Re: RCC around the world: NA format change impacts everyone

[Laura Hale]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Anne GOLDENBERG <goldenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

provokes some concentration that we may not want. But RCC sustainebility is also at stake and we know how much benevolent effort it requires... Finally, we may have to take a step back and consider what RCC is doing for the Wiki community, for collaboration practices, balance that with how we experience organising RCC and think about how it should go on or change a bit .

Thank you for your post Anne.  

Like you, going to RecentChangesCamp totally changed my perspective on conferences.  I went to a wiki conference using a more traditional model and found it less than useful.  I didn't get as much actionable information and ability to go forward as I did at RecentChangesCamp, I couldn't manage all the conversations I wanted and NEEDED to have happen, I didn't have control over my session ideas with the facilitator taking my session and lumping it in with a topic it was completely not related to, and found when I did get a change to "host" a session that I was in competition with the other "host."  

The step back issue is a concern for me, because if there were real desires to have a change in format for RecentChangesCamp, I think they should have been discussed BEFORE Australia had our RecentChangesCamp less than two weeks ago.  I believe there is the possible momentum to have a second RecentChangesCamp in the Australia (or New Zealand) later in 2012.  We pretty much have the date and venue locked for 2013. 

When we're talking about going forward, we need to keep in mind this is no longer a North American only event.  It has expanded.  The North American group needs to consider and talk to Australian planners.  There is a tension between the two groups that was obvious during a few of the American conference calls where RCC was discussed.  Most of the organisers on the call was put planning in terms of where RCC will go from there in the USA/Canada, but completely ignored the existence of a viable and living RCC community in another country.  

With the influx of WMF people who have never attended RecentChangesCamp and who have little experience with Open Space, (who in Sarah's case were invited repeatedly to participate in planning for WikiWomenCamp but couldn't be bothered despite the relationship to her WMF related fellowship but now has the time to organise a conference with a format she supports changing, giving the appearance of Sarah looking like she's doing it for the credential building where she can take the lead on organising the conference… and when she was only brought in after Pete approached WMF people instead of  previous organisers of RCC , the Australian RCC community, WikiHowians, Wikians, WikiFurries, WikiTravelers, AboutUs people …), this is especially irksome where it looks like the future of RCC is concerned.

RCC was created because of problems of WMF people dominating the conversation, of making people outside the WMF wiki community (Wikipedia =/= Wiki.  Wikipedia =/= Wiki.) feel less wanted and less important. Pete should be aware of this.  Pete should be aware of this and so when Pete tries to get consensus for how to move things forward by going to the WMF first and bringing in outsiders who have never attended one before (this complaint would be totally different if Pete had gotten Brion Vibber and Cary Bass as I believe while WMF people, they still fundamentally get Wikipedia =/= Wiki and they have both demonstrated great ties to the wider wiki community).

I don't see why there is a need to change the format in North America.  In private conversations, I've identified at least two people, possibly three, who would be willing to be the primary host of RecentChangesCamp using the current model that we've been using since 2006.  They've previously been involved with organising RCC and have a track record for success.

If Peter Kaminiski and another established RCC organiser are involved in organising the NA RCC in the Bay Area, the facilitation type stays the same and we target a realistic attendance (because 150 to 250 is not realistic. We've done the bay area before and didn't get that number.), and there are no guest speakers….  I'm more than willing and happy to support it.

If WMF folks like Pete and Sarah are taking the lead as organisers, changing the organisational model, changing the facilitation type, running two tracks at once with those different types, out of respect to the global RCC community, I'd like them to change the name to avoid brand confusion.  (Hey, the more wiki conferences, the better.  woot woot.  It isn't a bad thing that they do their own thing.)

Sincerely,

Laura Hale

--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com

[Steven Walling]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Laura Hale <la...@fanhistory.com> wrote:

RCC was created because of problems of WMF people dominating the conversation, of making people outside the WMF wiki community (Wikipedia =/= Wiki.  Wikipedia =/= Wiki.)

That is incorrect. 

RCC was created because of the lack of an Open Space conference about wikis, back when WikiSym was the only conference about wikis in general and it did not include an Open Space track. 

Please do not make this about Wikimedians versus other wiki people. We are all in this together, and RCC has never been about excluding any particular group. Several of the people who keep identifying with "WMF", myself and Pete included, went to RCC events years before they ever were affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. 

Steven 

[Eugene Eric Kim]

I love hearing people share their stories and experiences with Open Space. One of the things that's clear from this thread is that we can do a better job of documenting our lore and values so that people who are compelled to help organize can know about and honor the past and also feel empowered to experiment.

I created an Open Space page on the wiki to try and start that process:

http://recentchangescamp.org/wiki/Open_Space

I'd encourage others to share their stories and thoughts on that page as well. Anne, Laura, Nicole, it would be great if you could paste excerpts from your emails into that page.

Personally, I would strongly encourage organizers to keep things as "purely" open as possible. That said, as I noted on the wiki page, there are widely differing opinions as to what "pure" open space actually looks like. As a community, we should do our best to explain why we hold certain values, and we should also encourage and trust others to do good things based on those values. I am not in favor of trying to control what people do by holding the brand over people's heads. That's not what this community is about. Experimentation in the name of our core values is a good thing. That's how we can learn together as a community.

Which brings me to my last point. Laura, I see how much you value the Open Space process, and I'm glad you brought it up here. It's created an opportunity to revisit the lore and our values, which is always healthy.

However, the things you've been saying about PeteF, Sarah, and StevenW and the ways you've been saying them have not been healthy. I understand that you have some issues with WMF. I have no idea what those issues are, but I feel badly that those hurt feelings and mistrust exist, and if there's something that I can do to help, let me know offlist. However, that does not justify making baseless claims about valued members of the wiki community and hurting those people in the process.

You did a great thing in getting this conversation started. PeteF, Sarah, and many others did great things in volunteering to help. I trust all of you, and I know that if we direct our energies toward working with and supporting each other, we will have a truly kick-ass RCC here in North America. Let's remember to honor our differences while also appreciating each other's intention and energy. Let's find ways to empower each other. That's the wiki way.

=Eugene

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Laura Hale <la...@fanhistory.com> wrote:

--
Eugene Eric Kim | ee...@groupaya.net | 415-513-5385 | Twitter: @groupaya | http://groupaya.net/

[Peter Kaminski]

Eugene writes,

> You did a great thing in getting this conversation started. PeteF,
> Sarah, and many others did great things in volunteering to help. I
> trust all of you, and I know that if we direct our energies
> toward working with and supporting each other, we will have a truly
> kick-ass RCC here in North America. Let's remember to honor our
> differences while also appreciating each other's intention and energy.
> Let's find ways to empower each other. That's the wiki way.

Amen. Me too.

Pete K.

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi all,

Well, this thread happened to blow up on one of the busiest work days I've had in a long time. I want to respond to some of the things that have been said, but as for the more personal things, I'll keep it brief.

Laura, I want to echo what Pete K, Eugene, and others have said -- you have been a longtime and important torch-bearer for RCC and wiki, and have done many good things. I have supported your work in the past, and I will continue to do so in the future, as I consider you a friend, and I know you are capable of doing all kinds of good things. That said, in these last few emails, you have not made it easy.

You have said things about me and about others I care about that are untrue. Some of them, you know are untrue. I don't know why you're doing that, but it hurts, and I'd like to ask you to stop.

Here are the two things that bugged me the most:

* Although I have a strong connection to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, I have built numerous wiki sites (some alongside you) that have no relation to Wikimedia. My first was Free Geek's "FreekiWiki," you and I worked together to establish the Dreamfish wiki, and I gave you business advice and reached out to a prospective buyer for your Fan History wiki, to name just a few. I care passionately about the wiki model, and have never been a "partisan" of any kind in this wiki world. Period.

* I did not drop the ball on Portland RCC, or on other RCCs. In fact, I've contributed rather heavily. Others have contributed more, but my contributions have been significant -- including helping you, personally, offline, with some of the early challenges of getting RoCoCo going.

I would appreciate it if you would take more care in the future. If you're angry with me about something, please let me know, and tell me what it will take to work through it. But stating falsehoods about me and other people on this list is just not cool.

I have some comments about the less personal aspects too, but I'm still reading through and absorbing the various things that have been said. For the moment, I just want to repeat some of what others, like Anne, and Nicole, have already stated clearly: that the Open Space model, a diversity of wiki software and communities, and and "do-ocracy" are all of deep, central importance to RCC. Those are the things that brought me to the first one I attended, and those are the things that will keep me coming back.

Looking forward to planning something great with all of you.

-Pete