Talk:Wikimedia Conference 2015

Name

I find it hard to take this conference seriously with the current misleading name. If you have to represent a WM affiliate to attend, please don't name it as the Wikimedia Conference. (The default meaning is that it's the one.) Tony (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to revert Ad, but I don't think a decision was taken - Asaf only made a suggestion! --Elitre (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agenda

Has agenda setting for this been done? Thanks. --Visdaviva (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The programme team has only just been assembled, and is beginning its work. Expect a solid draft agenda by February at the latest, though the aim is to release interim documents earlier. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC) (for the programme team)

Spring?! When is that?!

Please remember this is an international event. Kerry Raymond (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, spring is September–November. So what exactly does that mean? Tony (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it means that spring is on different times in different countries. --Stryn (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So why use it as a universal measure? Tony (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the meeting will be held in May, so I have updated accordingly. (I suppose "spring" is defined relative to the mothership ;) harej (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: put an end to the exhausting discussions around the logistics

Fantastic! Thanks Nicole and everyone. And thanks WMCH for having at least tried, despite the hardships. --Nemo 18:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 to Nemo's comment. I am particularly impressed that Wikimedia conference is considering having a friendly space policy very seriously. --Netha Hussain (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Remote participation

Dear organizing team, I am interested in participating remotely. Remote participation would save a lot of money and time. I would appreciate it if I could discuss this possibility with you and Alex Wang sometime. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pine. As Nicole replied in her email, the question of remote participation should be directed at the programme team. I don't have sense of what the sessions will be like this year and if they are conducive to remote participants. Pinging the Program Chair, James.

Meetups

Hello,

WikiFranca is currently starting to get organised for a francophone meetup during WMCON 2015. I'm I allowed to create a new page ../meetups, and then ../Francophones ? Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead!! You could also use the social events page for that. :) --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nicole. It's done ../Social events/Francophones meetup. Can't wait to be in my beloved Berlin! Regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Gutten Morgen Nicole and Daniela. WMFR, WMCH and WMCA are currently planning the francophone meeting and I was wondering if you have a spot in a WMCON or WMDE room? And is there free time during the daytime schedule to do such meeting? Thank you in advance. Benoit Rochon (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding free time in the schedule: this depends on the schedule the programme team is working on at the moment. In the previous years, there have been no long idel times, but you might want to do it in one of the breaks or in the early evening. Daniela Gentner (WMDE) (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Group 1 no funding

At Wikimedia Conference 2015/Overview Eligibility Statuses the guidelines say "Note that all organizations receiving APG funding will be in Group 1 (meaning travel is not funded), as those organizations have the option to move funding from other areas of their budget to attend the conference, even if they have not set aside funds specifically for the conference."

What does this mean? Does it mean that organizations which use the Grants:APG funding system ought to always request travel to conferences in their APG request? Does it mean that organizations should make a fair APG request, but then disrupt and change the budget to kill programs if they decide they want to send someone to a conference? Is there another interpretation beyond these two outcomes? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nicole Ebber (WMDE) Can you signal anyone who might be able to answer this? If it is a concern, I am asking for clarity and not to argue policy. I have been trying to explain some chapters processes to others and found that I do not understand how attendance at the Wikimedia Conference is supposed to work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Sorry for the late response. Pinging AWang (WMF), would be best if WMF replies to this specific question. Thanks! --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Bluerasberry . Thanks for the ping, Nicole Ebber (WMDE). You've uncovered my favorite topic, which is bringing to light some nuances of the FDC process and explaining the principles behind our work.

What this statement means is that organizations receiving APGs are receiving general funds, and are free to allocate these funds as they need to (within the guidelines of the grant agreement, of course). This means that they have the option to make APG funds available to attend the conference if this is an organizational priority for them, whether or not they have budgeted for it in advance. This includes, but is not limited to, diverting funds budgeted for programs. It could also mean diverting funds from other travel, or from operational costs, or from programs that have already been cancelled or postponed, or from an organization's reserves, or from unallocated expenses... so you can see there are far more than two possible outcomes here :) Conversely, if they budget to attend the conference but choose not to, they can repurpose those funds to any area of their budget, including but not limited to programs. Regarding practices around applying for general funding, we encourage everyone to budget as accurately as they can, but we understand that changes sometimes occur and organizations need flexible funding to accommodate changes and shift resources strategically.

The principle behind this policy of asking that APG organizations fund their own travel to WMCon is that organizations receiving APGs have the amount of flexibility they need (as described above), but need to plan to do all their annual activities with a set amount of funding from WMF. This total amount is the amount that the FDC has recommended for all of this organization's activities for the year. We don't want to materially alter the integrity of the principles behind the FDC's recommendations by providing additional grants, unless that's required for a clear reason already accepted by the FDC or mandated by legal or regulatory principles (e.g. supporting organizations that are hosting movement-wide events, funds needed for lobbying). We've done a lot of work to make the APG process as fair and structured as we can, and to support the recommendations of the FDC once they are approved by the WMF Board.

We think this system of granting general funding is quite fair, since the impact of each organization's grant is assessed by the organization, by us, and by the FDC according to what the organization has actually spent and accomplished. If an organization were to devote all program funds to attending conferences, they might be legally free to do so, but it would have implications for how impactful the FDC viewed their work to be on an ongoing basis and how the FDC would assess future funding requests, unless they could show very clearly that this change led to significant impact for the movement ;)

I don't think we've yet heard a lot of concerns from APG organizations about the current policy for APG organizations to fund their WMCon travel, but we're of course open to hearing more if folks have strong feelings about it. This type of eligibility process for attending WMCon is new and we are confident that it can be improved with the input of attendees, conference organizers, and others who are interested. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 19:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bluerasberry for bringing this topic. WMIN did find itself in the situation where we did not set aside funds specifically for the Conference. In our case, we are able to somehow move funds from different projects (without majorly affecting them) for attending WMCON15.

I would point out here that currently WMIN is able to manage, but in future another organization might not be able to do that.I would suggest to Wolliff that WMF should look into the Total Grant amount as a factor and then decide that whether that APG organization should be in Group 1 or 2.Maybe in some cases, if and when the APG organization feel that their grant is tied to very important projects and would still want to attend the WMCON, considering they have a strong case, should be able to approach WMF for travel assistance. Thanks - Yohannvt (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs perpetual disambiguation

This event (and its future editions) needs to be disambiguated from similar events, like WikiConference 2015 (concluded in September 2015 in Katy, Texas), WikiConference USA (ongoing right now in Washington, D.C.), etc. It will be very helpful if these events "See also" each other consistently, so people can find info on the actual conference(s) they plan (or may want to plan) to attend. It's very easy to end up on the wrong page, as I just did, twice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pics

Hey, I managed to upload some pics, sorry for the delay. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elitre (WMF): Thank you, Erica. I've uploaded the conference relevant photos to Commons and categorised them accordingly. Best, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)