Difference between revisions of "Billabong"
(→A few suggestions: cmt)
|Line 176:||Line 176:|
What do people think? [[User:Kerry Raymond|Kerry Raymond]] 19:35, 10 December 2012 (EST)
What do people think? [[User:Kerry Raymond|Kerry Raymond]] 19:35, 10 December 2012 (EST)
Revision as of 09:07, 11 December 2012
Welcome to the Billabong. This is a discussion page for this wiki.
Other places where you can communicate with members:
- 1 Meeting/resolution updates?
- 2 HideTopContrib copied from en
- 3 Non-member participation
- 4 age considersations
- 5 Institutional membership
- 6 Testing edit access
- 7 Rules on sidebar
- 8 nov irc meeting?
- 9 Two new draft proposals
- 10 New pages
- 11 December 2 IRC transcript
- 12 New Approved proposals category
- 13 Timeline for 2013
- 14 double log in required
- 15 Process suggestions
- 16 Decoupling funding proposals from specific people
- We have caught up on publishing all the meetings minutes and have put in place a procedure to always have the minutes published before the public meeting (i.e. within two weeks). There are a lot of resolutions pages which haven't been created, but they should all be found in the minutes. John Vandenberg 19:22, 5 September 2011 (EST)
HideTopContrib copied from en
I have included User:Markhurd/hidetopcontrib.js, copied from en Wikipedia, that allows you to hide contributions where the editor (normally yourself) is the top contributor; i.e. it leaves all edits where there has been a subsequent editor.
If you also specify
before the above script, it will remove all subsequent edits as well, similar to WatchLists. markhurd 16:47, 28 August 2011 (EST)
- I should mention it is not quite as useful as it is on en without Navigation Popups, allowing you to just hover over the hist links to see what the subsequent changes are. And Popups can be introduced remotely (as probably could have my HideTopContribs):
- markhurd 16:59, 28 August 2011 (EST)
The committee is looking for people to take on a community role of "account approvers" on this wiki. Members and non-members can apply. See Non-member participation for more info. Expression of interests should be sent to committeewikimedia.org.au. The committee will make a decision at the 18 September committee meeting. John Vandenberg 19:26, 5 September 2011 (EST)
- The committee minutes have been published at Meeting:Committee_(2011-09-15)#Non-member_participation, and the "account approvers" have been given the necessary permissions. Thank you, John Vandenberg 15:35, 26 September 2011 (EST)
Are there any age issues with participation on this wiki. For example, the US law w:COPPA has a few regulations which apply to anyone who is under 13. Does it apply to US citizens using a AUS website? Are there AUS laws about this? We can put any requirements on MediaWiki:Requestaccount-text. --John Vandenberg 19:32, 5 September 2011 (EST)
- I did some research years ago for something completely unrelated, and my findings we probably only need to get COPPA details for under-13s in the USA. It doesn't apply to Australian under-13s provided that the website is hosted in and administratively run in Australia (which is true for this wiki). That was a long time ago though and is not a substitute for proper legal advice! Lankiveil 12:17, 11 September 2011 (EST).
At 2010-2011 AGM we considered changing the rules to allow corporate affiliates. This was narrowly voted down. We have a proposal for Affiliated organisations, however this is designed to cater for small organisations. I would like to propose that we start an proposal for large organisations to become members, where we can look at what benefits/rights they should have. John Vandenberg 17:26, 26 September 2011 (EST)
- The Hong Kong Chapter has an institutional membership, where these institutions pay extra and only get one institutional vote. Proposing something similar would probably be ideal. --LauraHale 15:03, 2 October 2011 (EST)
Testing edit access
Should we add Rules to the sidebar? It's on the front page, however I've seen the "Constitution"/"Articles of Incorporation"/etc on the sidebar of several chapter wikis. John Vandenberg 21:46, 26 January 2012 (EST)
nov irc meeting?
I wonder if there was an nov. irc meeting? If you know, pipe up :-) Privatemusings 08:56, 9 November 2012 (EST)
- I turned up an hour late due to timezone confusion. afaik there was no discussion. John Vandenberg 10:36, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Two new draft proposals
I have started drafting two new proposals aimed to promote contributions to our wiki: User:John Vandenberg/userspace policy and User:John Vandenberg/Suspending the private mailing list. Looking forward to feedback and assistance on developing these so that they are ready for the committee to enact them. John Vandenberg 13:59, 1 December 2012 (EST)
- Thank god: please shut down that secret mailing list. Then if they want to keep attacking me, they'll have to do it in public. Tony1 15:43, 1 December 2012 (EST)
Members, I've started two pages for you to contribute in specific ways:
- A members register, which is intended to be entirely optional (and hasn't yet been properly started)
- A Wiki Loves Monuments proposal page.
Please visit! Tony1 18:24, 2 December 2012 (EST)
December 2 IRC transcript
New Approved proposals category
Mark Hurd 12:09, 3 December 2012 (EST)
- Done I've gone ahead with this, without addressing abandoned and failed proposals. Mark Hurd 03:19, 4 December 2012 (EST)
Timeline for 2013
Members and board: could I suggest that we develop a timeline/wishlist for the things we know or are fairly certain will happen in 2013?
If we're making an application to round 2 of the FDC, for example, can we work back from the 1 March deadline and put some kind of scheduling in place—what should be done by when (then we might start to volunteer for components)?
Are we going to apply for funding from the GAC?
What else is on the horizon? Tony1 20:32, 3 December 2012 (EST)
- revise annual plan is supposed to be published by 1 Feb, ALIA needs volunteers, new rules still need to be addressed, WLM will have needs, be good to see the AGM date set earlier. Gnangarra 23:27, 3 December 2012 (EST)
- OK, pity there couldn't be an interim plan before the break. 1 Feb is getting rather close to the FDC deadline. Tony1 20:32, 7 December 2012 (EST)
double log in required
it may just be me - but this wiki has for some time required me to log in twice to edit - first time it simply fails to login, second time it works ok - thought I'd mention it :-) Privatemusings 13:09, 4 December 2012 (EST)
- Yep, I've been getting the same thing today. Sam Wilson 17:13, 4 December 2012 (EST)
- It looks like it's a domain difference: with
wwwvs. without. After logging it to the non-
www, we get redirected to
www., and are no longer logged in. Sam Wilson 14:44, 5 December 2012 (EST)
Here are some suggestions for managing our increasing number of projects. In my opinion, it would be good if we could easily find our projects (whether they are under consideration or currently being implemented or are finished and have been reported on), so we can know where they are up to and contribute in a timely manner. If we are going to start on the road towards Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM), for example, we will need a place for these separate things that we can all find and follow - WLM is a year long process.
Project communication and management
The ideal way to manage proposals for projects is to follow a known structured process.
PHASE 1: Propose
We consider the proposal, discuss the big questions such as whether the project is a good idea and fits with our goals. (For example, the three questions I asked about the Winter Sports Project). The discussion will show whether or not to go to the next phase.
PHASE 2: Plan
We determine the project requirements and plan them. (For example, the timeframe, the resources needed (including skills, budget and quality, and whatever else needs planning.)
PHASE 3: Do
We undertake the project (provided it passed the first two phases).
PHASE 4: Report
We submit whatever reports are needed.
PHASE 5: Learn
We consider how it went and document what we learned.
Purpose and extended process
I applied this normal process to the example of planning GLAM events and published it at GLAM Best Practices. The purposes of such a process are: to maximise the efficiency of the project itself (by thinking it through in advance); to be able to get whatever necessary authorisations or funding are needed; (in our case) so we know what is going on; and (in my own case, and perhaps in yours) so I can find where things are. (At the moment, I find it difficult to know where the where the project is, where it is up to and where relevant discussion is.)
A few suggestions
I suggest that we:
- set up a tab for "projects";
- use the front page of each proposal for facts about it, and make it clear which phase it is up to;
- include an end date for Phase 1 to the front page of each proposal so we can all see how much time there before we have to move onto planning;
- use the discussion page for discussions about each phase of the project and another sub page for "plans" so that plans can be developed as the discussions are proceeding and independently of them.
Whiteghost.ink 16:18, 10 December 2012 (EST)
- Agree with pretty much everything you have said. Kerry Raymond 19:26, 10 December 2012 (EST)
- Yes, so do I. It would be interesting to take a quick look at how a few other chapters do it, although I'm not suggesting we copy anyone. Tony1 19:36, 10 December 2012 (EST)
- I also agree with the above Nick-D 21:05, 10 December 2012 (EST)
Decoupling funding proposals from specific people
I'm interested in people's thoughts on decoupling funding proposals from specific people. That is, a funding proposal says "lets spend about $X doing Y". That proposal is then accepted/rejected on its merits. If it's accepted, then any number of individuals can front up and say "I'm ready, willing and able to do Y and I estimate my costs would be $Z" and decisions can be made, based on the past track record of the individuals, the costs they are seeking, etc.
The benefits of this approach is that we avoid the issue of self-interest in the decision to allocated funding to a goal/activity, and allow an open competition for anyone who was interested, which hopefully would produce a "best value for money" outcome.
The downside is that the process would be longer than the current process (two sets of decisions, committing the funding and then choosing the people).
What do people think? Kerry Raymond 19:35, 10 December 2012 (EST)
- I don't have a problem with the idea, but in the past I've applied to, or set up, jobs where the job description was specifically tailored to hire a particular person, so it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. That said, I gather you are proposing running a Request for Tender process once the proposal has been accepted? In which case it makes sense.
- As an aside, one of the concerns I've had in the past is that we aren't always sending the right people, in part because the process is tied to the proposer. For some tasks, especially related to photography, we need to either identify the best people to be involved in projects, or work to build up the equipment and skills needed for the people handling the project to take the best advantage of the opportunities. If we are going to fly photographers around Australia and, as it seems to be the case, internationally to get photographs of special events, then we need to build up our skill base so that we can take advantage of what we're doing. This is likely to involve both the purchase of equipment an provision of training. - Bilby 09:07, 11 December 2012 (EST)