Talk:Pre-conference:Volunteer Support

From Wikimania 2014 • London, United Kingdom
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Event attendees

  1. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Sebastian Sooth (WMDE) (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. user:Pierre Antoine WMFr
  6. Andycyca (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Sorry for taking this long, it's been a really busy week :D
  7. Dirk Franke (WMDE) (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. Denis Barthel (WMDE)
  9. User:Ailura
  10. User:Ilario
  11. User:Thehelpfulone
  12. User:HJ Mitchell
  13. User:Polimerek
  14. User:Raimund Liebert (WMAT)
  15. User:Muriel Staub (WMCH)
  16. User:AWang (WMF)
  17. User:Yiyi
  18. John Andersson (WMSE)
  19. User:Raboe001

Nice to join you :)

Notes from the Open Discussion at the end of the pre-conference

Question: Could/should we coordinate Volunteers support among each other and establish volunteer support as a sub-movement?

Discussion

  • Good idea to share experiences with established groups. More cooperation cannot hurt. Everybody has the responsibility to contribute something.
  • Aren’t we too different in order to learn from each other? Yes, but some ideals are the same even if everyone is doing it in its own way. I am doing it in my way, but maybe there are other ways, even better ways.
  • We can not share enough -> We have to talk to each other and share learnings and experiences. Mechanism for better sharing of experiences, f.ex. being able to talk to each other. It’s important to remember that we all want to go to the same place.
  • The idea of having volunteers support is not really established and does not exist as an idea in the Wikimedia Movement, compared f.ex. to GLAM. Is this due to the many different definitions of „volunteers“? Context is important -> but still, we support volunteers, in our very own way. So we are a sub-movement with different sub-sub-movements ;-)
  • Suggestion: Start with the difficult things. How do we go beyond the difficult things. How do we deal with difficult situations -> this is something that is usually skipped in conversations. Share experiences also on this. Learn from people with similar roles on how to deal with this stuff. Our skills are no secret. So far there are just assumptions, like: if you approach people and you respect them, then you’ll be respected … but then again, not really.
  • Challenges: Find the right level of detail when answering to volunteers. There’s always a need to adapt your answers and reactions to your target audience.
  • Difficult part -> Real persons, real situations. Often it’s not easy to make it abstract enough to discuss in a mailing list or conference?
  • Behaviors are public. And if someone is being mean to us it should being made even more public maybe? The only thing wrong is users being mean. 
If we get hate, it’s not something that we deserve. And usually it’s just unfair being mean to people. Everybody has the right of being treated well. Similar to the friendly space during offline meetings.
  • Good practice: Record keeping -> A person always complaining -> it’s not something personal but it’s just something that she does -> The record keeping is also useful for us
  • BUT: How and where can we share this experiences?
  • Mailinglists are producing a lot of „information“ -> can people keep up with it? What might be a solution for us? Mailinglists can be good for announcements and asking questions. But for recording and archiving it, we need to find another place.
  • Difference between „non-volunteers“ doing something for volunteers and „volunteers doing something for volunteers“
  • We could call the Volunteers Support „Inreach"? ;-) (compared to Outreach)
  • Topics: Processes are a subject that we would need to talk about among Wikimedia Chapters and the Foundation. Processes of „Grantmaking“ would be a topic for example.
  • What do we think about video-conferences? Round tables and video-conferences are appreciated.
  • For our own sanity it’s important to talk to other people being active in community support.
  • -> Make sure to bring other community liaisons/responsibles from different communities in for upcoming meet ups and sharing experiences.

Conclusion

Mailing-list

  • For announcement and asking questions? Yes. But who would moderate it? How do we decide whom to include in the list? Validating the members. 
Important: Be clear about the requirements -> What is someone doing and where? For board and staff it will be easy to prove what you do. Other possibility: People already on the list will nominate other people that could be added. 

  • Mailinglist: 
Beginning with a closed version and invite people on recommendation (what is someone doing and where?). Harry, Muriel & Andy will moderate it. 
Discussion: Closed vs. open mailing list. Danger of getting too isolated and loosing the openness of such a process. Agreed on having the closed Mailing-list as a start. 
Muriel will sent a request to set up a mailing list and will add people that are listed on the top of this discussion page.

Meet-ups in person

  • These are appreciated in order to personally discuss certain topics. And to involve volunteers! 

  • We agreed on conference hopping: Wikimedia Chapters Conference may be a next opportunity to meet Target: establish a regular exchange

META


Where do we „archive“ best practices? failures? 
Share Learning Patterns or results (f.ex. coming from the mailing list) we could go to META. We agreed on discussing this on our Mailinglist ;-)


==Notes from the morning session discussions==

Polimereks/Muriels Talk

  • Q: What kind of people are applying for grants? -
  • A: this year there were many applications from newbies; no proof that these people will deliver
  • Q: Grants in creating articles – what are you reimbursing for?
  • A: For research and for buying books.
  • Q: Do granst get rejected
  • A: Yes, for example buying special lenses for cameras, that are of no use after the projects. Also rejected agrants for Wikinews – not a very succesful project
  • Q: Do all the fotos created by the project have one category „Created by Wikimedia Polska“
  • A: There is a template „donated by wikimedia polska“
  • A: WMCH also has a template.
  • Q: How many chapters have microgrant programs? -
  • A: Five oder six: UK, CH, DE, PL, CS? UKR?
  • Q: Is there a public list of equipment? -
  • A: Yes. Polimerek: we got a formal obligation from the voivodship office to have an equipment list and list of who has what.
  • AWang: WMF has fours grants programs, one for individuals (reimbursement for their time), funding people to go non-wikimedia conferences, everything (projects and events program). All have different commitees. The GAC (Alex' budget) is 1 million dollars (last year 47 grants, this year really analyzing impact, we do ask for a lot more in our proposals.)
  • Q: What are those proposed metrics?
  • A: Trying to simply process but focusing on impact) its great to have smaller more simple and streamlined grants.
  • Q: How much is the average grant at the GAC?
  • A: 500 to 50000 dollars. Thinking about putting caps, but no steps forward. Promoting global south and diversity, (looking at cultural context). We do accept proposals in another language, but haven't gotten any. Really want to be able to be open.

Raimunds Talk

  • Q: is it difficult explaining Wikimedia?
  • A: First sentence is „I'm from Wikimedia, supporting Wikipedia.“

Wikimedia/Wikipedia is a common misunderstanding but doesn't really matter for accreditations.

In Poland sometimes there problems with artists who want to see the pictures before they are published. Agents can be really strict.

In Austria in 9 out of 10 cases we get the accreditation. The less famous, the easer it is to get accreditation

Insurance is a big problem in Poland where insurance is 1/3 of the total worth in a year.

In Germany we rent equipment by other companies who normally lent equipment to professional photographers.