On 19 March 2013 09:52, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 19 March 2013 09:39, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb
this early in the morning, but I
>> can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared
>> with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid.
> They don't. This thread is mostly
hair-splitting for the sake of
> bloody-mindedness, not anything that will actually help anything
> anywhere.
No worries then. The much-neglected grassroots
activists will turn up
in droves, tip their hats, and ask only yo be called on again when
Wikimania next hits London.
If you manage to snatch defeat from victory but succeed in making your
point, will you personally consider it a win?
There is still time to communicate more effectively with said
grassroots. This is a theme I have been addressing in what I hope have
been non-adversarial ways since I stopped working for WMUK (pretty
much on this issue). I don't see that win-win is out of the question.
Credit for the stakeholder analysis business should go to Fae, with
whom I raised this point quite some time ago. It just needs to be
higher up the agenda, like all the other things (there aren't that
many) that would grow the active UK community. I put the point this
way to a WMUK trustee recently: the question of how many
outreachy-networky things WMUK should be taking on is of the nature
"how long is a piece of string?", while the grow-the-base things are
"fingers of one hand".
What I'm really not happy about is the conference strand being a
cuckoo in the nest.
Charles