[13:27:12] Change on 12meta.wikimedia.org a page WikiConference India 2016/Survey/Questions was created, changed by Ravidreams link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2016/Survey/Questions edit summary: Moving questions to a separate page [13:32:22] Change on 12meta.wikimedia.org a page WikiConference India 2016/Code of Conduct was created, changed by Ravidreams link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2016/Code_of_Conduct edit summary: Creating placeholder for Code of Conduct [13:55:23] Change on 12meta.wikimedia.org a page WikiConference India 2016/Survey/Questions was modified, changed by Ravidreams link https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=15708229 edit summary: +{{languages}} [13:56:58] Change on 12meta.wikimedia.org a page WikiConference India 2016/Survey/Questions/ta was created, changed by Ravidreams link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2016/Survey/Questions/ta edit summary: Translation test [14:02:05] Change on 12meta.wikimedia.org a page WikiConference India 2016/Survey was modified, changed by Ravidreams link https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=15708249 edit summary: +survey link [15:53:34] Hello [15:55:09] hi Santosh let us wait for others. The time is 9:30. [16:09:00] hello [16:09:49] Hi Shadab [16:10:28] hi satdeep [16:10:30] hello [16:10:37] everyone [16:10:41] Hi Jim [16:10:49] whats the update today [16:11:04] welcome jim [16:11:15] Thanks [16:12:02] Satdeep let others join before we start [16:12:06] yes [16:14:05] Hi [16:14:09] We will wait until 9:55, then we shall start [16:14:22] I think it is already late :/ [16:14:56] Hi Ravi [16:15:08] Hello. [16:15:12] What did I miss [16:15:23] Not started yet [16:15:23] Wait till 9:55 ? No, I guess 9:45 is okay [16:15:29] Nothing Soni [16:15:37] We are just starting [16:15:50] hmmm now we should start? [16:15:54] yes [16:16:10] Yes [16:16:39] So let us get the brief status of WCI until now. [16:18:44] Our Grant request is Open and according to Kacie it will be approved soon enough [16:18:57] Okay. [16:19:07] What is the status of the survey? [16:19:21] How many responses did we got so far? [16:21:09] 47 responses so far [16:21:22] I guess we should have atlest 100 responses [16:21:43] okay. That is fine number. [16:23:38] In the meanwhile, we have also opened a Whatsapp group. We hope to broadcast the link of survey to this group and attract some more response. [16:24:13] i am not in whatsaoo group [16:24:13] That is a good Idea as well [16:24:17] that is a fine idea. [16:25:03] So, can we decide upon the Criteria for Phase 2 ? [16:25:09] I think you should add us in the group so that we can add others, to spread the message [16:25:12] how many applications we have received for scholarship [16:25:47] 450 applications [16:25:55] Rudra is taking care of central notice cor survey [16:27:19] Criteria for phase 2 is pretty self explanatory, so far what we have received, we can easily evaluate the applicants without any hard-written rules [16:27:35] any work fod me [16:28:05] We need to give marks to the applications on the basis of a well-defined criteria [16:28:09] For example: [16:28:10] Should we talk about Agenda for next phase ? <1000 edits - 0 point 1000 - 5000 edits - 1 point 5000 - 10,000 edits - 2 points Involvement in Organizing - 0 or 1 Meetup/Workshop/GLAM organizer - 0 or 1 point User Rights : sysop - 1 point OTRS - 1 point Bureaucrat - 1 Steward - 1 Presenting a paper or workshop - 1 point Involvement in other projects - 0 or 1 point [16:28:25] Sorry I got DCed out [16:28:37] Can anyone PM me the logs until now [16:30:44] Points based on edit count doesn't appears good. [16:32:32] I think there we can have a voting system like: we give points based on our discretion, a user getting less than 5 points by 3 user out 5 gets disqualified. [16:33:35] hi [16:34:40] we can give points based on criteria as noted by Satdeep [16:35:27] haa both the ways are correct [16:37:53] please ask questions [16:38:02] If we make a lower limit of minimum 100 edits, then there are only about 187 applications valid. [16:38:42] Among these, we may have to subgroup according to community/interest group allocations. [16:39:09] That would be good .... and then I guess we can select according to communities... [16:39:12] Then the competition should be on a weighted subgroup base. [16:39:22] yes [16:39:27] yes, that would be fine [16:39:39] I agree with Viswa.. We need these points noted.. [16:39:51] how many applications we have to select [16:40:00] At that point, it may even be possible to consider a community vote. [16:40:13] yes [16:40:35] So, we must hurry up in allocating a community wise quota system, soon. [16:40:55] And that is a philosophical / subjective decision. [16:41:16] How do we weigh community quotas? [16:41:42] Of course, it must not be very rigid and fixed by concrete numbers. [16:41:52] then again male&female quota is thr? inside community? [16:42:04] That too can be discussed. [16:42:25] obvious then the scholarship team will use discretion [16:42:46] I think, for gender quota, we first decide a target ratio. (Like say, at least 20% should be Women) [16:43:14] Then check if the other selection parameters already include women. [16:43:34] okey [16:43:51] Take off that many numbers and allocate the balance from women of rest of the communitiy candidates. [16:44:22] The same for other interest groups. [16:44:39] So what are the intersest groups in all? Let us decide that now. [16:44:46] 1. Gender [16:44:53] 2. Differently abled. [16:45:02] 3. Special projects like WEP? [16:45:13] And what else? [16:45:20] as soon as we disqualify those who have atleast 100 edits we cannot get atleast 20% women [16:45:34] (In any case, all of them should be already within our application list) [16:45:57] Jim, We may have to see that. [16:46:04] One second. [16:46:07] I saw that already [16:46:15] I guess 15% would be a good number [16:46:30] plus we can invite special speakers to reduce Gender Gap as well [16:46:50] 15 maybe possible if the upper limit is 100 [16:46:53] we have 29 candidates who will be in that sector. [16:47:47] That is roughly 30/180 = 16 % [16:48:20] I guess it is okay [16:48:42] yes 16% is okay [16:48:46] okey [16:48:58] But wait we have to think about 120 people for example and if we choose all 30 females [16:49:05] we have 25% percent [16:49:25] Yes. I am only putting up the pre-selection figures. [16:49:40] So, we have to fix a definite number above 16% [16:50:12] At 16%, in effect, every Woman applicant with a 100+ edit will automatically be chosen. [16:51:31] In this, there are people from Nepal, Bengladesh, Srilanka & pakistan too [16:52:07] 23 from India [16:52:29] Can we put some special criteria for women selection [16:52:30] ? [16:53:07] Like what? [16:53:10] Special criteria like what ? [16:53:32] See. Even the women applicants are not geography balanced. [16:53:38] like 500+ edit [16:54:01] (Min) [16:54:14] That will bring another question. Should a community have less Males just because they have more Women applicants apprapos another community? [16:54:47] Of course, 500+ edits for Women is more discretionary than Normal! [16:55:43] So, let us say, we allocate all women into one fixed number of pool without regard to their community and divide the remaining scholarships among Males of all communities. [16:57:01] So, in this case, a definite percentage is pre-fixed. Say 20? [16:57:10] yes [16:57:11] true [16:57:32] (And the remaining women can be considered as part of the General competing pool) [16:58:06] okey [16:58:20] So, I request all of you to arrive at a consensus in this regard. Mine are only suggestions. [16:58:57] Give your comments everyone [16:59:06] I do agree with 20 females at least [16:59:22] Firstly we should be done with Phase one by tomorrow [16:59:38] yes, we can do so. [16:59:45] and then we should start evaluating based on the criteria given in Meta [16:59:51] agree with 20 females [16:59:59] Shall we set the elimination limit as 100 edits? [17:00:32] Well, earlier I suggested in the scholarship team to ask the diversity team's opinion [17:00:36] on the number of % for women [17:00:40] If any particular consideration is required for any particular person with <100 edits, we can check through and include them in the upper band. [17:00:47] We can urge them to give their opinion before deciding [17:00:57] I agree with Ravi [17:01:32] Let us first have a ranking of all candidates who arrive at phase 2. See the Top 100 list and natural %, diversity etc., [17:01:49] That can give us informed decision with data [17:02:34] Ranking should be based on marking ? [17:02:59] Wikimania does it out of a scale of 10 [17:03:45] Okay we will follow that then [17:04:27] Let every reviewer give marks to each criteria on a scale of 10 on all the shortlisted candidates [17:05:10] should distance / mode of travel be a consideration? [17:05:36] no [17:06:23] ya, but this can't be arbitrary scale [17:06:26] we need clear weightages [17:06:51] for example: edit count + offline activities + presentation + x + y = 10 [17:07:06] Say, when everything else is balanced, 5 persons from South India will cost 15 or 20 persons from somewhere in Rajastan or UP. [17:07:24] Viswa, cost is not a factor for scholarship [17:07:29] we have adequately budgeted [17:07:38] Yes, Exactly cost is another matter [17:08:26] let us agree on the weightages for a 10 scale [17:08:36] and get the top 100 list first [17:09:07] yeah [17:09:54] I am confused on that. 100 is the target schlolarship numbers already. [17:10:26] Yes Ravi [17:10:36] does that mean we will have only two phase [17:10:41] ? [17:10:51] No, Viswa we increased the budget for scholarships on seeing so many applications [17:10:54] We will be actually working on eliminating some 75 people from 175 or so, during Phase 2 [17:10:55] we can give a few more [17:11:30] Yes. Including that increase, we have, say 175 to 125 elimination task. [17:12:34] Jim_Carter: Yes, only two phases [17:12:55] After seeing the Top 100, we can do adjustments or increased scholarships for diversity if budget allows [17:12:59] Of course 100 itself is a very subtly low figure for Wikimedia contributors in general. [17:13:38] I mean 100 edits. [17:13:47] 100, at first, then we can see how much potential candidates left [17:13:48] I guess we can accomodate 110 as of now.. with 10 more scholarships for special speakers.. [17:14:24] Yes.. [17:14:35] If eliminiation helps in reducing work, I am for it [17:14:42] In any case, I will give a categorised list of applicants by tomorrow. [17:15:03] Agree to eliminite candidates with less than 100 edits unless they have other significant contributions (tech, offline) [17:15:15] agreed [17:15:22] OK. [17:15:32] I agree too.. How do we check tech and offline contributions ? [17:16:18] So, those who have access to the data (Scholarship committee) can go through the list of those who got eliminated as ( <100edits) and consider if they should be included for phase 2. [17:17:14] In case, they need to consult, they can share the individual cases with other prominent community members and get feedback. [17:17:19] Yes, That is okay Viswa.. You prepare a list of people with more than 100 edits and we can review if there are some people to be considered for phase 2 in the eliminated ones [17:17:30] see their descriptive answers to get a knowledge of the candidates potential [17:17:38] Yes. [17:17:58] Agreed [17:18:13] The real eligible ones should be very much aware of the importance of good form filling. Their descriptions themselves should be a good indicator. [17:18:39] Programs team notes that we are running late to announce call for presentations [17:19:10] WMF PEG team advised to go for it when we have the survey results [17:19:14] I think, someone should take lead of program organisation if not already. [17:19:56] Then also, let us open a page inmeta to get casual wishlist from general Wiki users, not necessarily applicants or attendees. [17:20:01] There are early indications in the responses so far. We can aim to have at least 100 responses or by MOnday, we can give the call [17:20:21] Bodhi is taking care of program organization [17:20:26] OK. [17:20:29] Good [17:22:39] Comind days are going to be hectic :) [17:23:11] yes [17:25:16] Other priorities like identifying key speakers, sponsors are still pending [17:25:33] as we have figured out, unfortunately, only a small team of people are taking care of all roles [17:25:44] Nevertheless, we will strive to pull this off [17:25:58] Satdeep, when will you be back from Wikimania [17:26:11] sorry guys facing some network issue [17:26:20] All participants from Indian region can conduct a special gathering to discuss WCI [17:26:31] and if possible meet the WMF staff in the conference [17:26:44] I am coming back on 9th July. Sorry for my extended plans. I will get other Punjabi Community members to do the work and I will keep participating from their as well. [17:26:44] Hopefully, we can identify the right staff members who can visit us by then [17:26:48] and give a personal invitation [17:27:05] OK Satdeep [17:27:21] You don't need to feel sorry [17:27:22] we need to talk with a Travel Agent as well [17:27:25] Enjoy your trip [17:27:30] anyone has a contact ? [17:27:43] we can't have single point of failures / contacts [17:27:49] good to have more people taking care [17:28:10] It is best for the agent to be Chandigarh based [17:28:15] okay.. Should we find them here in Chd ? [17:28:21] ya [17:28:48] okay [17:29:04] I will plan for a Meetup regarding WCI [17:29:15] and I am going to meet Kacie to discuss futher [17:29:17] further [17:30:14] Good [17:30:25] Invite participants from neighbouring countries for the meet too [17:31:07] Sure [17:31:45] So, my question about Scholarships... Do we create colomns for various reviewers to give marks to a certain response or something else ? [17:32:33] I will prepare a fresh table where we can have such columns. [17:32:40] Let us have two reviewers for each application [17:32:51] That table will not have personal contact informations etc. [17:32:59] So it can be more liberal. [17:32:59] They will skip assessing applications from their own communities [17:33:07] each can assess up to 25 [17:33:19] a day [17:33:21] yes [17:33:33] three reviewers would be good [17:33:41] I don;t think we should keep people away from asessing anyone of their own community. [17:34:00] make a table that is good [17:34:04] So, after 2, 3 days we can find the gaps and complete [17:34:12] We are now much more inter-networked not to be impartial to anyone even outside their own community. [17:34:16] Viswaprabha: Just to avoid perceived COI [17:34:24] as much we can [17:34:44] I just received a mail saying that someone responded to scholarship application! What is that? We have stopped receiving applications, isn't it? [17:34:55] Sometimes, a same-community mate is more aware of the quality of a fellow-contributor. [17:35:18] But then again we are reviewing according to the applications [17:35:26] otherwise we are all biased [17:35:29] Hence, COI [17:36:14] COI should be avoided and reviewers should be random [17:36:50] Jim, was it for the forms or Response table? If it is for the table, it may be just an edit by me or someone . A false alarm. [17:37:11] it is a false alarm [17:37:13] :p [17:37:19] :) [17:38:41] https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Phase_2 [17:38:44] should guide us [17:38:47] for weightages [17:38:58] Same community members can be consulted during the elimination [17:39:18] to make sure we are not eliminating deserving candidates for making a poor application [17:41:22] Okay great [17:41:42] Please mention the marking pattern on the sheet itself to make it easier for everyone [17:42:52] I guess we should pack this now. Thank you everyone for participating. [17:43:18] agree. [17:43:29] Thank you everyone [17:43:50] signing off. [17:44:02] Bye all [17:44:44] ok gn [17:44:53] good night