IRC office hours/Office hours 2010-11-10
[18:09:09] <sgardner> So Steven -- are we taking questions now?
[18:09:12] <GerardM-> Eloquence that is what I understand ... but it reflects not only their wiki
[18:09:16] <StevenW> Yeah, let's go for it.
[18:09:28] <GerardM-> As I have to go, may mine be first ?
[18:09:33] <FT2> If you were in Japanese culture you'd have to specify A positive or A negative. Rhesus factor matters, y'know :)
[18:09:39] <sgardner> (Guillaume killed me in Werewolf. I am still reeling.)
[18:09:42] <sgardner> Go ahead, Gerard!
[18:09:52] <sgardner> :-)
[18:09:57] <Eloquence> GerardM-: they are doing their best :). It's a great start to see an active meetup community developing in India, where previously there was none. Keep in mind that they just had their first official Mumbai meetup this year, for example.
[18:10:12] <StevenW> Gerard's question from Meta:
[18:10:23] <StevenW> In her latest blog Sue writes about leadership and successful practices. The examples she uses are all organised and supported from the centre. I blogged about this and am of the opinion that in order to be scalable, we need effective leadership in the communities and chapters. I would like her reaction ..
[18:10:25] <guillom> sgardner, well, Americans have this thing called authority. Nobody else would have dared, so I had to do it.
[18:10:32] <Theo10011_> and Delhi Eloquence
[18:10:38] <sgardner> So I think what we're planning to do here (I am probably just duplicating Steven) is collect some questions, or discussion areas ... see which ones have the most traction (seem interesting to the most people), then stop down and discuss them for a while. Yes?
[18:10:41] <Eloquence> right
[18:10:46] <sgardner> Guillaume: LOL.
[18:10:53] <Qcoder00> Where's todays agenda?
[18:11:04] <StevenW> It's at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
[18:11:51] <FT2> no real agenda.
[18:11:57] <Qcoder00> I have several questions though
[18:12:01] <sgardner> Oh -- while I wait for us to collect questions / topic areas, I will say something briefly about my blog post. Just to be super-clear: my examples were just taken from situations I've been personally familiar with. There are obviously lots of examples of great leadership / great changemaking elsewhere that I don't know much about, or know less about. I was aiming to stick to stuff I knew fairly well. That's why they were Foundation examples.
[18:12:32] <sgardner> (The intent was not to say that leadership is solely or mainly inside the Foundation. Those are just the examples I personally know well.)
[18:12:35] <GerardM-> I understand that
[18:12:38] <sgardner> K
[18:12:53] <sgardner> (I am just waiting now, for people to give their topic areas of interest.)
[18:13:04] <FT2> Okay, a question. We fundraise year after year. Is fundraising long term sufficient and viable, as a sole means of support, given planned growth, and that many other sites will become "the next best thing" over time, and Wikipedia will be more taken for granted and less "wow" as time passes?
[18:13:07] <GerardM-> but the problem is that it needs to be expressed and such leadership supported
[18:13:20] <FT2> insight from the top would be interesting.
[18:13:37] <GerardM-> the question is very much about the role of the office as a consequence
[18:13:38] <FT2> wikipedia/wikimedia, you know what I mean :)
[18:13:44] <StevenW> Qcoder00: If you want to put the questions on the Meta page (IRC Office Hours) or private message them to me, go ahead.
[18:13:57] <StevenW> FT2: Got that one. Great question.
[18:14:00] <Qcoder00> Putting them on the page...
[18:14:08] <sgardner> We can just talk a little about GerardM's stuff as we wait to organize other topics; how does that sound?
[18:14:16] <StevenW> Sounds great.
[18:14:49] <Eloquence> sgardner: why don't I take a crack at FT2's question as well and then you can add to my reply later
[18:14:54] <FT2> (refinement - will we have to switch from mass public donations to large philanthroic donations over time, as the public move on and our needs grow?)
[18:15:00] <sgardner> Sure -- go ahead, Erik.
[18:15:06] <StevenW> Got it FT2
[18:15:09] <GerardM-> I presented in my blog examples from external projects but they could have done with more support
[18:15:31] <sgardner> (Why don't we do FT2, then (Erik is starting) and then return to Gerard.)
[18:15:40] <Ziko> (A QUESTION for the end of the line. It seems that the foundation started a number of specialized wikis in 2009, outreach, strategy and others, and in the meantime the foundation stopped that?)
[18:15:43] <GerardM-> will such support be forthcomming
[18:15:52] <GerardM-> I have to leave in 5 minutes
[18:16:20] <StevenW> Sue will go ahead and comment on your topic more then Gerard.
[18:16:21] <sgardner> Yes Gerard, sorry -- I just saw that on the wiki page.)
[18:16:25] <Eloquence> FT2: So far every investment we've made in improving our small donations based fundraising has paid off dramatically. As per http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/ , our readership is continuing to grow dramatically, and it's primarily our readership who donates. We believe that we can continue to refine/improve upon the small gifts model to meet our financial needs for the foreseeable future.
[18:16:34] <StevenW> Hey Aude. We're just gathering questions et cetera now still.
[18:16:55] <StevenW> Gerard's post we're talking about: http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-of-our-success.html
[18:17:01] <aude> hi
[18:17:11] <sgardner> Hi Aude.
[18:17:24] <Eloquence> FT2: Right now we're more concerned about the trends in participation, and those trends are definitely affected by "new shiny things" in other places on the web.
[18:18:26] <Qcoder00> StevenW: Added 3 questions to Meta page
[18:18:33] <StevenW> Thanks Qcoder00!
[18:18:45] <Qcoder00> They may have get very short answers
[18:18:56] <sgardner> Gerard -- I'm afraid we're not going to do your topic justice in just a few minutes. But I'm not sure that we're NOT supporting those examples of leadership that you give. For example, the Indonesian example: we worked with Siska to support that competition.
[18:18:57] <Qcoder00> *may however get very short answers
[18:19:56] <StevenW> No worries Qcoder00. Glad you asked them.
[18:20:39] * StevenW listens to Sue typing away more to answer Gerard. In the mean time, doing adding more questions to the wiki page is most welcome.
[18:20:49] <GerardM-> Sorry have to go... will leave my laptop active
[18:21:00] <Eloquence> bye gerard :)
[18:21:09] <StevenW> Thanks for coming on short notice Gerard.
[18:21:13] <sgardner> Ahh, now I am erasing what I was saying. Gerard, I'll try to comment on your blog later :-)
[18:21:27] <sgardner> Why don't we go back to FT2 then?
[18:23:27] <sgardner> Erik, were you speaking to FT2's point, or shall !?
[18:23:39] <Eloquence> I tried to a bit, above -- feel free to elaborate :)
[18:23:55] <Eloquence> Qcoder00: you asked the fair use question? I can try to answer that a bit
[18:24:33] <Qcoder00> I was only wanting a general overview on how it was working or 'not'
[18:24:33] <sgardner> I will add a little to Erik's response to FT2 -- Erik, meanwhile you should feel free to simultaneously speak to Qcoder00's question. Crosstalk is fun!
[18:24:47] <Eloquence> Qcoder00: ok
[18:25:35] <Eloquence> Qcoder00: My own sense is that generally the Wikimedia community tends to be more conservative on copyright issues than we are. Many sites permitting user uploads have significantly expanded and challenged the boundaries of fair use -- in a contect of commercial sites with advertising, and no immediate educational application.
[18:26:05] <StevenW> WereSpielChqrs has a followup question to Qcoder00's on the Meta page, BTW.
[18:26:14] <Eloquence> Qcoder00: Most fair use of media content in Wikimedia projects tends to be defensible from a legal stand point, so the primary question really becomes how strong a position we want to take as a community against the "shortcut" of using fair use media.
[18:26:29] <StevenW> Hi siebrand
[18:26:36] <siebrand> hola, Steven.
[18:26:41] <sgardner> So yes, re fundraising. I think it is definitely possible for it to be our sole means of support (the 'many small donations' model). For example, NPR says that something like 11% of its audience donates. (I'm not entirely sure that would bear scrutiny, but let's say it's more or less accurate.) Our readership is very different from NPR's listenership -- they are older, more affluent, etc. But there is clearly lots of room for us to grow donat
[18:26:42] <sgardner> ions using the 'many small donations' model, since we are currently getting donations from less that 0.1% of readers.
[18:26:53] <Eloquence> Qcoder00: The WMF Board licensing policy (which I co-authored) has given communities broad leeway in figuring out the answer to that question. Some communities have taken a pretty strong stance against any kind of fair use (whether their jurisdiction allows it or not), while others (like English Wikipedia) are more permissive.
[18:27:07] <guillom> Maybe we should create a licensing tutorial for fair use ;) </shameless plug>
[18:27:41] <StevenW> Yes. If anyone interested in licensing hasn't seen guillom's work, check out blog.wikimedia.org
[18:27:45] <StevenW> It's awesome.
[18:28:00] <Eloquence> Qcoder00: I think that's fine. I think the correct approach for WMF to take was to create a middle-ground policy and let community practice figure out the rest. There are so many granular questions about when we could realistically obtain/not obtain a free work that it's really beyond WMF's ability or mandate to answer.
[18:28:03] * siebrand mumbles something bad about fair use.
[18:28:45] <sgardner> It's also the case that 'many small donations' is considerably more stable than other sources. Major donors and foundations move on all the time (stopping their support of non-profit orgs) for various reasons that may have nothing to do with the non-profit's performance. For example, I read yesterday that wealthy Americans cut back their giving by a third in the wake of the 2007 downturn. Getting donations from 'small givers' is much more sta
[18:28:45] <sgardner> ble, because they are less affected by swings in the economy, and they are from many different countries, which has a buffering/stabilizing effect.
[18:28:48] <Eloquence> As a whole, I think the current policy is working, and we're continually experiencing the normal tension that's always going to be associated with these kinds of questions, similar to the tension we have about notability of articles, etc.
[18:28:55] <Eloquence> Sorry for the word wall -- Qcoder00, does that help?
[18:29:01] <sgardner> (I am reading now.)
[18:29:03] <Eloquence> guillom: yes, a fair use tutorial would be awesome :)
[18:29:15] <Qcoder00> Elouqence: I tend to read the edited miniutes...
[18:29:17] <Qcoder00> ;)
[18:29:22] <Eloquence> :)
[18:29:23] <Qcoder00> So a word wall isn't a problem
[18:29:42] <StevenW> WereSpielChqrs added: I like this but what effort are we making to get charitable EN:Gift Aid/ tax deductible status in countries like the UK where this can boost both the donation and our credibility?
[18:30:04] <StevenW> this being the many small donations model
[18:30:46] <Qcoder00> StevenW: I seem to recall someone in connection in relation to the UK chapter saying that Wikimedia might not aulfify as a 'chairty' per UK rules...
[18:31:02] <Qcoder00> *qualify
[18:31:03] <sgardner> Hi WereSpielChqrs. I'm not current with the state of the UK chapter's efforts to achieve tax-deductibility, but I know they are jumping through various hoops to achieve it. You might actually know more about their current status than I do.
[18:31:26] <sgardner> They hit a roadblock maybe six months ago, but they are trying to get around it. It takes time.
[18:31:29] <sgardner> But also..
[18:32:21] <StevenW> Note: we have to end strictly at 19:00 UTC/11AM our time, so be sure to stick any questions on the wiki soon if you want to make sure they're answered.
[18:32:23] <sgardner> It's not super-clear how motivating/essential tax deductibility is for small donors. Studies show that in the US, a surprisingly small number of donors actually claim their tax deduction for small charitable gifts. (I don't remember the percentage -- different studies say different things, but it is low.)
[18:32:45] <sgardner> Tax deductibility status is essential for major donors and for foundations, but it's less critical for the small donors.
[18:33:13] <sgardner> So, when we shifted our focus to 'many small donations' -- that makes tax deductibility somewhat less important.
[18:33:59] <Ziko> in nl, i believe in 2009, only one person asked for a piece of paper regarding to tax reduction - and he was belgian
[18:34:10] <StevenW> Interesting Ziko
[18:34:16] <sgardner> Of course, it is also different in different countries. In some countries (IIRC Japan may be one, Vietnam certainly is one) tax deductibility is completely moot.
[18:34:32] <geniice> UK has a different system. Gift aid rather than tax deduction
[18:35:17] <StevenW> yeah, it seems like the U.S. is the one where tax deductibility is most important
[18:35:20] <sgardner> That's interesting. The Netherlands is highly unusual in many ways: they have the 'payroll deduction' situation, that is different from how most other countries handle this.
[18:36:31] <sgardner> Should we talk about participation (what Erik alluded to earlier). That's what we've been talking about most in the office this week.
[18:36:34] <WereSpielChqrs> I'm not involved in the UK chapter, but they usually have someon at the London meetup. However my experience of UK charity fundraising is that everyone now has the "tick this box if you are a UK tax payer so we can get an extra 28% off the taxman" Wealso have a Payroll giving system like the Dutch.
[18:36:42] <WittyLama> and in sweden there is no such concept as a "charity" as we understand it in the US/Australia etc.
[18:36:51] <Ziko> participation, right :-)
[18:37:06] <sgardner> Yeah. There are payroll giving systems in Canada and the US too -- mostly employer-run programs, sometimes administered by organizations like the United Way.
[18:38:05] <aude> The federal gov in us has charity contributions program for employees
[18:38:24] <sgardner> But one thing we should bear in mind is that we have a terrific mechanism for reaching donors (the sitenotice, because we have 400 million readers). For many other charities, 'awareness' is a real challenge: that is part of why they focus on employee giving programs and the like. It's not because employee giving programs are particularly effective at fundraising, it's because it gets the non-profit in front of donors. Getting in front of dono
[18:38:24] <sgardner> rs is not a problem that we have, thankfully.
[18:38:37] <sgardner> Aude: yes.
[18:38:39] <aude> It starts soon and through end of dec but not sure how charities get in
[18:38:46] <sgardner> I think we are part of that.
[18:39:12] <sgardner> There was a bunch of bureaucracy 'qualifying,' but I think we jumped through the hoops, if it's the same program I'm thinking of.
[18:39:21] <aude> Good
[18:40:09] <sgardner> All that stuff is a cost-benefit analysis. Essentially, we want to maximize contributions -- and the best mechanism for that is the fundraiser on-wiki. The other stuff is ancillary for us.
[18:40:28] <sgardner> Helpful, but not essential in the same way that it would be if we had no other way to reach donors.
[18:40:38] <ChristineM> is that the CFC (combined federal campaign)? If so, I don't think we're part of it this year, although we've been in years past
[18:40:59] <ChristineM> (i'm not on the fundraising team, but i'm working around with them)
[18:41:06] <sgardner> It's like advertising: we used to have fundraising firms advising us to buy ads on the nytimes.com and so forth. And it was just clearly unnecessary for us. Made sense for other non-profits, but we didn't need to do it.
[18:41:24] <sgardner> Yeah Christine, that's what I was talking about -- the CFC.
[18:41:30] <aude> ChristineM: Yes, would be good to be part of it again but understand if bureaucracy is high
[18:41:37] <sgardner> (And hello! and hello Liam!)
[18:41:45] <sgardner> Do we want to talk about participation?
[18:41:48] <geniice> QUESTION what do you see at the headcount of the WMF in 5 years time?
[18:41:55] <StevenW> You can get a charity list from the CFC. That would be the best way to check without having Philippe or someone here to ask.
[18:41:59] <ChristineM> I don't know the particulars of why we're not doing CFC this year… the only reason I know is because i've read through ALL of the OTRS responses and that was one of them :)
[18:42:08] <Amgine_> sgardner: That is a generalization. Bannerads on WMF projects do not reach the same market as NYT. Could that market be valuable to WMF?
[18:42:23] <ChristineM> and hi Sue :) it was good to finally meet you on Monday :)
[18:42:26] <sgardner> :-)
[18:42:28] <sgardner> Hi Amgine.
[18:42:40] <Amgine_> <waves>
[18:42:44] <ChristineM> (i blame Philippe. He *thought* he'd done the introduction. Boys.)
[18:43:21] <sgardner> The thing is, our readership is much much higher than that of the NYTimes, and our readership is already pre-disposed to like us and want to help us. The NYTimes readership presumably is (at least somewhat) less likely to want to help us.
[18:43:45] <Amgine_> Our readership is much higher. What is our rate of charitable donation per reader? Higher?
[18:43:57] <sgardner> Relative to what?
[18:44:00] <StevenW> geniice: Sue wants to answer Amgine for a second. But we'll get to your question for sure.
[18:44:09] <sgardner> The rate of charitable donation for NY Times readers?
[18:44:10] <WittyLama> relative to the NYTimes I believe
[18:44:16] <Amgine_> Sorry, jumped queue. <blush>
[18:44:27] <sgardner> Do you mean, are the New York Times readers more inclined to support non-profits, than our readers?
[18:44:31] <sgardner> It's okay :-)
[18:44:33] <aude> hi WittyLama :)
[18:44:42] <sgardner> We're staying on the same topic, it's okay :-)
[18:45:19] <Amgine_> I mean, NYT readers have been known to drop large donations. I believe the WMF donation mean is pretty low; would it be profitable to run a NYT ad? I don't know.
[18:45:23] <sgardner> My guess (and it's a guess) is that yes, the NY Times readers are more likely to give to charity. Because they would be older, more affluent, and more American than our readers.
[18:45:53] <sgardner> But OTOH our readers love us. And there's tons of potential there, encouraging them to help us.
[18:46:03] <sgardner> Hey, have you guys been following the reader ratings experiment?
[18:46:06] <Theo10011_> maybe more East coast based too
[18:46:38] <Amgine_> The point is, it's not either/or; if the NYT ad would be good, why not do it *as well*?
[18:46:50] <sgardner> It's really interesting. Essentially: the readers who have been rating articles in our experiments thus far, tend to be really really 'high graders' -- basically, they rate most articles very highly.
[18:47:18] <sgardner> They are much more positive than we are, about the articles. (Does that make sense? Tell me if that doesn't make sense.)
[18:47:29] <Eloquence> Amgine_: we did an NYT (website) test ad, it didn't pay for itself
[18:47:51] <sgardner> That tells me that they love us. Which is interesting, and suggests their is lots more room to grow their giving. Here's a little thing I said to Erik the other day.
[18:47:52] <Eloquence> we're going to continue to experiment in that area, though
[18:49:07] <sgardner> I listen to public broadcasting all the time. But I don't always listen 'warmly' -- I don't necessarily love it. I listen critically, and sometimes unhappily, because I feel like it's the best choice on the dial -- not necessarily because I think it's very good. I have wondered how people feel about their Wikipedia usage -- do they use us unhappily, or happily. And the reader ratings seem to suggest that they use us happily.
[18:49:53] <Amgine_> Thanks Xirzon.
[18:49:58] <sgardner> It's early days, scanty data. But it seems to suggest that people don't just 'tolerate' Wikipedia, because it's the least-bad option. They actually seem to like it, and think it's good. Which is particularly interesting in a context where 'authority figures' have tended to warn people against it.
[18:50:03] <WittyLama> I'm not sure that the editors rating our articles highly correlates with them being potential donors. But it does say that we are more critical about ourselves than the anonymous reader is. Possibly a case for educating the wider readership about what constitutes good quality content according to our own standards.
[18:50:04] <StevenW> Post about the article feedback pilot: http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/22/article-feedback-pilot-goes-live/
[18:50:13] <Ziko> esploring about traditional encyclopedias, i am more and more asking myself what users are using wp for
[18:51:00] <sgardner> WittyLama you are so lovely! I love that you are saying 'they love us, which means we need to tell them why they shouldn't'!!
[18:51:03] <sgardner> I say that warmly.
[18:51:07] <sgardner> It's very Wikipedian :-)
[18:51:14] <Ziko> they say "pupils love wp", but don't they only love us because we are useful for homework
[18:51:31] <sgardner> That's not a bad reason, Ziko :-)
[18:51:41] <ChristineM> love comes in many forms :)
[18:51:51] <Ziko> and we see the page views dropping in the sommer monts
[18:51:53] <sgardner> Hey, didn't you have a good blog post yesterday? I am trying to remember what it was about, because I think it had some relevance here.
[18:51:57] <Ziko> months
[18:52:04] <StevenW> Absolutely.
[18:52:04] <WittyLama> sgardner: you said so yourself! http://suegardner.org/2010/10/07/people-trust-wikipedia-because-we-tell-them-not-to/
[18:52:10] <StevenW> :)
[18:52:11] <sgardner> Ha! Busted :-)
[18:52:26] <sgardner> No, it's true. The fact that Wikipedians are modest is lovely.
[18:52:43] <Ziko> "it's just an encyclopedia"
[18:52:56] <Theo10011_> we are consummate professionals
[18:52:56] <StevenW> So we want to get to geniice's question, about where Sue sees the headcount of the WMF (staff) being in five years.
[18:52:56] <sgardner> Hey -- going back to Geni. Geni had asked what do we see the headcount of the Wikimedia Foundation being, in five years.
[18:53:12] <sgardner> You ARE consummate professionals :-)
[18:53:15] <sgardner> So headcount.
[18:53:27] <Eloquence> sgardner: stop it with the us/them, you have plenty of edits yourself by now :)
[18:53:34] <sgardner> :-)
[18:53:55] <sgardner> Geni, StevenW is looking for the number from the strategy plan.
[18:54:10] <sgardner> Which created some very loose predictions -- really just ballparks.
[18:54:52] <sgardner> It isn't something we are going to hold ourselves too though -- it was just intended to be a kind of 'order of magnitude' ballpark. Saying in effect -- we will not have 1,000 staff, nor will we have 50 staff.
[18:56:31] <StevenW> Here's the projection from the strategy plan http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Staffing.png
[18:57:08] <StevenW> And the general strategy page about the role of the WMF is http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Role_of_the_WMF
[18:57:19] <sgardner> So the strategy plan calls for 188 FTEs total. (FTEs = full-time equivalents --- it's HR jargon)
[18:57:35] <Eloquence> as a comparison, Mozilla Corporation has 250+ staff
[18:57:59] <StevenW> Not mention the other top ten websites.
[18:58:00] <sgardner> But that's a ballpark. It was developed by imagining the number of people who might reasonably be required to do the work we have ahead of us, so it is not pulled from thin air. But it's also likely to change over time. It's what we imagine today.
[18:58:24] <KFP> I see there's a big jump from this year to the next?
[18:58:40] <sgardner> For clarity -- I'm sure you all know this. Every year I prepare an annual plan for the board of trustees, which they approve. The annual plan includes headcount for that year.
[18:58:47] <StevenW> The 2010-11 plan has details on hiring goals for that time period. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2010-2011_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers
[18:59:08] <cimon> One problem, btw, with targeted fundraising is, is the media can bite us on the ass, if one such doesn't really deliver
[18:59:25] <sgardner> From the 2010-11 plan: We plan to hire 44 people. See the Appendix in the 2010-11 annual plan for a listing of all positions and the expected hiring timing. Please be aware that some titles and timing will change, and we may end up hiring fewer than 44 people.
[18:59:29] <aude> sgardner: What about distributing some of this work to chapters? And FTEs?
[19:00:04] <sgardner> Oh gosh Aude -- we are presupposing that the chapters will do LOTS of work. And hire their own FTEs. I'm assuming that will happen, and frankly some of the Foundation's planning is predicated on that assumption.
[19:00:22] <aude> Or where do chapters fit in?
[19:00:28] <sgardner> If the chapters do NOT hire and do stuff, that would be a problem, because it would inhibit the entire movement's effectiveness.
[19:00:44] <Qcoder00> Speaking of FTE's... Was there any plan to havet FTE's whose role was essentially counter-censor?
[19:00:50] <Qcoder00> *have
[19:01:16] <StevenW> We need to wrap up.
[19:01:31] <sgardner> I think the strategy plan outlines some of what we expect the chapters to do. Personally, I hope/expect they focus on outreach, recruitment of new editors, mentoring and support of new editors -- that kind of thing. Also partnership work, like what Mathias and Liam are doing.
[19:01:32] * guillom wraps up StevenW.
[19:01:38] <StevenW> :)
[19:01:39] <StevenW> haha
[19:01:47] <WittyLama> Personally I hope to see the WMF using these new hires to help develop the capacity of the Chapters to undertake the work - so the WMF doesn't pull further and further away in front in terms of organisational capacity.
[19:01:48] <Eloquence> aude: Chapters are a _BIG_ topic that I think we should have a dedicated office hour for at some point.
[19:01:50] <cimon> It is cold out there, so wrap up
[19:01:56] <StevenW> It is!
[19:02:03] <sgardner> Sorry we didn't get to everything. yes, I would love to have an office hours on chapters. Let's maybe do that next!
[19:02:13] <StevenW> Thanks for coming everyone, this was productive.
[19:02:14] <sgardner> Sorry -- normally I would stay a little over time, but I have James waiting for me today.
[19:02:22] <StevenW> I'll post the logs soon too.
[19:02:22] <aude> Eloquence: sgardner sounds good for future topic
[19:02:25] <sgardner> He is sick, so I want to get him whatever he needs, so he can go home.
[19:02:32] <Qcoder00> sgardner: I'd also like to request an 'office hours' session in realtion to wiki-broadcasting
[19:02:43] <Qcoder00> which was what one of my questions related to
[19:02:53] <sgardner> Sure Qcoder00 -- can you write some stuff on the IRC page so I get the full scope of what you want to talk about?
[19:02:54] <Qcoder00> *relation
[19:03:04] <Qcoder00> Well...
[19:03:11] <sgardner> I am happy to talk about NPR/PBS/BBC etc., and it'd be great if you said more about what's interesting you there :-)
[19:03:12] <Qcoder00> I'll leave a note on the talk page at some point
[19:03:19] <sgardner> Perfect, thanks.
[19:03:43] <sgardner> Thank you all -- see you next time. I have a couple of blog comments and approvals and suchlike to get to, related to some of you here -- I'll try to do it today :-)
[19:03:45] <Theo10011_> Thanks Sue
[19:03:48] <aude> Thanks sgardner for spending hour w/ us
[19:03:56] <sgardner> It's a pleasure. Bye bye :-)