Talk:Wikimedia Summit 2019

Format and name

I'm happy that the event is going back more closer to the original format, rather than the overcrowded fair it had become lately. Florence explains why. It's just a pity that it took such a disruptive name change, where "summit" is such a charged word that nobody knows what it might mean. To avoid upsetting volunteers who might wonder in what sense this might be a summit, or a summit for Wikimedia as a whole, it might be better to also go back to the original name and call it a chapters meeting (where "chapters" is a reasonable approximation of "Wikimedia affiliates entities").

A straightforward name wouldn't negate the possibility or usefulness of other people coming, but it would make clear that the participants are not expected to include hundreds of representative of every possible project out there, and that the event doesn't claim to be representative of the overall Wikimedia movements, but "only" to be a functional meeting between a group which shares some characteristics and issues. --Nemo 14:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with "summit", because it's pretty unused within the movement and has no strong connotations. Furthermore, as the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia committees participate, I would not like to call "Wikimedia Affiliates something". I understood that Wikimedia Conference was quite ambiguous as there were many Wikimedia Conferences that had a similar name – Summit, on the contrary, does not have any name competitor. Cheers, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It does have competition, first search result for "Wikimedia Summit" brings Wikimedia Developer Summit. It has a different name this year, but I am do not know if that is permanent. --Nikerabbit (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I'm aware of this – but I think the difference is clear enough. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Number of participants

I would highly encourage to place a hard cap to the number of participants, lower than the Dunbar number. Nobody should be forced to join just because of their role or title, either. --Nemo 14:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Bit difficult when there are so many user groups eligible... Braveheart (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would have loved to limit the number of participants to 150. However, that is pretty impossible if every affiliate has equally the right to participate (which is I think undoubtful). As you know, there are 37 chapters, 1 thematic organizations, 96 user groups and 2 movement partners/allied organizations = 136 affiliates. How do you want to limit the number of participants to 150 knowing that the Wikimedia Foundation and the certain committees need to be present as well? 200 is, I think, in the end a good compromise. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Navigation table design is not responsive

It only fits on the page if I have it on full screen. It can't be good on mobile devices. --Nikerabbit (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nikerabbit: Good to know, how would you change it? --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It could be just regular sections with headings, or you could play around with flexbox styles. --Nikerabbit (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally invited communities

Hi, Last year some oppurtunity was given in the name of "Additionally invited communities". But this year I couldnt see any section. For example Tamil language doesnt have a user group on its own. But has a good wiki presence through different projects. Is there a way for participation of such larger communities this year too? -- Balajijagadesh (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Balajijagadesh:,

indeed, the Wikimedia Conference 2018 had this. However, as we are changing the whole concept of the event and limiting the number of participants to 200 max., we cannot invited unaffiliated group ( = group that do not have an affiliate status [yet]). Both, the Wikimedia Conference and the Wikimedia Summit are affiliate conferences, means we want to keep focussing on Wikimedia affiliates. Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for volunteer facilitator to assist with Affiliate-selected Board seats election

Hello. I am writing to ask for someone attending the Wikimedia Summit to volunteer as a facilitator in the Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019 process.

The specific role that I want is for someone to make an announcement or preferably host a discussion about what the election means and how organizations can participate.

In previous years the Wikimedia conference did not formally participate in this election. This year, because of board rules which suggest that Wikimedia user groups might vote, the election delayed a bit and it is likely that the candidate nomination period will occur during the Wikimedia Summit.

Because the Wikimedia Summit convenes representatives of the organizations which can vote, and because this election is for those voting organizations, I think that the Summit should include some programming to advertise the election.

Anyone who wants to participate in managing the election can post to Talk:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019, but again specifically, is there someone here who can make a commitment to speak in some public forum at the Summit to tell everyone to get their chapter or user group to participate in the election? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bluerasberry,

Thanks for your message. As you can see in the program, we have reserved two hours especially for the topic of Affiliate-selected Board seats election (process). Beyond reserving the space we're also happy to support the design/facilitation of this session, but we would like to leave this up to the collective of affiliates. We need someone – ideally from the range of participants of the Wikimedia Summit – to come up with an idea. Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved.

summit time availability resolved

This is great, this is a great opportunity to communicate the election. While it would be difficult to identify who should speak before the conference since nearly half the attendees are first-timers, I think that when the scheduled time comes people will organize in the wiki way and accomplish what is necessary. Thank you so much. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Is it resolved? Given the raised complications and uncertainties about the process I see a strong need for a facilitator or at least a clear preparation (and an idea of the outcome) of this session. This (supporting with design/facilitation) is an offer you shouldn't decline ;-) Alice Wiegand (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lyzzy: Can you advise how to better take advantage of this opportunity? I am not aware of an easy way to seek consensus of the "collective of affiliates" in advance of the Wikimedia Summit. If there is some strong voice to do planning in advance then I would want to encourage that person. I might be able to refer someone with some affiliate support to moderate, if that is what is needed to access the support. What should I offer or arrange? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@NickK:, at Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019#Announcement_in_English_Wikipedia's_The_Signpost you expressed the idea that the meetup in Berlin could have the goal of seeking consensus on the election procedure. Lyzzy and Cornelius here are ready to support the person or organization which makes a proposal for what to do with the allotted time. Are you able to share your suggestion with them? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Just for clarification: I'm not involved in the summit organization in any way. As a former chapter's selected board member I still care about how chapters and usergroups face the challenge and since I wasn't in favour of this change I at least want to see it processed well. And commenting here seems to be an option to support your efforts and the process overall. Alice Wiegand (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: My suggestion is based on the fact that we will have more than half of affiliate representatives in Berlin. This means we can make binding decisions there, notably on:

• Facilitators (if we don't elect them otherwise)
• Procedure (probably most relevant as we will probably be in the process), notably who can vote (how we intepret "good standing" in the bylaws), how we will vote/nominate (do we keep the STV system, what kind of endorsements candidates need), whether we treat chapters and usergroups equally or create two electoral colleges as AffCom suggested, and how we prevent double voting (same person controls vote from more than one group) or voting without any member consultation (e.g. a user group contact person decides themselves how to cast vote).
• If we already have, debate with candidates. W

Regarding decision-making, we can do one of two things:

• Either require these representatives to have a delegation from their affiliate to vote in their name (not all of them have it by default)
• Or require them to organise a consultation with their board or membership upon their return home in reasonable time (e.g. 10 days) and cast a formal vote

I don't know what our timing will be and what we will need to have formally approved by affiliates, but this seems to be such an opportunity — NickK (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, no I don't have an advise how to get to all optional voters before the mailing list is created. You may consider to start designing and planning the session with some support Cornelius is offering and ask if there are any objections when the mailing list is eventually established. This is a crucial change in the way the affiliate's selected board members are found and there still are and will be several uncertainties, questions and anxieties. The summit provides an opportunity to come together with the majority of affiliates and set up essentials and next steps together and with a shared understanding. My experience is that planned and facilitated sessions are more likely to achieve clarity and a path to succeed. This needs preparation time (which you don't have if you wait until you all meet at the summit). Setting up the frame first and then polish the session design together with those who are interested is a chance from my view. Alice Wiegand (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I would probably think that at least one (better: all three) facilitators of ASBS should be present at the Summit. This means that either a constraint on the choice of facilitators, or Summit organisers should plan at least one (better: three) extra scholarship(s) available on rather short notice. I don't think it is realistic to expect facilitation from someone not involved in the process — NickK (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I‘m talking only about the Session and how to design and facilitate that. My comments are not about the process itself. Alice Wiegand (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC) I am willing to volunteer.

What was going on???

Hi I am concerned what the Summit have for 3 days in Berlin done. I see there have been congregated the Wiki jack’s in office. But there, on this side, are nothing about the works have been done in Berlin. It is very typical that Hungary have been represented with two people having partly very small connection with the Hungarian Wikipedia/Wikimedia. One from them lives in San Francisco, employed by WMF, having about 60 edit for last 3 months. The others Hungarian representative, lives in Brussels and has only 3 edits for last 5 months. This is seriously the Wikipedia strategy???

130.43.208.220 08:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the question is how the Hungarian chapter selected its candidate (there was only one representative, as for most affiliates; the other Hungarian was a working group member). But remember — edit count is not a measure of your contribution. If you are interested in what happened in Berlin — it was mostly working groups (volunteers who have signed up for more work) getting feedback from people who were representing their affiliates. --Papuass (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)