Talk:Wikimania Committee/Charter/Archived Jan 2024

As long as the WMF has an events coordinator on staff, this committee would advise the coordinator on issues realted to Wikimania. The evaluation subcommittee in particular would not be instead of but would advise and support the coordinator's work. –SJ talk  02:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

yes... do we need to change the wording? -- phoebe | talk 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a slight change clarifying this. The current wording is now in line with the above. –SJ talk  22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Terms are too short

It seems to me that if this is to be effective and offer institutional memory and support the terms of two years are too short. This needs to be a group that accumulates experience. Marathon rather than sprint, or at least 10,000 metres. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

what would you suggest? -- phoebe | talk 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest "rotating" terms. ie. of each "set" of members: "six reserved for recent Wikimania conference organisers; six drawn from the community at large with experience and/or passion for Wikimania;" you could choose 3 each year. This would

• allow to have new "recent" organisers every year
• ensure that not all go at any given time.

In the first year you'd have 6 members whose term is only one year, 6 whose term is two years, and you rotate as of the second year, and renew 6 each year. I wouldn't extend the term over two years though, because you'd ask for a committment that many people in Wikimedia would probably not want to make, and thus lose some valuable input. notafish }<';> 23:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is what I was thinking about as well. The first year is tricky but after that it's good. Agree that two years is long enough! -- phoebe | talk 15:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a line specifying staggered terms. -- phoebe | talk 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What does "recent" really mean?

"Recent Wikimania organisers" is very vague. What is a recent Wikimania? Last year I suppose, but then? The year before that, the year again before that? Also as pointed out above, a two year term prevents Wikimania organisers from the year just finished to be on this committee every other year. Solution as explained above would be to have a "leap" renewing of the members, ie. renew half of the committee every year, rather than the committee altogether. notafish }<';> 23:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a practical implementation. I actually assumed myself there would be staggered terms anyway; 3+3 each year. Effeietsanders (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

+1 –SJ talk  22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Simplifying procedures

Based on some comments offered offline: Taking out the details from the "Procedures" section - all of this will be defined once the committee is up and running. Removed text:

Work undertaken by the committee will include:

Setting Wikimania "policies"

• Setting the judging criteria
• Serving as the jury or replacement system that reviews bids each year
• Oversight of the judging criteria
• Working out how to have regional and global conferences alongside each other

Co-ordination of the Wikimania bidding

• Improving and revising the selection process
• Maintaining a bidding time-line
• Helping runner-up bids find other outlets for the energy and support they've built around their bid

Preserving and sharing lessons learned

• Collecting and writing better documentation about the conference
• Co-ordinating advice to host city organisers
• Providing expert advice to interested parties

Simplifying the subcommittee

Incorporating a comment from Ellie: this can start with a single liaison for each Wikimania bid team; and the work of this liaison (and whether it needs more than one person to offer that help) should be coordinated with any staff support. Again, details should be worked out in the first year. –SJ talk  20:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed text:

Conference oversight

• Maintaining a basic event timeline, and ensuring that minimal deadlines and milestones are met
• Troubleshooting problems that arise for the host team

  Including oversight and burst capacity in the event of unforeseen difficulties by the host team

• Helping co-ordinate among permanent staff or committees whose work touches on Wikimania, and the rotating local organisation team
• Serving as the evaluation team that supports evaluation of the on-going planning for that conference

Simplifying membership

Final comment integration:

Moving from 13 to 8 members, for simplicity in the first year. I switched the first year to one-year terms, while getting things set up - with a great deal of flexibility. The chair can appoint or replace members during this year, and is expected to revise this charter. with details. –SJ talk  20:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Text removed:

Members shall be appointed by the Committee for two-year terms. Terms will be staggered, with half of the members appointed every year. In the next year, four members will be appointed for one year and four will be appointed for two years, to allow for this. Members will be eligible for re-appointment for a maximum of three terms.

Conflicts of interest

"If a member of the committee at any time whilst serving has a personal or family conflict of interest with regard to the work of the committee, they will be expected to resign."

This is a bit harsh. I suggest "...they will be expected to inform the committee of the conflict, and to abstain from any issues affected thereby." -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Status

This page has been in draft status with no significant changes since 2013. Perhaps it is now time to put it to the Community for formal adoption? If there is no support for the proposition that it be adopted, then it needs to be marked as {{outdated}} or possibly {{historical}}. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the document can be useful to clarify the role of the committee. We have discussed some issues related to members and nominations and i have integrated them in this document. I think we can use this document with the necessary updates to share how the committee works. In a new meeting of the committee we can vote the charter and confirm it. --iopensa (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)