Talk:Groups

Communications channels: can we do better?
The MediaWiki community has traditionally resolved this with a combination mailing lists, IRC channels and blog posts, lately with some social media spice. This falls in the old good tradition of open source projects.

However, can we do better in 2013?

Is there anything experimental in the MediaWiki / Wikimedia communities or established elsewhere that we could benefit from?--Qgil (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Useful links
If you have useful links and can't find a better way to integrate them just paste them here.


 * http://weboplex.com/post/34386033488/the-quick-guide-to-writing-budget-requests-for-mozilla
 * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2012-13_Goals#Wikimedia_technical_community
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Participation:Support
 * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2012-13_Goals#Milestones_by_quarter_17
 * https://reps.mozilla.org/
 * Wikimedia Thematic Organizations & Step-by-step Thematic Organization creation guide.
 * http://meghangill.com/category/user-groups/
 * http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Your+Go-to+Resource+for+Running+a+MongoDB+User+Group
 * http://opensourcebridge.org/sessions/925
 * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_developer_meetings
 * http://openbadges.org/

Confusing
--Nemo 06:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "MediaWiki group" is perhaps too generic a term? I first thought of permissions users groups. "MediaWiki developers [group] in Germany" is quite clear, others like LUG use "user group".
 * Simplicity is fine. "MediaWiki Groups" defines a scope and gives all the flexibility. Isn't "MediaWiki developers" too narrowed? What about all the other technical profiles, not developers? "MediaWiki users" is even more confusing since the first meaning it brings is admins or even pure users of MediaWiki based websites.--Qgil (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly not narrower that the group for lua; I thought you wanted many different sets. I said "MediaWiki user group", not just "users"; it seems to be used by all others. However, this is the smallest point. --Nemo 07:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "MediaWiki Groups" is the generic name proposed for this whole exercise. "MediaWiki Lua Group" is an example of a potential group using the name schema proposed.--Qgil (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How does all this interact with the AffCom?
 * "WikiMedia Germany" a fictional example??!
 * I meant MediaWiki Germany Group. Fixed. Thanks!--Qgil (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Still, m:Talk:Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations.
 * How different is this from the other existing models? For instance, "Ubuntu user groups" and similar work well in Germany with some peculiarities but don't exist at all in Italy.
 * Why groups and not only individual "reps"? How many cases of a big concentration of suitable people willing to associate do we have?

Relationship with Chapters?
How do the country groups relate to the foundation chapters? Don't chapters currently do things like organize events in their country? Would there be folks in the MediaWiki Germany Group that wouldn't be in Wikimedia Deutschland or vice versa? --Cneubauer (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)