pharos: are you really trying to get a girl scout Wikipedian fellow (is "fellow" an appropriate term for that position, by the way?) If so I'll add that to the list
[2011-02-05 23:52:03] <guillom> Should we do something about the fact that the amount of LGBT Wikimedians is higher than in society, too? We should kick some of them out to fix the balance :)
[2011-02-05 23:52:12] <Ziko> effeietsanders: did you follow how many of those from our january session has edited after that? i checked on three, four persons i remembered the nick name of, but nothing
[2011-02-05 23:52:18] <Pharos> yes, i am
[2011-02-05 23:52:20] <apergos> we should get more of the folks that aren;t here, guillom
[2011-02-05 23:52:24] <jsalsman> excellent
[2011-02-05 23:52:25] <guillom> sj|, I'll keep that in mind. I know Pharos and some others are interested too.
[2011-02-05 23:52:28] <phoebe> LOL. I think adding more new people doesn't mean the old ones need to leave.
[2011-02-05 23:52:31] <Chzz> peter, in fairness, jsalsman raised the 'health' issue wrt the gender gap, I believe
[2011-02-05 23:52:33] <effeietsanders> Ziko: i do know of one
[2011-02-05 23:52:37] <apergos> or are you a user-deletionist? :-P
[2011-02-05 23:52:37] <effeietsanders> a woman btw
[2011-02-05 23:52:51] <guillom> apergos, I'm all for deleting some users, yes :P
[2011-02-05 23:53:02] <effeietsanders> guillom: FIFO
[2011-02-05 23:53:07] <phoebe> hey fluffernutter, we were just talking about gender :)
[2011-02-05 23:53:09] <Pharos> a wikipedian (not necessarily a current girl scout) who would help with documenting stuff in the girl scouts archive and history
[2011-02-05 23:53:12] <effeietsanders> that would immediately reduce gender gap
[2011-02-05 23:53:13] <Fluffernutter> i heard, phoebe :)
[2011-02-05 23:53:21] <Theo10011> I meant we can invent interest, it has to be organic.
[2011-02-05 23:53:26] <phoebe> (for 5 more minutes)
[2011-02-05 23:53:27] <Pharos> and mobilize the girl scouts "history volunteers"
[2011-02-05 23:53:37] <Fluffernutter> Pharos, are you recruiting again?
[2011-02-05 23:53:41] <effeietsanders> but ok, back to topic... how to approach the problem :P
[2011-02-05 23:53:47] <effeietsanders> i heard a few solutions
[2011-02-05 23:53:48] <Chzz> but, in general, "meh" - I don't believe we will get anywhere here; we're trying to discuss too generic a society issue. Apart from lots of hot air, and mad ideas about TFP of kittens and TFA about shopping. So, I'll stay out of this one
[2011-02-05 23:53:49] <effeietsanders> * workshops
[2011-02-05 23:53:52] <effeietsanders> * be nicer
[2011-02-05 23:53:54] <Pharos> I'm Pharos, and I'm here to recruit you!
[2011-02-05 23:53:57] <effeietsanders> what else?
[2011-02-05 23:54:05] <apergos> 1) do we lose women faster than men who edit? Can we find this out?
[2011-02-05 23:54:18] <phoebe> effe: *research
[2011-02-05 23:54:25] <Multichil> Won't time just balance things out if we just focus on making Wikipedia better accessible?
[2011-02-05 23:54:30] <effeietsanders> phoebe: can you be more specific?
[2011-02-05 23:54:34] <apergos> 2) can we poll readers about barriers to editing?
[2011-02-05 23:54:35] <Pharos> my sense is that mainly we attract fewer women initially
[2011-02-05 23:54:40] <guillom> Chzz, I'm with you on this. So I'm going to go fix up some dinner.
[2011-02-05 23:54:41] <Erzbischof> lets be specific, obviously some things apply to wikipedia which are specific to the system, fore example the number of persons watching you
[2011-02-05 23:54:42] <jsalsman> I think it's a very serious problem. Has anyone even looked at the state of birth control?
[2011-02-05 23:54:45] <guillom> Multichil, I believe so, yes.
[2011-02-05 23:54:46] <sj|> gender: in Boston we have a good relationship with a group of women in nonprofit/geek work
[2011-02-05 23:54:47] <phoebe> (so we have accurate numbers; the last survey is old now. The WMF is working on this atm)
[2011-02-05 23:54:51] <Fluffernutter> effeietsanders, i would kind of like to see a stronger mentoring system. This is all a half-baked idea in my head at the moment, but I feel like while a lot of guys dip their toes in and start swimming, a lot of women are waiting to be shown the ropes
[2011-02-05 23:54:57] <sj|> they sometimes come to meetings, and often come to events like talks, but find it very hard to edit.
[2011-02-05 23:55:09] <effeietsanders> Fluffernutter: from which wiki are you?
[2011-02-05 23:55:11] <Fluffernutter> en
[2011-02-05 23:55:16] <ChristineM> apergos: as to #2, i think we're doing some work around that. i know there are several new editor things getting going that i'm sure will encompass some of that. As to #1, i think that's something we really should fin dout
[2011-02-05 23:55:18] <effeietsanders> Fluffernutter: because in DE and NL it works pretty well so far
[2011-02-05 23:55:19] <Multichil> I'm not sure, but my gut feeling says we don't have a lot of "older" (=not that good with computer) people.
[2011-02-05 23:55:20] <phoebe> (guillom et al: remember we have 3 more topics after this)
[2011-02-05 23:55:22] <ChristineM> * find out. hi, i can type. honest.
[2011-02-05 23:55:26] <effeietsanders> Fluffernutter: and it is all set up bottom up
[2011-02-05 23:55:27] <jsalsman> I agree that the issues of health and female editor enfranchisement are inseperable
[2011-02-05 23:55:30] <effeietsanders> Fluffernutter: so you could do it
[2011-02-05 23:55:33] <apergos> we need to know why they find it hard to edit, if that's true (sj) before we can start working on that
[2011-02-05 23:55:37] <guillom> phoebe, but my stomach is raging! ;)
[2011-02-05 23:55:44] <sj|> people I've recruited tend to stop editing after only a couple of weeks.
[2011-02-05 23:55:45] <Fluffernutter> effeietsanders, hmm, interesting. Anywhere i can read in english how those function?
[2011-02-05 23:55:47] <wing2> Pharos, please keep us updated on your efforts
[2011-02-05 23:55:53] <effeietsanders> Fluffernutter: google translate
[2011-02-05 23:55:59] <apergos> I like anecdotal evidence but I want more than that...
[2011-02-05 23:56:08] <effeietsanders> Fluffernutter: but better, ask lyzzy to talk about it at wikimania
[2011-02-05 23:56:34] <sj|> or rather, they get into one topic they really care about, and usually run into something discomfiting after a few weeks, and then cut way back on interest. this is true for older professors as well.
[2011-02-05 23:56:35] * Fluffernutter makes a note to do so
[2011-02-05 23:56:40] <guillom> (and I don't want to be involved in any way about the OTRS identification debate; I've done enough damage)
[2011-02-05 23:56:43] <Neozoon> I went to several real live meetings and there are a lot of women / girls around that say they will not reveal that in public on there account. I think we should not maike it a big topic if an author is male or female.
[2011-02-05 23:57:18] <Fluffernutter> Neozoon, but yes, this is part of the circle of fail. They don't want to reveal that they're female because they know they run decent odds of being treated shabbily
[2011-02-05 23:57:32] <sj|> I'd like to see stats on 'getting over the initial "but I'm not an expert in anything"' barrier
[2011-02-05 23:57:33] <Pharos> it is kind of impossible to do an accurate survey
[2011-02-05 23:57:40] <jsalsman> I made a new section http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_increasing_female_editors#Proposals_not_yet_posted_to_the_Gendergap_list for brainstorms arising here
[2011-02-05 23:57:41] <sj|> separate from 'what made you leave, when?' for those who start editing
[2011-02-05 23:57:45] <Pharos> I didn't reveal i was male for like a year :P
[2011-02-05 23:57:51] <apergos> Pharos: we can do the best we can do, it will still be better than no data
[2011-02-05 23:58:06] <HaeB> the statistics which form the basis of the current debate are indeed a bit shaky http://www.floatingsheep.org/2011/02/wikipedia-demographics.html
[2011-02-05 23:58:11] <Theo10011> well one aspect is hipping the edit process up a bit with WYSISYG editing, and more functionality with a twitter like interface.
[2011-02-05 23:58:19] <Pharos> I don't know why, maybe i thought willyonwheels would get me
[2011-02-05 23:58:22] <Fluffernutter> Pharos, and yet i bet everyone just defaulted to assuming you were
[2011-02-05 23:58:31] <effeietsanders> ok, lets round this up?
[2011-02-05 23:58:34] <effeietsanders> (time wise)
[2011-02-05 23:58:38] <phoebe> OK, sounds good
[2011-02-05 23:58:41] <phoebe> last thoughts?
[2011-02-05 23:58:42] <Neozoon> To think that girls are less computer skilled is discrimination
[2011-02-05 23:58:43] <Multichil> One last remark before we go to the next topic: Wikimedia should just sponsor sex change surgery! ;-)
[2011-02-05 23:58:46] <phoebe> Obviously these are big topics :)
[2011-02-05 23:58:49] <effeietsanders> anyone a link to the mainling list?
[2011-02-05 23:58:50] <apergos> I can say that on a smaller project I'm on.. no, two projects, the gender gap is quite real
[2011-02-05 23:58:51] <phoebe> lol
[2011-02-05 23:58:53] <Pharos> Iran does!
[2011-02-05 23:58:54] <effeietsanders> for those interested in the topic
[2011-02-05 23:59:06] <apergos> caus we can count all the active users on a few hands...
[2011-02-05 23:59:07] <Pharos> it solves their homosexuality problems
[2011-02-05 23:59:11] <apergos> but again it's anecdotal
[2011-02-05 23:59:15] <Chzz> any focus oriented to *only* improving wiki?edia accessibility for females would *also* be sexist
[2011-02-05 23:59:20] <ChristineM> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[2011-02-05 23:59:26] <effeietsanders> thanks ChristineM :)
[2011-02-05 23:59:31] <ChristineM> :)
[2011-02-05 23:59:37] <ChristineM> there's a lot of interesting conversation there atm
[2011-02-05 23:59:39] <phoebe> pls do join if you are interested; it'd be nice to make that list more multilingual/global
[2011-02-05 23:59:46] <ChristineM> not a lot of solutions but some good conversation
[2011-02-05 23:59:52] <apergos> Chzz, one could argue that all efforts to block such improvements could be viewed as sexist
[2011-02-05 23:59:53] <ChristineM> and that's what gets things started :)
[2011-02-05 23:59:54] <phoebe> OK! awesome. Next topic!
[2011-02-05 23:59:58] <apergos> so let's leave the labels out
[2011-02-06 00:00:20] * phoebe is enjoying timekeeping on some of the biggest issues to face our community ;)
[2011-02-06 00:00:23] <apergos> heh
[2011-02-06 00:00:26] <effeietsanders> # keeping identification documents of OTRS volunteers
[2011-02-06 00:00:28] <Theo10011> I meant the edit system is complicated with wiki markups as it is, it would help with multiple aspects to simplify it.
[2011-02-06 00:00:29] <phoebe> next topic is "identification issues"
[2011-02-06 00:00:32] <phoebe> yes indeed
[2011-02-06 00:00:39] <PeterSymonds> For the OTRS identification topic: ChristineM, may I ask you to lead this off?
[2011-02-06 00:00:52] <sj|> multichil: expensive... :)
[2011-02-06 00:00:54] <ChristineM> i can
[2011-02-06 00:00:57] <phoebe> the background of this discussion is discussion on foundation-l and otrs-en-l about id
[2011-02-06 00:01:04] <Shirley> Oh, it's a party in here.
[2011-02-06 00:01:06] <phoebe> OK, let's let Christine have the floor for a bit
[2011-02-06 00:01:21] <phoebe> (if you're ready)
[2011-02-06 00:01:35] <sj|> <waves at shirley>
[2011-02-06 00:01:38] <Theo10011> Shirley!!!
[2011-02-06 00:02:07] <ChristineM> In 2007, the Board passed a resolution requiring volunteers with access to non-public data to identify to the Foundation
[2011-02-06 00:02:23] <HaeB> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/223852
[2011-02-06 00:02:25] <sj|> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-February/063723.html
[2011-02-06 00:02:33] <ChristineM> since that time, all Checkusers, Stewards, Bureaucrats, etc. have been ID'ing to us
[2011-02-06 00:02:33] <Shirley> Actually, while we have two Board members in here...
[2011-02-06 00:02:47] <effeietsanders> ChristineM: not bureaucrats afaik
[2011-02-06 00:02:50] <ChristineM> we've realized that OTRS volunteers also have access to this type of information (email addresses, IP addresses, etc.)
[2011-02-06 00:02:56] <DerHexer|absens> effeietsanders, true
[2011-02-06 00:02:58] <apergos> retaining the id... ah. I see. that's a big deal
[2011-02-06 00:03:03] <ChristineM> sorry, misspoke there :)
[2011-02-06 00:03:06] <staffwaterboy|af> So that means you want Acc to get Ident
[2011-02-06 00:03:10] <phoebe> shirley: three board members, wing is here too
[2011-02-06 00:03:45] <Beria> Bureaucrats not
[2011-02-06 00:03:50] <Theo10011> oh Hi Ting
[2011-02-06 00:03:52] <ChristineM> We want to ensure that we are following Board resolutions, but at the same time want to ensure that our community is protected as well.
[2011-02-06 00:03:53] <effeietsanders> can someone remember what was the reasoning of the identification requirement again?
[2011-02-06 00:03:56] * Theo10011 waves
[2011-02-06 00:03:59] <Shirley> phoebe: I was going to ask about October 2010 Board minutes, but sj is already on it.
[2011-02-06 00:04:03] <Shirley> :-)
[2011-02-06 00:04:07] <Beria> ChristineM: crats don't need to identify themselves
[2011-02-06 00:04:09] <wing2> :-)
[2011-02-06 00:04:18] <Shirley> effeietsanders: There isn't a legitimate requirement.
[2011-02-06 00:04:25] <ChristineM> Beria, yes i said above that i misspoke there :)
[2011-02-06 00:04:25] <Multichil> Can I identify with my local chapter?
[2011-02-06 00:04:27] <Shirley> It's a silly, pointless process.
[2011-02-06 00:04:30] * Multichil waves at effeietsanders
[2011-02-06 00:04:34] <apergos> crats don't have CU access
[2011-02-06 00:04:40] <apergos> CUs identify right?
[2011-02-06 00:04:42] <Shirley> Multichil: Depends which chapter. The Italians apparently don't want to do it.
[2011-02-06 00:04:44] <Theo10011> wha what do crats need to identify now?
[2011-02-06 00:04:45] <Beria> yes
[2011-02-06 00:04:45] <PeterSymonds> apergos, yes.
[2011-02-06 00:04:47] <effeietsanders> Multichil: i would advise our chapter against it, depending on the reason the WMF requires it in the first place
[2011-02-06 00:05:12] <ChristineM> (if i disappear, i apologize now… apparently NOW is when my Wifi is trying to bonkers. argh)
[2011-02-06 00:05:13] <staffwaterboy|af> How about for ABU i know there was talk about having to be identified while in that project.
[2011-02-06 00:05:18] <effeietsanders> since i definitely want to avoid we are obligated to give that information to US officials if the US government asks for it
[2011-02-06 00:05:35] <staffwaterboy|af> *ARB
[2011-02-06 00:05:38] <ChristineM> Theo, i misspoke.
[2011-02-06 00:05:39] <staffwaterboy|af> ARU
[2011-02-06 00:05:42] <apergos> that makes a good deal of sense ( effeietsanders )
[2011-02-06 00:05:43] <HaeB> ChristineM: but the changes you made (actually requiring identification, and storiing it) are not mandated by the 2007 resolution, right?
[2011-02-06 00:05:52] <staffwaterboy|af> Abuse Response Unit?
[2011-02-06 00:05:54] <Theo10011> k, sawry, I read up now.
[2011-02-06 00:06:00] <HaeB> ChristineM: so was that a staff decision, or a more recent decision by the board?
[2011-02-06 00:06:01] <Beria> well, despite the fact almost all pt users are already identified in WMF, i still don't get why now andy why without any talk (at least i dont saw )
[2011-02-06 00:06:04] <Multichil> We should just set up a process like http://certificate.nikhef.nl/medium/ :-)
[2011-02-06 00:06:16] <Brownout> effeietsanders: why is that? What kind of authority does an us official would hold in EU?
[2011-02-06 00:06:25] <effeietsanders> Multichil: that depends on the actual reason for the identification in the first place
[2011-02-06 00:06:28] <Multichil> You just come by, show an id. They verify it and don't keep any records
[2011-02-06 00:06:30] <effeietsanders> wing2: you were there at the time, right?
[2011-02-06 00:06:31] <Brownout> s/does/would/
[2011-02-06 00:06:32] <wing2> HaeB, I believe it was also already mandatory at that time, but no one thought obout this
[2011-02-06 00:06:32] <kjetilhr> what is the rationale for storing a copy?
[2011-02-06 00:06:35] <ChristineM> HaeB: The Resolution states that volunteers that have access to this data are "personally and legally accountable." which is somewhat difficult to do if we don't have IDs for them
[2011-02-06 00:06:36] <effeietsanders> or was this before your time"?
[2011-02-06 00:06:38] <wing2> effe no
[2011-02-06 00:06:41] <Theo10011> I have a question, I missed the earlier part of the policy formulation
[2011-02-06 00:06:43] <Shirley> Is there a new General Counsel?
[2011-02-06 00:06:49] <wing2> I joined 2008
[2011-02-06 00:06:52] <Theo10011> but why is there even a requirement to be identified.
[2011-02-06 00:07:01] <effeietsanders> ok, so does anyone have an idea what the exact reason was why identification is required?
[2011-02-06 00:07:01] <Theo10011> Yes Shirley.
[2011-02-06 00:07:04] <phoebe> shirley: there is (read the announcements list!) and he's actually here :)
[2011-02-06 00:07:07] <Brownout> what about sysops? They also have access to non public information.
[2011-02-06 00:07:10] <HaeB> wing2, ChristineM so the resolution has been misinterpreted for three years?
[2011-02-06 00:07:20] <Shirley> phoebe: I really wish they'd forward these things to discussion list.
[2011-02-06 00:07:21] <phoebe> (but not yet officially "on the job")
[2011-02-06 00:07:23] <wing2> because they have access to personal data
[2011-02-06 00:07:27] <Shirley> Why a tech company can't figure out e-mail forwarding...
[2011-02-06 00:07:33] <apergos> Brownout: the point is that if we have the data, any law enforcement in the US that has a semi-legitimate excuse could ask us for it
[2011-02-06 00:07:33] <phoebe> ok, focus
[2011-02-06 00:07:36] <wing2> if they misbehave, we have no methode to keep them accountable
[2011-02-06 00:07:41] <Shirley> ChristineM: The IDs aren't verified. There's no accountability.
[2011-02-06 00:07:46] <Beria> wing2: a mail asking permission for a file is not "personal data"
[2011-02-06 00:07:47] <wing2> HaeB, that's my understanding
[2011-02-06 00:07:53] <avatar> my big problem with this is, that in the past (I'm talking about the *real* past - 2005/2006) WMF had some fuckups with personal data. this destroyed a lot goodwill and made a lot of German volunteers more careful. I do realize that the WMF is way more professional now, but... if Philippe tells me on Jan 27th (9 days ago) "The WMF does not retain identification for anyone - we simply don't keep the records; they're destroyed the day that we receive ...
[2011-02-06 00:07:57] <effeietsanders> wing2: so it is to be able to sue them?
[2011-02-06 00:07:59] <avatar> ... them, once the username has been posted to the noticeboard." and by accident I learned from a German volunteer on Jan 29th (7 days ago) that Christine wrote "We do retain a copy of your ID, however it is held on a secure server, with restricted access to the folder. Only myself, Philippe Beaudette (Head of Reader Relations), and Megan Hernandez (Community Officer) have access to this folder. Your information will be held securely and not ...
[2011-02-06 00:08:05] <Brownout> apergos: effeietsanders was talking about a local non us chapter
[2011-02-06 00:08:05] <avatar> ... released to outside parties." - that's not really showing me that the WMF is handling this topic with severity.
[2011-02-06 00:08:07] <lyzzy> can someome please try to define "personal data"
[2011-02-06 00:08:07] <Shirley> Flood.
[2011-02-06 00:08:25] <wing2> Beria, but there could be more information, for example complaining about the subject's personal article
[2011-02-06 00:08:32] <Shirley> lyzzy: It's not "personal data" as much as it is "non-public data". Things like IP addresses, e-mail addresses, real names, etc.
[2011-02-06 00:08:33] <apergos> Brownout: yes, I get that. I would be reluctant if suddently I knew my information could be requested by. oh... say... German officials
[2011-02-06 00:08:33] <avatar> lyzzy: at least "real names"
[2011-02-06 00:08:36] <Theo10011> wing and phoebe, OTRS access isn't exactly handed out to anyone.
[2011-02-06 00:08:41] <Theo10011> there are checks already in place.
[2011-02-06 00:08:46] <harej> What is the policy regarding having relations with readers? :P
[2011-02-06 00:08:47] <Theo10011> was there an incident or something?
[2011-02-06 00:08:49] <wing2> In this case the OTRS voluntier would get access to at least e-mail address of that subject
[2011-02-06 00:08:53] <Jan_eissfeldt> not in a way germans and americans could agree on, lyzzy ;)
[2011-02-06 00:08:59] <Brownout> apergos: same here, by EU has stronger privacy laws than the US
[2011-02-06 00:09:06] <Shirley> This channel is becoming a bit overwhelming, heh.
[2011-02-06 00:09:11] <Beria> that info was public at some point wing2, even an visitor could saw if they have the right timing
[2011-02-06 00:09:16] <Multichil> Me sending an email to the WMF is not a good way of getting to identify me. I could just make something up. So what's the point of this whole show?
[2011-02-06 00:09:20] <Shirley> Brownout: I have no doubt WMF will sell out any volunteer, no matter where they're based.
[2011-02-06 00:09:26] <Guandalug> Shirley: What did you expect, with a topic like that? :D
[2011-02-06 00:09:39] <Beria> so, to publish that i only need a IP, but to correct it, i need to send my ID to WMF
[2011-02-06 00:09:41] <ChristineM> wow.
[2011-02-06 00:09:42] <Brownout> Shirley: I share your POV
[2011-02-06 00:09:43] <apergos> Shirley: well only if they have something to sell
[2011-02-06 00:09:51] <ChristineM> that makes me really sad.
[2011-02-06 00:09:59] <effeietsanders> OK - summary: few questions: 1) why is this copy required 2) what about local chapters 3) how about storing the data 4) how secure is it
[2011-02-06 00:10:03] <effeietsanders> anything missing?
[2011-02-06 00:10:10] <Brownout> sysops
[2011-02-06 00:10:14] <Shirley> apergos: Well, they'll have whatever real or fake data they're provided with that hasn't leaked. :-)
[2011-02-06 00:10:14] <Theo10011> prob, not
[2011-02-06 00:10:18] <Multichil> effeietsanders : Verification
[2011-02-06 00:10:24] <HaeB> (btw we are talking about http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data )
[2011-02-06 00:10:31] <phoebe> thx HaeB
[2011-02-06 00:10:32] <apergos> we know that if we have info, there will be points in time when someone will cave to pressure; no one is an angel. If we don't have the info... it doesn't matter if we're not all angels all the time.
[2011-02-06 00:10:36] <Shirley> Honestly, you all should just commission "Wikipedia Review" to collect this info. It'd be a bit more accurate, at least.
[2011-02-06 00:10:44] <guillom> LOL
[2011-02-06 00:10:49] <effeietsanders> if that is all, lets all shut up
[2011-02-06 00:10:52] <Theo10011> OTRS is restrictively given out, I was asking if there was an incident to enact a clause in the requirement.
[2011-02-06 00:10:53] <effeietsanders> and let wmf people explain
[2011-02-06 00:10:57] <Shirley> apergos: If the info isn't verified, there's absolutely no point in collecting it.
[2011-02-06 00:11:05] <apergos> Shirley: I'd agree with you there
[2011-02-06 00:11:06] <ChristineM> Storing data and security is something we've talked about with the OTRS volunteers. The server currently used for storage is a secure server, and again there are only three of us with access to the folder this info is stored in.
[2011-02-06 00:11:06] <effeietsanders> ChristineM: ? :)
[2011-02-06 00:11:18] <Shirley> I'd like to voice and moderate, personally.
[2011-02-06 00:11:19] <Multichil> I don't consider sending an email with a scan proper identification
[2011-02-06 00:11:20] <phoebe> shirley, maybe you can tone down your rhetoric a little
[2011-02-06 00:11:36] <ChristineM> but I am looking into some other options, including offline storage, and removable electronic storage. I can't say a lot about that yet because I don't have all the details yet :) but when i do, i'll share them
[2011-02-06 00:11:49] <Shirley> ChristineM: You'll share them where? :-)
[2011-02-06 00:11:54] <PeterSymonds> Do you mind.
[2011-02-06 00:11:59] <apergos> so 5) how accurate is this data (how do we verify it)
[2011-02-06 00:12:00] <Theo10011> hah
[2011-02-06 00:12:03] <Shirley> PeterSymonds: I do.
[2011-02-06 00:12:26] <phoebe> OK, Christine has the floor
[2011-02-06 00:12:29] <phoebe> there's a question from Theo
[2011-02-06 00:12:36] <ChristineM> The copy is required to make sure we're in line with Board policy and resolutions.
[2011-02-06 00:12:42] <Theo10011> Shirley, Peter is moderating this meeting.
[2011-02-06 00:12:56] <phoebe> and then a question about sharing, and then about verifying data
[2011-02-06 00:12:59] <HaeB> ...in the new interpretation
[2011-02-06 00:13:01] <avatar> would be cool if we could discuss the questions listed by effeietsanders
[2011-02-06 00:13:12] <ChristineM> As for chapters, if the Chapters are comfortable handling this information, volunteers can ID to the Chapter who can inform us that you've ID'ed to them
[2011-02-06 00:13:26] <Shirley> Theo10011: There's moderation in here?
[2011-02-06 00:13:27] <Jeandre> Must the chapters keep a copy of the ID?
[2011-02-06 00:13:36] <phoebe> and yes, effeietsanders questions; and then we are going to cut it off and go to the next topic
[2011-02-06 00:13:36] <Theo10011> hah
[2011-02-06 00:13:52] <Beria> again: What is the personal data OTRS people deal with to require their ID?
[2011-02-06 00:13:55] <staffwaterboy|af> How secure is the information we are giving this chapter leaders
[2011-02-06 00:13:58] <ChristineM> As to who it would be released to… IF we got a valid subpoena, we would have to release it. But that is the only instance where it would be released.
[2011-02-06 00:13:59] <Beria> that i still don't understand
[2011-02-06 00:14:00] <Wutsje> ChristineM: And if the chapters are not comfortable handling that info?
[2011-02-06 00:14:08] <Brownout> phoebe: I'd like to add my question about sysops to those
[2011-02-06 00:14:08] <effeietsanders> ChristineM: to be clear, with reason we dont mean "to be in line with policy" but the actual purpose
[2011-02-06 00:14:11] <ChristineM> someone can't just waltz in and ask us for that info :)
[2011-02-06 00:14:14] <avatar> christinem: but in this scenario the chapters don't need to save/keep the data?
[2011-02-06 00:14:15] <phoebe> again: where's the meta page on this?
[2011-02-06 00:14:22] <phoebe> perhaps a bunch of this could be moved there
[2011-02-06 00:14:23] <Multichil> PeterSymonds : Please voice ChristineM and +m the channel for a moment
[2011-02-06 00:14:35] <Multichil> So she can answer the questions in order
[2011-02-06 00:14:36] <Shirley> phoebe: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_questions_and_answers
[2011-02-06 00:14:40] <HaeB> another question, regarding checkusers: checkusers are not affected by the first change (they have already been required to identify always). but does the second change, about storing their identification, affect them too?
[2011-02-06 00:14:45] <ChristineM> Wutsje: if the Chapters aren't comfortable, then the WMF would be who that volunteer would ID to
[2011-02-06 00:15:35] <ChristineM> effeietsanders: i don't have any information on the purpose of the Resolution. You'd need to talk to the Board on that info
[2011-02-06 00:16:26] =-= Mode #wikimedia +v sj| by PeterSymonds
[2011-02-06 00:16:28] <ChristineM> i know i've missed some questions
[2011-02-06 00:16:41] <ChristineM> effeietsanders, what did i miss?
[2011-02-06 00:16:47] <ChristineM> (can message me if needed :))
[2011-02-06 00:16:51] * sj| thinks everyone was just devoiced
[2011-02-06 00:17:13] =-= Mode #wikimedia -m by PeterSymonds
[2011-02-06 00:17:18] <jsalsman> Time to move to Wiki Loves Monuments?
[2011-02-06 00:17:23] <phoebe> Ok, we've got a followup question to ask if you can send the info when you find out to foundation-l
[2011-02-06 00:17:27] <phoebe> which I think is the smart plan
[2011-02-06 00:17:28] <Jeandre> Must chapters keep copy of the IDs?
[2011-02-06 00:17:30] <Ask21> ..
[2011-02-06 00:17:32] <phoebe> and also to debate on teh meta page
[2011-02-06 00:17:34] <sj|> I can't speak to the original intent of the policy.
[2011-02-06 00:17:44] <sj|> I don't see anything in it that requires keeping copies of data, however.
[2011-02-06 00:17:46] <kjetilhr> time to answer the questions about keeping the ids?
[2011-02-06 00:17:54] <sj|> that seems like a good topic to discuss at some length on meta (rather than here on irc)
[2011-02-06 00:18:00] <Multichil> ChristineM : So basicly your just following orders but you don't know why?
[2011-02-06 00:18:04] <Jeandre> Can the IDs sent to chapters be redacted, with only full name, date of birth, and nationality?
[2011-02-06 00:18:12] =-= Mode #wikimedia +m by PeterSymonds
[2011-02-06 00:18:20] <PeterSymonds> All good questions, but let's give some space for answers.
[2011-02-06 00:18:46] <phoebe> (and then yes, we'll move to the last two topics :) )
[2011-02-06 00:19:02] <ChristineM> the IDs sent in, really, all we need is photo, DOB, and name. everything else can be blanked out
[2011-02-06 00:19:57] <ChristineM> And as Sj said, this is a really good topic that deserves a lot of attention
[2011-02-06 00:20:14] <ChristineM> and discussion with more time/attention than IRC can give it
[2011-02-06 00:20:19] <phoebe> indeed
[2011-02-06 00:20:32] <phoebe> I would urge people to take it to meta and the list
[2011-02-06 00:20:38] <phoebe> since there are soo many questions
[2011-02-06 00:20:59] <ChristineM> and really guys, we are looking into a lot of things here
[2011-02-06 00:21:07] <phoebe> but we just have 10 mins left, so I want to change the topic to wiki loves monuments and then a quick discussion of wikimania 2012
[2011-02-06 00:21:14] <ChristineM> all the questions being brought up are being read and thought about really carefully.
[2011-02-06 00:21:28] <phoebe> thank you ChristineM :)
[2011-02-06 00:21:55] <phoebe> I want to say while I have the floor ... I have proposed that we have a monthly meeting on the first saturday of the month, which would make it March 5
[2011-02-06 00:22:00] <ChristineM> absolutely.
[2011-02-06 00:22:13] <phoebe> so please add your agenda topics there
[2011-02-06 00:22:21] <phoebe> and also, we'll probably switch the time
[2011-02-06 00:22:26] <PeterSymonds> Okay, I think phoebe would like to move on, so
[2011-02-06 00:22:27] =-= Mode #wikimedia -m by PeterSymonds
[2011-02-06 00:22:29] <jsalsman> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments
[2011-02-06 00:22:30] <phoebe> so weigh in on that
[2011-02-06 00:22:36] <phoebe> OK, wiki loves monuments!
[2011-02-06 00:22:42] <Beria> ok, WLM :D
[2011-02-06 00:22:52] <phoebe> effe! do you want to tell us about it?
[2011-02-06 00:23:22] <phoebe> (or anyone else?)
[2011-02-06 00:23:27] <Multichil> I think effeietsanders left because of the very poor answers in the previous topic.
[2011-02-06 00:23:39] <effeietsanders> Multichil: no
[2011-02-06 00:23:40] <phoebe> mm, too bad
[2011-02-06 00:23:41] <effeietsanders> sorry
[2011-02-06 00:23:48] <Beria> you can answer too Multichil :D
[2011-02-06 00:24:03] <effeietsanders> Well, Wiki Loves Monuments is a project to get great overviews of monumental buildings and provide them with photos
[2011-02-06 00:24:21] <effeietsanders> that way we get a nice overview of the cultural heritage throughout Europe
[2011-02-06 00:24:36] <effeietsanders> it is basically a photo contest asking people to send in their photos
[2011-02-06 00:24:48] <effeietsanders> in 2010 we did it in the Netherlands, and it got us 12500 photos
[2011-02-06 00:24:58] <effeietsanders> in 2011 we will do it in Europe...
[2011-02-06 00:25:04] <effeietsanders> and we hope many countries will participate
[2011-02-06 00:25:07] * jsalsman wonders where the nearest monument is
[2011-02-06 00:25:18] <apergos> so some countries do not have the freedom of panorama euqivalent and so only buildings older than I forget what it is, 70 years after the death of their creator or soemthing, are eligible... could we use something like this as a...
[2011-02-06 00:25:23] <Beria> where are you jsalsman ?
[2011-02-06 00:25:31] <effeietsanders> we are adding information on commons:commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
[2011-02-06 00:25:31] <jsalsman> Menlo Park, California at the moment
[2011-02-06 00:25:42] <apergos> leverage point to push for changes on these laws?
[2011-02-06 00:25:44] <Beria> well, that is kinda difficult :D
[2011-02-06 00:25:51] <Multichil> apergos : That's not our approach
[2011-02-06 00:25:58] <ChristineM> hay right up the road from me :)
[2011-02-06 00:26:10] <Multichil> Most buildings are old to really old. You should see that around you in Greece ;-)
[2011-02-06 00:26:24] <apergos> most buildings there are not so old, actually
[2011-02-06 00:26:39] <effeietsanders> and if you're interested, please subscribe to the mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
[2011-02-06 00:26:43] <apergos> we went through a purge of a lot of pictures on commons from there over this very issue
[2011-02-06 00:27:05] <jsalsman> Here is an awesome monument on Angel Island Immigration Station http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_Island_Chinese_monument.jpg which would be a great place for a Wikimania sponsor party -- segue!!
[2011-02-06 00:27:29] <Ziko> focus, please
[2011-02-06 00:27:43] <effeietsanders> so to be clear: WLM2011 is about Europe, but of course people are more than welcome to copy the concept and set it up elsewhere too
[2011-02-06 00:27:47] <effeietsanders> like in the States
[2011-02-06 00:28:03] <effeietsanders> (and I'd be more than willing to help advise on it)
[2011-02-06 00:28:16] <Beria> is not that easy in america effeietsanders.
[2011-02-06 00:28:18] <phoebe> cool!
[2011-02-06 00:28:41] <Beria> no FOP there (mainly) and not so many old places :S
[2011-02-06 00:28:42] <effeietsanders> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/progress gives a nice overview of the current information we have in Europe
[2011-02-06 00:28:48] <effeietsanders> and which chapters are interested
[2011-02-06 00:29:02] <effeietsanders> if you are in a chapter/group that might be interested, get it to them
[2011-02-06 00:29:06] <effeietsanders> find more volunteers
[2011-02-06 00:29:08] <effeietsanders> etc
[2011-02-06 00:29:17] <effeietsanders> Beria: lets start with opportunities, not with problems ;-)
[2011-02-06 00:29:21] <Pharos> FOP is in USA, for architecture anyway
[2011-02-06 00:29:30] <phoebe> these are the kinds of monuments we have in the US: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2128
[2011-02-06 00:29:39] <phoebe> lol
[2011-02-06 00:29:49] <effeietsanders> you could basically run a similar concept for anything
[2011-02-06 00:29:52] <effeietsanders> natural parks
[2011-02-06 00:29:55] <effeietsanders> fountains
[2011-02-06 00:30:01] <phoebe> yes, the concept is awesome
[2011-02-06 00:30:02] <effeietsanders> skyscrapers
[2011-02-06 00:30:03] <ChristineM> phoebe hold on a minute!
[2011-02-06 00:30:03] <effeietsanders> etc
[2011-02-06 00:30:04] <Multichil> In the USA it would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places
[2011-02-06 00:30:12] <ChristineM> the biggest ball of twine is in Kansas!
[2011-02-06 00:30:18] <Ziko> wlm is a great chance not only for obtaining photographs but also for approaching the public and possible new editors
[2011-02-06 00:30:29] <effeietsanders> Ziko: indeed!
[2011-02-06 00:30:34] <ChristineM> http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/8543
[2011-02-06 00:30:36] <effeietsanders> the photos are very nice and all...
[2011-02-06 00:30:36] <ChristineM> !
[2011-02-06 00:30:40] <phoebe> OK!
[2011-02-06 00:30:48] <ChristineM> :)
[2011-02-06 00:30:50] <effeietsanders> but much more important is that it reaches a new group of potential editors
[2011-02-06 00:31:00] <sj|> effe: someone outside of Europe doing this would have to come up with their own catch name
[2011-02-06 00:31:01] <effeietsanders> and teaches people about free licenses
[2011-02-06 00:31:06] <Multichil> apergos : Do you guys have an active chaper in Greece?
[2011-02-06 00:31:18] <Ziko> and have contacts with cultural institutions
[2011-02-06 00:31:18] <effeietsanders> sj|: we had many wiki loves'
[2011-02-06 00:31:32] * Multichil spreads the love
[2011-02-06 00:31:33] <effeietsanders> sj|: only in the netherlands we had wiki loves art, wiki loves bieb and wiki loves monuments
[2011-02-06 00:31:42] <sj|> yes ;) I like the idea a lot.
[2011-02-06 00:31:46] <effeietsanders> wikilove is the biggest in the netherlands :P
[2011-02-06 00:31:55] <phoebe> <3
[2011-02-06 00:32:04] <phoebe> I love the concept too, it's really cool
[2011-02-06 00:32:04] <sj|> are you using any special tools to track the love?
[2011-02-06 00:32:08] <effeietsanders> but we surely want to let you share
[2011-02-06 00:32:15] <effeietsanders> we do!
[2011-02-06 00:32:20] <apergos> no chapter
[2011-02-06 00:32:21] <effeietsanders> i think Multichil created them
[2011-02-06 00:32:31] <apergos> we have discussed it
[2011-02-06 00:32:34] * Pharos claims ancestral heritage of Loves and Takes for NYC :P
[2011-02-06 00:32:55] <effeietsanders> anyway, anyone who wants to set up a photo contest... please read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments/post_mortem
[2011-02-06 00:33:00] <effeietsanders> some very useful lessons
[2011-02-06 00:33:07] <effeietsanders> which also work for other topics
[2011-02-06 00:33:24] <Multichil> sj| : We made it really easy for the users to upload images. Automatic tools figured out the categorization.
[2011-02-06 00:33:27] <effeietsanders> always keep in mind this was in the Netherlands, so you might need to tweak it etc
[2011-02-06 00:33:46] <effeietsanders> Pharos: in NL we say "d'r op en d'r over"
[2011-02-06 00:33:59] <effeietsanders> ;-)
[2011-02-06 00:34:10] <effeietsanders> brion: !
[2011-02-06 00:34:17] <phoebe> brion!
[2011-02-06 00:34:22] <phoebe> OK, we are running over time
[2011-02-06 00:34:40] <phoebe> so maybe we can use the last few minutes to talk about "wikimania bids: 2012 and beyond"
[2011-02-06 00:34:41] * brion waves
[2011-02-06 00:34:46] <phoebe> and beyond!
[2011-02-06 00:34:47] <effeietsanders> ok final remark for WLM: find me or Multichil if you have any questions
[2011-02-06 00:34:56] <phoebe> cool :)
[2011-02-06 00:35:03] <phoebe> theo10011 did you want to say something about wikimania?
[2011-02-06 00:35:19] <Theo10011> ya I believe harej and aude are here.
[2011-02-06 00:35:26] <jeremyb> they is
[2011-02-06 00:35:31] <Theo10011> I wanted to talk a bit about their bid.
[2011-02-06 00:35:38] <Theo10011> and talk about 2012 wikimania.
[2011-02-06 00:35:41] <phoebe> I believe people have 2 days to put in a bid, for one thing
[2011-02-06 00:35:45] <phoebe> 2 days left
[2011-02-06 00:35:56] <phoebe> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012
[2011-02-06 00:35:57] <jeremyb> i'm not really involved yet but i'm interested and have signed up
[2011-02-06 00:36:01] <jeremyb> for DC
[2011-02-06 00:36:06] <jsalsman> Phoebe: are you going to do a UC bid? I remember we have a catering quote from UCB.
[2011-02-06 00:36:10] <Theo10011> should someone do a reminder on the mailing lists about the deadline for submissions.
[2011-02-06 00:36:11] <harej> I have a question. What separates the unofficial bids from the official bids?
[2011-02-06 00:36:16] <jsalsman> I don't remember where it is
[2011-02-06 00:36:42] <jsalsman> Official bids meet the detailed bid requirements, and unofficial bids are in progress?
[2011-02-06 00:36:43] <Ziko> i would like if wikimania would become suitable for people who have an allergy against nicotine
[2011-02-06 00:36:46] <phoebe> jsalsman: I'm not bidding personally, no; the local group has talked about it but we haven't quite got momentum
[2011-02-06 00:36:50] <phoebe> ask brion ;)
[2011-02-06 00:36:51] <Theo10011> if it's on a wiki before the deadline its official harej
[2011-02-06 00:37:06] <phoebe> bids that make it to the deadline, yes
[2011-02-06 00:37:12] <phoebe> but you can always bid and then pull out later
[2011-02-06 00:37:19] <jeremyb> and official bids don't explicitly say they're unofficial? :-]
[2011-02-06 00:37:21] <phoebe> *make it by the deadline
[2011-02-06 00:37:21] <jsalsman> well if anyone is thinking about trying a UCB bid today tell me now so I can go look for the catering quote
[2011-02-06 00:37:24] <Theo10011> unofficial are last minute, when the organizers inform others they are in the process of formulating.
[2011-02-06 00:37:29] <harej> Are the 2009 requirements the requirements for 2012?
[2011-02-06 00:37:45] * effeietsanders wants a bid from India!
[2011-02-06 00:37:50] <Jan_eissfeldt> +1
[2011-02-06 00:37:51] <Theo10011> don't give harej ideas about backing out already Phoebe :)
[2011-02-06 00:37:59] <Theo10011> cough cough
[2011-02-06 00:38:06] <Multichil> effeietsanders : Yeah, the Goa bid ;-)
[2011-02-06 00:38:07] <phoebe> harej: I'll ask the wikimania jury to make sure there's no changes
[2011-02-06 00:38:08] <Theo10011> well the chapter can certainly work on that
[2011-02-06 00:38:14] <Theo10011> ya Goa would be nice.
[2011-02-06 00:38:20] <sj|> hiya brion: we invoked you by Day a few times. did it tingle?
[2011-02-06 00:38:22] <phoebe> but I'd use the requirements from last year
[2011-02-06 00:38:25] <Theo10011> can't do it in one of the large cities.
[2011-02-06 00:38:31] <brion> sj|, it's kinda like the bat signal
[2011-02-06 00:38:43] <brion> crossed with a "disturbance in the force"
[2011-02-06 00:38:49] <Theo10011> maybe 2013-2014?
[2011-02-06 00:38:53] <harej> oh hey http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012/Official_requirements_for_bidding_cities
[2011-02-06 00:39:02] <sj|> harej: there you are
[2011-02-06 00:39:06] <jsalsman> I am so upset that Stanford libraries removed campus visitor access to the full texts, even of articles in their offcampus archives! It used to be a fantastic resource but in terms of number of articles visitors can access it's probably 5% of what it was last year
[2011-02-06 00:39:24] <jsalsman> (which as I said is why I'm no longer supporting the Stanford bid)
[2011-02-06 00:39:28] <phoebe> yep: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012/Judging_criteria I think that's c/p from last year
[2011-02-06 00:39:32] <phoebe> so stanford is out
[2011-02-06 00:39:44] <brion> aww :(
[2011-02-06 00:39:44] <sj|> General thought: It would be nice to have a drive to solicit bids shortly after this round of bidding ends, to give people more time to think about it
[2011-02-06 00:39:54] <phoebe> unless someone wants to quickly adopt it!
[2011-02-06 00:39:57] <Theo10011> thought I'd like it to be in Canada once
[2011-02-06 00:40:01] <sj|> and to have some reps from serious potential bids discussing this at wikimania this year
[2011-02-06 00:40:06] <phoebe> sj| agreed but we'd have to change deadlines, yes
[2011-02-06 00:40:07] <phoebe> ?
[2011-02-06 00:40:12] <phoebe> or you mean for 2013
[2011-02-06 00:40:13] * effeietsanders pokes sj| to do another boston bid
[2011-02-06 00:40:13] <Multichil> Do we have any serious (good) bids for 2012?
[2011-02-06 00:40:14] <Theo10011> it seems Canada has a bid every year and never gets picked.
[2011-02-06 00:40:16] <brion> (i'd love to see an SF-area bid, but i'm awful at organizing those sorts of things myself. let me know if there's something techish i can help with though)
[2011-02-06 00:40:20] <harej> Do I necessarily have to have a completely perfect bid by February 6?
[2011-02-06 00:40:27] <phoebe> harej nope
[2011-02-06 00:40:28] <Theo10011> there was one from Montreal for 2012
[2011-02-06 00:40:32] <phoebe> not until... april, I think
[2011-02-06 00:40:37] <sj|> perhaps not, the final deadline for 2013 could be after wikimania, as long as there are people getting organized before it
[2011-02-06 00:40:44] <jsalsman> it is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012/Bids/Stanford if someone wants to adopt it
[2011-02-06 00:40:45] <harej> I would like to think that the Washington DC bid is a serious bid.
[2011-02-06 00:40:47] <phoebe> Feb. 6 is the deadline for saying "I'm doing it!" you dont' need any more info than that
[2011-02-06 00:41:06] <phoebe> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012/Bids/Timeline
[2011-02-06 00:41:07] <sj|> I'm not suggesting changing current timelines at all, just encouraging people to start 2013 bids before this summer.
[2011-02-06 00:41:13] <phoebe> right.
[2011-02-06 00:41:20] <effeietsanders> sj|: I'd advise against it actually :P
[2011-02-06 00:41:26] <effeietsanders> burn out danger
[2011-02-06 00:41:33] <phoebe> what about building on wiki 10?
[2011-02-06 00:41:45] <phoebe> if you have a bunch of small successful events it's easier to think about the conf
[2011-02-06 00:41:47] <sj|> effe: conferences with a slightly longer planning cycle than we have develop a nice culture
[2011-02-06 00:41:58] <sj|> where there's a small group disussion around individual bids at the annual event 2 years prior
[2011-02-06 00:42:22] <effeietsanders> the problem is that the actual planning only needs to start in november or so
[2011-02-06 00:42:22] <phoebe> sj is right that we are unusual for making the cycle so short. Most of the lib confs I work with are on a 2-3 year planning cycle
[2011-02-06 00:42:28] <sj|> which helps promote volunteers from many different places getting together behind a particular regional bid. right now, most of our bid teams are very local, even after they win
[2011-02-06 00:42:32] <effeietsanders> so why bid more than a year before that
[2011-02-06 00:42:48] <Theo10011> I think the chapters need to step up here
[2011-02-06 00:42:52] <phoebe> sj| for that to work you need to know you're hosting well in advance though
[2011-02-06 00:42:56] <effeietsanders> for most people that is too far ahead to grasp
[2011-02-06 00:42:58] <phoebe> otherwise effe is right
[2011-02-06 00:42:59] <Theo10011> the recent fundraisers have been very successful
[2011-02-06 00:43:02] <Multichil> phoebe : Librarians do the job for 40 years, Wikipedians maybe stay around for a couple of years
[2011-02-06 00:43:08] <effeietsanders> not everybody is as well organized as you are, sj|
[2011-02-06 00:43:10] <Theo10011> how about trading between chapters
[2011-02-06 00:43:19] <Pharos> especially volunteers have short attenmtion spans
[2011-02-06 00:43:27] <effeietsanders> (or as persistant and constant)
[2011-02-06 00:43:48] <phoebe> I find it funny that we are having this conversation when everyone talking has been around 5+ years :)
[2011-02-06 00:44:05] <jsalsman> lol
[2011-02-06 00:44:11] <effeietsanders> phoebe: but those people are not bidding themselves
[2011-02-06 00:44:20] <Multichil> The thing I don't like about Wikimania organization is that every year it's an all new team doing it.
[2011-02-06 00:44:29] <apergos> hmm have I? (5+)
[2011-02-06 00:44:33] <apergos> nope!
[2011-02-06 00:44:45] <Theo10011> that's where a proposed committee comes in Multichil
[2011-02-06 00:44:48] <effeietsanders> Multichil: we could have the gdansk team do this year too, if you prefer
[2011-02-06 00:44:52] <jeremyb> debconf is definitely not all new every year
[2011-02-06 00:45:09] <Multichil> effeietsanders : Finne and Austin? Sure!
[2011-02-06 00:45:29] <jeremyb> and there's usually some bid discussion with a meeting (but not a decision) at the conf N-2
[2011-02-06 00:45:29] <Pharos> I do feel strongly we should keep with an annual Wikimania, tho
[2011-02-06 00:45:31] * aude would like if the program committee, scholarship committee, etc. were not all new people
[2011-02-06 00:45:38] <effeietsanders> Pharos: at least!
[2011-02-06 00:45:39] <Multichil> Yup, a way to have more experience in the team
[2011-02-06 00:45:40] <apergos> I've definitely been in the "reluctant to commit now cause I might not be able to do the work later" camp
[2011-02-06 00:45:44] <Multichil> Pharos +1
[2011-02-06 00:45:46] <Pharos> yes, at least :P
[2011-02-06 00:45:55] <effeietsanders> aude: they usually aren't right?
[2011-02-06 00:46:05] <Shirley> Who's Lodewijk?
[2011-02-06 00:46:06] <phoebe> theo: are you going to send a msg to the list about your committee ideas?
[2011-02-06 00:46:16] <Theo10011> yes Phoebe
[2011-02-06 00:46:21] <phoebe> cool :)
[2011-02-06 00:46:22] <Theo10011> working on that.
[2011-02-06 00:46:25] <aude> effeietsanders: i'm not sure they are, except that I'm doing program committee again this year, did in 2009, etc.
[2011-02-06 00:46:32] <jeremyb> Shirley: effeietsanders ?
[2011-02-06 00:46:47] <Shirley> effeietsanders: Did you start a new ID thread on foundation-l when there is already one?
[2011-02-06 00:46:48] <jeremyb> apergos: well you also don't know what country you'll be in right?
[2011-02-06 00:46:48] <effeietsanders> jeremyb: dont blow my cover!
[2011-02-06 00:46:51] <Shirley> Rather silly.
[2011-02-06 00:47:00] <phoebe> OK, well
[2011-02-06 00:47:01] <effeietsanders> Shirley: people tend to say that about me
[2011-02-06 00:47:06] <Pharos> well, who is Shirley? and what is she doing here?
[2011-02-06 00:47:06] <phoebe> we could talk for all day about wikimania
[2011-02-06 00:47:08] <phoebe> some of us might
[2011-02-06 00:47:19] <phoebe> but .... should we call an end to the "official" meeting?
[2011-02-06 00:47:19] <Shirley> effeietsanders: Fair enough. :D
[2011-02-06 00:47:22] <jeremyb> phoebe: he*
[2011-02-06 00:47:25] <phoebe> only 15 minutes over, not bad!
[2011-02-06 00:47:26] <Multichil> Pharos : That's a guy pretending to be a girl to bridge the gender gap.
[2011-02-06 00:47:31] <phoebe> lol
[2011-02-06 00:47:34] <effeietsanders> Shirley: but i thought the odds to get it answered would be larger :)
[2011-02-06 00:47:35] <sj|> Theo10011: +1, a committee seems like the right way to go.
[2011-02-06 00:47:43] <Shirley> More committees.
[2011-02-06 00:47:46] <Pharos> Multichil, I know :P
[2011-02-06 00:47:50] <sj|> effe: that's like... like... posting after an arbitrary section break you created yourself.
[2011-02-06 00:47:51] <phoebe> yes, a committee would be super
[2011-02-06 00:47:55] <Shirley> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MZMcBride/Problems
[2011-02-06 00:48:03] <jeremyb> phoebe: are you saying gavel?
[2011-02-06 00:48:04] <phoebe> OK.... thank you everyone for coming
[2011-02-06 00:48:07] <Theo10011> yup sj, we were discussing it on the Wikimania list a few weeks ago.
[2011-02-06 00:48:08] <phoebe> I am
[2011-02-06 00:48:12] <jeremyb> ok
[2011-02-06 00:48:13] <phoebe> I think this might be degenerating
[2011-02-06 00:48:13] <effeietsanders> phoebe: the wikimania cabal committee
[2011-02-06 00:48:14] <aude> thanks phoebe !
[2011-02-06 00:48:17] <Theo10011> I'm gonna take a lead in getting something together.
[2011-02-06 00:48:17] <sj|> thanks for a good meeting.
[2011-02-06 00:48:19] <phoebe> but, it was a good meeting!@
[2011-02-06 00:48:23] <phoebe> see you next month!
[2011-02-06 00:48:28] <phoebe> (probably before actually :) )
[2011-02-06 00:48:30] <sj|> further notes/comments/ideas to the m:Wikimedia Meetings talk page?
[2011-02-06 00:48:31] <effeietsanders> phoebe: dont wait that long...
[2011-02-06 00:48:34] <phoebe> indeed
[2011-02-06 00:48:42] <phoebe> and I will condense notes and post them
[2011-02-06 00:48:44] <effeietsanders> sj|: further ideas to the specific topic pages
[2011-02-06 00:48:53] <phoebe> lmk if you want to help
[2011-02-06 00:48:54] <sj|> and thanks Peter for moderating
[2011-02-06 00:48:58] <Theo10011> hooray.
[2011-02-06 00:49:01] <Theo10011> thanks Peter
[2011-02-06 00:49:05] <Theo10011> and Phoebe
[2011-02-06 00:49:06] <phoebe> yes thank you peter, that was heroic
[2011-02-06 00:49:11] <Pharos> anyone want to talk a bit more about conferences/events?
[2011-02-06 00:49:15] <ChristineM> thanks Peter and phoebe!
[2011-02-06 00:49:17] <phoebe> btw that was our new GC who just left, mythcass
[2011-02-06 00:49:23] <effeietsanders> OMG
[2011-02-06 00:49:27] <phoebe> yes, totally, let's talk about events
[2011-02-06 00:49:27] <effeietsanders> he has a NICKNAME
[2011-02-06 00:49:37] <PeterSymonds> Thank you all.