[Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Nicole Ebber
Dear Wikimedians,

Following up on Katherine’s email from last week[1], we are today
opening the call for Working Group members for 9 Thematic Areas (yes,
we added one more!).

== Working Group members ==
The Working Groups will map the present situation of their Thematic
Area, the obstacles and opportunities, as well as needed changes to
advance our movement in our strategic direction. They will identify
possible strategies for making these changes and develop concrete
recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement
them.[2]

Working Group members will need to be able to invest a minimum of 5
hours per week, but that time might vary depending on the workflow
that each group agrees upon. Members of the Working Groups are
expected to act in the interest of the movement, not in the interest
of their own organization or community.

== Selection of members ==
We are looking for a maximum of 15 members for each of the 9 groups.
For best results we will need a diverse set of members from across the
movement. We have developed a set of criteria, to ensure the necessary
expertise, diversity, and representation.[3] We will assemble a
Steering Committee to decide upon membership of the Working Groups in
close coordination with the Core Strategy Team.[4]

== Apply to become a working group member ==
We encourage everyone with an interest in the strategic conversations
to apply for becoming a Working Group member in their topic of
expertise. We recommend that movement organizations and groups create
internal processes for the selection of their candidates to avoid
multiple, competing applications.

The call will be open until June 25, 2018. ***Please apply via this
application form.[5]*** To prepare your application, you can consult
the overview of the questions asked in the form on Meta.[6]

== Next steps ==
We expect to be able to announce the Working Group members in the
second week of July, so that the working groups can be assembled,
onboarded and ready to start working before Wikimania. The first step
for the groups will be to agree upon their set-up and scope of work.
At Wikimania, we plan to convene the attending Working Group members
in the Strategy Space to discuss and refine their road to the
recommendations and ensure exchange between the groups.[7]

We invite you all to familiarize yourselves with the existing
documentation of the Working Group(s) of your interest,[8] add
comments, additional input or share your concerns via talk pages Your
comments will be then be taken into consideration by the respective
Working Groups.

We are looking forward to working and having these long-awaited
conversations with many of you!

In the name of the Strategy Core Team,
Nicole

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-June/090417.html
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Who_should_join_the_Working_Groups?
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Steering_Committee
[5] https://goo.gl/forms/zVElm0hLT9eZvqwF3
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply/Form
[7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_is_the_timeline_for_Working_Groups?
[8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_are_the_key_thematic_areas?

--
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Wikimedia Movement Strategy Process Lead
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Pine W
Hi Nicole,

Generally I like how the groups are organized. I have a few questions and
comments.

1. The Product & Technology working group seems like it has a large scope
for a single group. Also, the people who are in that working group will
probably want to sync with TechCom and with the "Platform Evolution"
initiative. Have you considered dividing this group's responsibilities into
two (or more) groups, and how to synchronize this group's work with TechCom
and the Platform Evolution initiative?

2. It appears that Working Groups page asks for members of the groups to
commit to a minimum of five hours per week for nine months. That seems to
be a very high commitment to ask from volunteers, especially when people
would be adding their WG activities on top of their existing
responsibilities and/or de-prioritize other valuable Wikimedia activities
in favor of WG activity. Also, if I estimate 10 members per group times 9
groups times 5 hours per week times 39 weeks, then that means that the WG
activities would consume 17,550 volunteer hours, which seems excessive. I
suggest that you reduce the commitment that you request to an average of
one hour per week per person, which would likely result in more people
being willing to volunteer and reduce the diversion of people's time from
other valuable activities, and that you accordingly make any necessary
adjustments to plans for paid staff to support the WGs.

3. Has the budget for the 2nd phase of the strategy process been published?
I am not asking for a promise that the process will cost a fixed amount,
but I would hope to see detailed cost estimates and explanations of how
estimates were made.

Thanks!

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Following up on Katherine’s email from last week[1], we are today
> opening the call for Working Group members for 9 Thematic Areas (yes,
> we added one more!).
>
> == Working Group members ==
> The Working Groups will map the present situation of their Thematic
> Area, the obstacles and opportunities, as well as needed changes to
> advance our movement in our strategic direction. They will identify
> possible strategies for making these changes and develop concrete
> recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement
> them.[2]
>
> Working Group members will need to be able to invest a minimum of 5
> hours per week, but that time might vary depending on the workflow
> that each group agrees upon. Members of the Working Groups are
> expected to act in the interest of the movement, not in the interest
> of their own organization or community.
>
> == Selection of members ==
> We are looking for a maximum of 15 members for each of the 9 groups.
> For best results we will need a diverse set of members from across the
> movement. We have developed a set of criteria, to ensure the necessary
> expertise, diversity, and representation.[3] We will assemble a
> Steering Committee to decide upon membership of the Working Groups in
> close coordination with the Core Strategy Team.[4]
>
> == Apply to become a working group member ==
> We encourage everyone with an interest in the strategic conversations
> to apply for becoming a Working Group member in their topic of
> expertise. We recommend that movement organizations and groups create
> internal processes for the selection of their candidates to avoid
> multiple, competing applications.
>
> The call will be open until June 25, 2018. ***Please apply via this
> application form.[5]*** To prepare your application, you can consult
> the overview of the questions asked in the form on Meta.[6]
>
> == Next steps ==
> We expect to be able to announce the Working Group members in the
> second week of July, so that the working groups can be assembled,
> onboarded and ready to start working before Wikimania. The first step
> for the groups will be to agree upon their set-up and scope of work.
> At Wikimania, we plan to convene the attending Working Group members
> in the Strategy Space to discuss and refine their road to the
> recommendations and ensure exchange between the groups.[7]
>
> We invite you all to familiarize yourselves with the existing
> documentation of the Working Group(s) of your interest,[8] add
> comments, additional input or share your concerns via talk pages Your
> comments will be then be taken into consideration by the respective
> Working Groups.
>
> We are looking forward to working and having these long-awaited
> conversations with many of you!
>
> In the name of the Strategy Core Team,
> Nicole
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-
> June/090417.html
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Who_should_join_the_Working_Groups?
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Steering_Committee
> [5] https://goo.gl/forms/zVElm0hLT9eZvqwF3
> [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply/Form
> [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_is_the_timeline_for_Working_Groups?
> [8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_are_the_key_thematic_areas?
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy Process Lead
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Lodewijk
The number of hours (a minimum of 5 hours, each week) is indeed very
significant - especially as a minimum per week (which means that the
average will more likely end up around 8-12 hours?). I understand that a
significant commitment is necessary (an average of 1 as suggested by Pine
will unlikely produce anything more than a few mailing list discussions,
I'm afraid).

Just to set expectations clearly: I read that the grants department is
scaling back their community facing activities (and I guess also other
activities) to free up time to work on the strategy. I read that the FDC is
'skipping' a round to do the same. Is this the general expectation for
other volunteers as well?

This is probably all a conscious choice - but I'm afraid it will
self-select for a certain type of participants that can make a 9 month
commitment for such a time investment. I'm guessing you already considered
having working groups with tiers - where you have some people with a large
time commitment, and some people with a more reasonable commitment? That
may have helped in diversification.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Nicole,
>
> Generally I like how the groups are organized. I have a few questions and
> comments.
>
> 1. The Product & Technology working group seems like it has a large scope
> for a single group. Also, the people who are in that working group will
> probably want to sync with TechCom and with the "Platform Evolution"
> initiative. Have you considered dividing this group's responsibilities into
> two (or more) groups, and how to synchronize this group's work with TechCom
> and the Platform Evolution initiative?
>
> 2. It appears that Working Groups page asks for members of the groups to
> commit to a minimum of five hours per week for nine months. That seems to
> be a very high commitment to ask from volunteers, especially when people
> would be adding their WG activities on top of their existing
> responsibilities and/or de-prioritize other valuable Wikimedia activities
> in favor of WG activity. Also, if I estimate 10 members per group times 9
> groups times 5 hours per week times 39 weeks, then that means that the WG
> activities would consume 17,550 volunteer hours, which seems excessive. I
> suggest that you reduce the commitment that you request to an average of
> one hour per week per person, which would likely result in more people
> being willing to volunteer and reduce the diversion of people's time from
> other valuable activities, and that you accordingly make any necessary
> adjustments to plans for paid staff to support the WGs.
>
> 3. Has the budget for the 2nd phase of the strategy process been published?
> I am not asking for a promise that the process will cost a fixed amount,
> but I would hope to see detailed cost estimates and explanations of how
> estimates were made.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > Following up on Katherine’s email from last week[1], we are today
> > opening the call for Working Group members for 9 Thematic Areas (yes,
> > we added one more!).
> >
> > == Working Group members ==
> > The Working Groups will map the present situation of their Thematic
> > Area, the obstacles and opportunities, as well as needed changes to
> > advance our movement in our strategic direction. They will identify
> > possible strategies for making these changes and develop concrete
> > recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement
> > them.[2]
> >
> > Working Group members will need to be able to invest a minimum of 5
> > hours per week, but that time might vary depending on the workflow
> > that each group agrees upon. Members of the Working Groups are
> > expected to act in the interest of the movement, not in the interest
> > of their own organization or community.
> >
> > == Selection of members ==
> > We are looking for a maximum of 15 members for each of the 9 groups.
> > For best results we will need a diverse set of members from across the
> > movement. We have developed a set of criteria, to ensure the necessary
> > expertise, diversity, and representation.[3] We will assemble a
> > Steering Committee to decide upon membership of the Working Groups in
> > close coordination with the Core Strategy Team.[4]
> >
> > == Apply to become a working group member ==
> > We encourage everyone with an interest in the strategic conversations
> > to apply for becoming a Working Group member in their topic of
> > expertise. We recommend that movement organizations and groups create
> > internal processes for the selection of their candidates to avoid
> > multiple, competing applications.
> >
> > The call will be open until June 25, 2018. ***Please apply via this
> > application form.[5]*** To prepare your application, you can consult
> > the overview of the questions asked in the form on Meta.[6]
> >
> > == Next steps ==
> > We expect to be able to announce the Working Group members in the
> > second week of July, so that the working groups can be assembled,
> > onboarded and ready to start working before Wikimania. The first step
> > for the groups will be to agree upon their set-up and scope of work.
> > At Wikimania, we plan to convene the attending Working Group members
> > in the Strategy Space to discuss and refine their road to the
> > recommendations and ensure exchange between the groups.[7]
> >
> > We invite you all to familiarize yourselves with the existing
> > documentation of the Working Group(s) of your interest,[8] add
> > comments, additional input or share your concerns via talk pages Your
> > comments will be then be taken into consideration by the respective
> > Working Groups.
> >
> > We are looking forward to working and having these long-awaited
> > conversations with many of you!
> >
> > In the name of the Strategy Core Team,
> > Nicole
> >
> > [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-
> > June/090417.html
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
> > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Who_should_join_the_Working_Groups?
> > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Steering_Committee
> > [5] https://goo.gl/forms/zVElm0hLT9eZvqwF3
> > [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply/Form
> > [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_is_the_timeline_for_Working_Groups?
> > [8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_are_the_key_thematic_areas?
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Wikimedia Movement Strategy Process Lead
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > http://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Kaarel Vaidla-2
 Dear Pine and Lodewijk,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment
on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.

The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to
keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product
group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.

We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and
preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa.
This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
throughout the process.

For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is
the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities, groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups, the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic
planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization
or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their contributions.

Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in the
Working Groups.

Have a great continuation to the week!
Kaarel

---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
> Date: 2018-06-13 14:57 GMT-07:00
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group
> members
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>
>
> The number of hours (a minimum of 5 hours, each week) is indeed very
> significant - especially as a minimum per week (which means that the
> average will more likely end up around 8-12 hours?). I understand that a
> significant commitment is necessary (an average of 1 as suggested by Pine
> will unlikely produce anything more than a few mailing list discussions,
> I'm afraid).
>
> Just to set expectations clearly: I read that the grants department is
> scaling back their community facing activities (and I guess also other
> activities) to free up time to work on the strategy. I read that the FDC is
> 'skipping' a round to do the same. Is this the general expectation for
> other volunteers as well?
>
> This is probably all a conscious choice - but I'm afraid it will
> self-select for a certain type of participants that can make a 9 month
> commitment for such a time investment. I'm guessing you already considered
> having working groups with tiers - where you have some people with a large
> time commitment, and some people with a more reasonable commitment? That
> may have helped in diversification.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Nicole,
> >
> > Generally I like how the groups are organized. I have a few questions and
> > comments.
> >
> > 1. The Product & Technology working group seems like it has a large scope
> > for a single group. Also, the people who are in that working group will
> > probably want to sync with TechCom and with the "Platform Evolution"
> > initiative. Have you considered dividing this group's responsibilities
> into
> > two (or more) groups, and how to synchronize this group's work with
> TechCom
> > and the Platform Evolution initiative?
> >
> > 2. It appears that Working Groups page asks for members of the groups to
> > commit to a minimum of five hours per week for nine months. That seems to
> > be a very high commitment to ask from volunteers, especially when people
> > would be adding their WG activities on top of their existing
> > responsibilities and/or de-prioritize other valuable Wikimedia activities
> > in favor of WG activity. Also, if I estimate 10 members per group times 9
> > groups times 5 hours per week times 39 weeks, then that means that the WG
> > activities would consume 17,550 volunteer hours, which seems excessive. I
> > suggest that you reduce the commitment that you request to an average of
> > one hour per week per person, which would likely result in more people
> > being willing to volunteer and reduce the diversion of people's time from
> > other valuable activities, and that you accordingly make any necessary
> > adjustments to plans for paid staff to support the WGs.
> >
> > 3. Has the budget for the 2nd phase of the strategy process been
> published?
> > I am not asking for a promise that the process will cost a fixed amount,
> > but I would hope to see detailed cost estimates and explanations of how
> > estimates were made.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > Following up on Katherine’s email from last week[1], we are today
> > > opening the call for Working Group members for 9 Thematic Areas (yes,
> > > we added one more!).
> > >
> > > == Working Group members ==
> > > The Working Groups will map the present situation of their Thematic
> > > Area, the obstacles and opportunities, as well as needed changes to
> > > advance our movement in our strategic direction. They will identify
> > > possible strategies for making these changes and develop concrete
> > > recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement
> > > them.[2]
> > >
> > > Working Group members will need to be able to invest a minimum of 5
> > > hours per week, but that time might vary depending on the workflow
> > > that each group agrees upon. Members of the Working Groups are
> > > expected to act in the interest of the movement, not in the interest
> > > of their own organization or community.
> > >
> > > == Selection of members ==
> > > We are looking for a maximum of 15 members for each of the 9 groups.
> > > For best results we will need a diverse set of members from across the
> > > movement. We have developed a set of criteria, to ensure the necessary
> > > expertise, diversity, and representation.[3] We will assemble a
> > > Steering Committee to decide upon membership of the Working Groups in
> > > close coordination with the Core Strategy Team.[4]
> > >
> > > == Apply to become a working group member ==
> > > We encourage everyone with an interest in the strategic conversations
> > > to apply for becoming a Working Group member in their topic of
> > > expertise. We recommend that movement organizations and groups create
> > > internal processes for the selection of their candidates to avoid
> > > multiple, competing applications.
> > >
> > > The call will be open until June 25, 2018. ***Please apply via this
> > > application form.[5]*** To prepare your application, you can consult
> > > the overview of the questions asked in the form on Meta.[6]
> > >
> > > == Next steps ==
> > > We expect to be able to announce the Working Group members in the
> > > second week of July, so that the working groups can be assembled,
> > > onboarded and ready to start working before Wikimania. The first step
> > > for the groups will be to agree upon their set-up and scope of work.
> > > At Wikimania, we plan to convene the attending Working Group members
> > > in the Strategy Space to discuss and refine their road to the
> > > recommendations and ensure exchange between the groups.[7]
> > >
> > > We invite you all to familiarize yourselves with the existing
> > > documentation of the Working Group(s) of your interest,[8] add
> > > comments, additional input or share your concerns via talk pages Your
> > > comments will be then be taken into consideration by the respective
> > > Working Groups.
> > >
> > > We are looking forward to working and having these long-awaited
> > > conversations with many of you!
> > >
> > > In the name of the Strategy Core Team,
> > > Nicole
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-
> > > June/090417.html
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
> > > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Who_should_join_the_Working_Groups?
> > > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Steering_Committee
> > > [5] https://goo.gl/forms/zVElm0hLT9eZvqwF3
> > > [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply/Form
> > > [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > >
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_is_the_timeline_for_Working_Groups?
> > > [8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_are_the_key_thematic_areas?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nicole Ebber
> > > Adviser International Relations
> > > Wikimedia Movement Strategy Process Lead
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > http://wikimedia.de
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>

--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Pine W
Hi Kaarel,

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
>
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment
> on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
>
> The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to
> keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much time
> being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product
> group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting them
> than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
>

I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers
who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and
could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share, here
or on the talk page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology>,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how
you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of
effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk
page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good
to get clarity on these issues early in the process.



>
> We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we would
> like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and
> preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to go
> to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from the
> Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa.
> This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working Group
> dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> throughout the process.
>

I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that
they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they
will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.


>
> For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is
> the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities, groups,
> collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best representatives
> of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups, the
> coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic
> planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization
> or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
> they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their contributions.
>

Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people
participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you
are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their
own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am
likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good
intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you
would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
requests for volunteers' time was more modest.


>
> Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity around
> the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in the
> Working Groups.
>


Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
encourage you to revise them.

Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the
strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF
made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other
strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Lodewijk
I don't like to steal Kaarel's thunder here, but he actually changed the
number of hours from minimum 5 per week to average 5 per week (which is a
significant improvement):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups&curid=10598095&diff=18129628&oldid=18125168


Probably good to know. Thanks Kaarel & Nicole.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Kaarel,
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment
> > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
> >
> > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to
> > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
> time
> > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product
> > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
> them
> > than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
> >
>
> I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers
> who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
> the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and
> could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
> could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share, here
> or on the talk page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
> >,
> your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
> best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how
> you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
> Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of
> effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk
> page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good
> to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>
>
>
> >
> > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
> would
> > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and
> > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
> go
> > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
> the
> > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa.
> > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
> Group
> > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> > throughout the process.
> >
>
> I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that
> they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they
> will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
> willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
> activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
> diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
> significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>
>
> >
> > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is
> > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
> groups,
> > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
> representatives
> > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
> the
> > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic
> > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization
> > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
> > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
> contributions.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people
> participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you
> are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their
> own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am
> likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good
> intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you
> would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
> requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>
>
> >
> > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
> around
> > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
> the
> > Working Groups.
> >
>
>
> Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
> encourage you to revise them.
>
> Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the
> strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF
> made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other
> strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Pine W
While that's a good step to see, I think that an average of five hours per
week for nine months is still a lot to ask, and is not something that I'm
likely to recommend to most people.

However, I have the impression that WMF is trying to involve the community
in this in a significant way, and I appreciate the good intentions.

In this case, the good intentions and the practical realities are difficult
to reconcile. I doubt that there is a perfect solution. If I was in WMF's
position I would be thinking carefully about what mix of staff time and
volunteer time would be best.

If WMF was asking people to volunteer for an average of five hours per week
for one month, I would view that differently than asking people for an
average of five hours per week for nine months. For the latter, I doubt
that there will be many volunteers, and I think that attrition would be a
significant concern.

There aren't a lot of great options here, unfortunately. If requesting an
average of five hours per week for nine months is necessary, then I think
that compensating the participants for their time should be considered. I
wouldn't apply myself, but I think that it's unreasonable to ask people to
do so much work for free. I realize that a few selfless people on the
English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, Wikimania volunteers, and others
put in this kind of commitment and are not paid, but I think that such a
high level of sacrifice is unrealistic to ask of most people.


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I don't like to steal Kaarel's thunder here, but he actually changed the
> number of hours from minimum 5 per week to average 5 per week (which is a
> significant improvement):
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/
> Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups&curid=10598095&
> diff=18129628&oldid=18125168
>
>
> Probably good to know. Thanks Kaarel & Nicole.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kaarel,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
> comment
> > > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
> > >
> > > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly
> to
> > > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
> > time
> > > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
> Product
> > > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
> > them
> > > than separating people with expertise and connections within both
> areas.
> > >
> >
> > I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
> engineers
> > who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
> > the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
> and
> > could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
> > could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share,
> here
> > or on the talk page
> > <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
> > >,
> > your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
> > best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain
> how
> > you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
> > Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication
> of
> > effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
> talk
> > page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
> good
> > to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
> > would
> > > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> > > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> > > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research
> and
> > > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
> > go
> > > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
> > the
> > > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
> versa.
> > > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
> > Group
> > > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> > > throughout the process.
> > >
> >
> > I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
> that
> > they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
> they
> > will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
> > willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
> > activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
> > diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
> > significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That
> is
> > > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
> > groups,
> > > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
> > representatives
> > > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
> > the
> > > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
> strategic
> > > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
> organization
> > > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
> > > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
> > contributions.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
> people
> > participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you
> > are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their
> > own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am
> > likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
> good
> > intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you
> > would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
> > requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
> > around
> > > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
> > the
> > > Working Groups.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
> > encourage you to revise them.
> >
> > Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
> the
> > strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF
> > made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other
> > strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
> >
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Kaarel Vaidla-2
In reply to this post by Pine W
Dear Pine,

Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a
product without technology and technology is developed according to our
product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the
discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each
other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation
Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group
conversations.

The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss
it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want
everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also
need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful
conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language
to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has
already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.

It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working
time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5
hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with
the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the
workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will
be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and
perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.

Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been
forwarded to the relevant people.

Have a good continuation to your week!
Kaarel

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Kaarel,
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment
> > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
> >
> > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to
> > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
> time
> > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product
> > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
> them
> > than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
> >
>
> I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers
> who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
> the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and
> could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
> could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share, here
> or on the talk page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
> >,
> your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
> best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how
> you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
> Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of
> effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk
> page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good
> to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>
>
>
> >
> > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
> would
> > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and
> > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
> go
> > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
> the
> > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa.
> > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
> Group
> > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> > throughout the process.
> >
>
> I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that
> they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they
> will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
> willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
> activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
> diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
> significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>
>
> >
> > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is
> > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
> groups,
> > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
> representatives
> > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
> the
> > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic
> > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization
> > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
> > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
> contributions.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people
> participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you
> are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their
> own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am
> likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good
> intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you
> would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
> requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>
>
> >
> > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
> around
> > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
> the
> > Working Groups.
> >
>
>
> Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
> encourage you to revise them.
>
> Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the
> strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF
> made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other
> strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Pine W
Hi Kaarel,
Thank you for following up.
Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps on the talk page of the WG.
I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts meeting next week.
Thank you for your responsiveness to input.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

-------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]> Date: 6/18/18  1:34 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group
  members
Dear Pine,

Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a
product without technology and technology is developed according to our
product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the
discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each
other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation
Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group
conversations.

The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss
it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want
everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also
need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful
conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language
to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has
already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.

It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working
time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5
hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with
the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the
workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will
be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and
perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.

Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been
forwarded to the relevant people.

Have a good continuation to your week!
Kaarel

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Kaarel,
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment
> > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
> >
> > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to
> > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
> time
> > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product
> > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
> them
> > than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
> >
>
> I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers
> who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
> the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and
> could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
> could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share, here
> or on the talk page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
> >,
> your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
> best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how
> you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
> Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of
> effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk
> page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good
> to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>
>
>
> >
> > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
> would
> > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and
> > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
> go
> > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
> the
> > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa.
> > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
> Group
> > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> > throughout the process.
> >
>
> I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that
> they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they
> will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
> willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
> activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
> diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
> significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>
>
> >
> > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is
> > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
> groups,
> > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
> representatives
> > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
> the
> > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic
> > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization
> > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
> > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
> contributions.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people
> participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you
> are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their
> own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am
> likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good
> intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you
> would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
> requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>
>
> >
> > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
> around
> > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
> the
> > Working Groups.
> >
>
>
> Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
> encourage you to revise them.
>
> Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the
> strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF
> made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other
> strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Kaarel Vaidla-2
*Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities
there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups
and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of
applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week,
new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A
sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I
am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the
offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to
those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply>[2]
https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
<https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n>*

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Kaarel,
> Thank you for following up.
> Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely
> interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of
> responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG
> with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would
> like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps
> on the talk page of the WG.
> I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to
> the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts
> meeting next week.
> Thank you for your responsiveness to input.
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> -------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla <
> [hidden email]> Date: 6/18/18  1:34 PM  (GMT-08:00) To:
> [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement
> Strategy: Open Call for Working Group
>         members
> Dear Pine,
>
> Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a
> product without technology and technology is developed according to our
> product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the
> discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each
> other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation
> Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group
> conversations.
>
> The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss
> it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want
> everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also
> need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful
> conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language
> to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has
> already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
>
> It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working
> time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5
> hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with
> the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the
> workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will
> be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and
> perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
>
> Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been
> forwarded to the relevant people.
>
> Have a good continuation to your week!
> Kaarel
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kaarel,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
> comment
> > > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
> > >
> > > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly
> to
> > > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
> > time
> > > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
> Product
> > > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
> > them
> > > than separating people with expertise and connections within both
> areas.
> > >
> >
> > I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
> engineers
> > who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
> > the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
> and
> > could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
> > could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share,
> here
> > or on the talk page
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
> > >,
> > your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
> > best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain
> how
> > you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
> > Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication
> of
> > effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
> talk
> > page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
> good
> > to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
> > would
> > > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> > > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> > > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research
> and
> > > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
> > go
> > > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
> > the
> > > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
> versa.
> > > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
> > Group
> > > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> > > throughout the process.
> > >
> >
> > I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
> that
> > they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
> they
> > will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
> > willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
> > activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
> > diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
> > significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That
> is
> > > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
> > groups,
> > > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
> > representatives
> > > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
> > the
> > > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
> strategic
> > > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
> organization
> > > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
> > > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
> > contributions.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
> people
> > participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you
> > are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their
> > own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am
> > likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
> good
> > intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you
> > would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
> > requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
> > around
> > > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
> > the
> > > Working Groups.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
> > encourage you to revise them.
> >
> > Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
> the
> > strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF
> > made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other
> > strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
> >
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> *Kaarel Vaidla*
> Process Architect for
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> 2030.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Kaarel Vaidla-2
(reposting update for readability, as something went wrong with formatting
last time)

Dear Wikimedians,

As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing
discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need
to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are
extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being
*July 2, 2018*.

I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement
Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link
with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week
on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.

Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!
Kaarel

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
[2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n


On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> *Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities
> there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups
> and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of
> applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week,
> new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A
> sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I
> am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the
> offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to
> those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply>[2]
> https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
> <https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n>*
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kaarel,
>> Thank you for following up.
>> Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely
>> interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of
>> responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG
>> with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would
>> like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps
>> on the talk page of the WG.
>> I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to
>> the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts
>> meeting next week.
>> Thank you for your responsiveness to input.
>> Pine
>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>
>> -------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla <
>> [hidden email]> Date: 6/18/18  1:34 PM  (GMT-08:00) To:
>> [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement
>> Strategy: Open Call for Working Group
>>         members
>> Dear Pine,
>>
>> Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a
>> product without technology and technology is developed according to our
>> product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the
>> discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each
>> other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation
>> Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group
>> conversations.
>>
>> The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to
>> discuss
>> it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want
>> everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also
>> need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful
>> conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language
>> to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has
>> already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
>>
>> It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working
>> time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5
>> hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with
>> the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the
>> workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there
>> will
>> be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and
>> perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
>>
>> Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been
>> forwarded to the relevant people.
>>
>> Have a good continuation to your week!
>> Kaarel
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Kaarel,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
>> > >
>> > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
>> comment
>> > > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
>> > >
>> > > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way,
>> mainly to
>> > > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
>> > time
>> > > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
>> Product
>> > > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
>> > them
>> > > than separating people with expertise and connections within both
>> areas.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
>> engineers
>> > who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
>> > the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
>> and
>> > could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
>> > could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share,
>> here
>> > or on the talk page
>> > <
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
>> > >,
>> > your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is
>> the
>> > best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain
>> how
>> > you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
>> > Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication
>> of
>> > effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
>> talk
>> > page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
>> good
>> > to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
>> > would
>> > > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
>> > > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
>> > > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research
>> and
>> > > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time
>> to
>> > go
>> > > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
>> > the
>> > > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
>> versa.
>> > > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
>> > Group
>> > > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
>> > > throughout the process.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
>> that
>> > they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
>> they
>> > will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
>> > willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
>> > activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
>> > diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
>> > significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That
>> is
>> > > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
>> > groups,
>> > > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
>> > representatives
>> > > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
>> > the
>> > > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
>> strategic
>> > > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
>> organization
>> > > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide
>> what
>> > > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
>> > contributions.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
>> people
>> > participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that
>> you
>> > are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make
>> their
>> > own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I
>> am
>> > likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
>> good
>> > intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that
>> you
>> > would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
>> > requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
>> > around
>> > > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
>> > the
>> > > Working Groups.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
>> > encourage you to revise them.
>> >
>> > Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
>> the
>> > strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF
>> > made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other
>> > strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
>> >
>> >
>> > Pine
>> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>> Process Architect for
>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> *Kaarel Vaidla*
> Process Architect for
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> 2030.wikimedia.org
>


--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Kaarel Vaidla-2
Dear all,

Here is the link to the conference call for the Movement Strategy Process
Q&A [1] starting in 2 hours.
[1] https://meet.google.com/oig-trht-hnd

Looking forward to an interesting discussion and feedback!
Kaarel

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (reposting update for readability, as something went wrong with formatting
> last time)
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing
> discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also
> need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants,
> we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new
> deadline being *July 2, 2018*.
>
> I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement
> Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link
> with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week
> on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.
>
> Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!
> Kaarel
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
> [2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities
>> there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups
>> and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of
>> applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week,
>> new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A
>> sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I
>> am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the
>> offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to
>> those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply>[2]
>> https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
>> <https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n>*
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kaarel,
>>> Thank you for following up.
>>> Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely
>>> interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of
>>> responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG
>>> with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would
>>> like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps
>>> on the talk page of the WG.
>>> I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to
>>> the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts
>>> meeting next week.
>>> Thank you for your responsiveness to input.
>>> Pine
>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla <
>>> [hidden email]> Date: 6/18/18  1:34 PM  (GMT-08:00) To:
>>> [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement
>>> Strategy: Open Call for Working Group
>>>         members
>>> Dear Pine,
>>>
>>> Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a
>>> product without technology and technology is developed according to our
>>> product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the
>>> discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each
>>> other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia
>>> Foundation
>>> Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group
>>> conversations.
>>>
>>> The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to
>>> discuss
>>> it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want
>>> everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also
>>> need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful
>>> conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the
>>> language
>>> to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has
>>> already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
>>>
>>> It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working
>>> time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5
>>> hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide
>>> with
>>> the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the
>>> workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there
>>> will
>>> be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and
>>> perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
>>>
>>> Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been
>>> forwarded to the relevant people.
>>>
>>> Have a good continuation to your week!
>>> Kaarel
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi Kaarel,
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
>>> > >
>>> > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
>>> comment
>>> > > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
>>> > >
>>> > > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way,
>>> mainly to
>>> > > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too
>>> much
>>> > time
>>> > > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
>>> Product
>>> > > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in
>>> connecting
>>> > them
>>> > > than separating people with expertise and connections within both
>>> areas.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
>>> engineers
>>> > who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say
>>> that
>>> > the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
>>> and
>>> > could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
>>> > could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share,
>>> here
>>> > or on the talk page
>>> > <
>>> >
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
>>> > >,
>>> > your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is
>>> the
>>> > best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please
>>> explain how
>>> > you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and
>>> the
>>> > Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and
>>> duplication of
>>> > effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
>>> talk
>>> > page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
>>> good
>>> > to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
>>> > would
>>> > > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
>>> > > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating
>>> in
>>> > > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials,
>>> research and
>>> > > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time
>>> to
>>> > go
>>> > > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations
>>> from
>>> > the
>>> > > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
>>> versa.
>>> > > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
>>> > Group
>>> > > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
>>> > > throughout the process.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
>>> that
>>> > they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
>>> they
>>> > will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
>>> > willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
>>> > activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
>>> > diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
>>> > significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing.
>>> That is
>>> > > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
>>> > groups,
>>> > > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
>>> > representatives
>>> > > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and
>>> groups,
>>> > the
>>> > > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
>>> strategic
>>> > > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
>>> organization
>>> > > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide
>>> what
>>> > > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
>>> > contributions.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
>>> people
>>> > participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that
>>> you
>>> > are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make
>>> their
>>> > own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I
>>> am
>>> > likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
>>> good
>>> > intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that
>>> you
>>> > would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
>>> > requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
>>> > around
>>> > > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation
>>> in
>>> > the
>>> > > Working Groups.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
>>> > encourage you to revise them.
>>> >
>>> > Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
>>> the
>>> > strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that
>>> WMF
>>> > made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with
>>> other
>>> > strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Pine
>>> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>>> Process Architect for
>>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>> Process Architect for
>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
> --
> *Kaarel Vaidla*
> Process Architect for
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> 2030.wikimedia.org
>


--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Kaarel Vaidla-2
And a small clarification - Doodle was just used to map suitable times.
Everyone can participate in the scheduled call, even if they didn't
participate in Doodle poll.

Thank you for your kind attention!

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:00 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Here is the link to the conference call for the Movement Strategy Process
> Q&A [1] starting in 2 hours.
> [1] https://meet.google.com/oig-trht-hnd
>
> Looking forward to an interesting discussion and feedback!
> Kaarel
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> (reposting update for readability, as something went wrong with
>> formatting last time)
>>
>> Dear Wikimedians,
>>
>> As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing
>> discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also
>> need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants,
>> we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new
>> deadline being *July 2, 2018*.
>>
>> I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement
>> Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link
>> with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next
>> week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.
>>
>> Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!
>> Kaarel
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
>> [2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities
>>> there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups
>>> and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of
>>> applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week,
>>> new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A
>>> sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I
>>> am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the
>>> offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to
>>> those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply>[2]
>>> https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
>>> <https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n>*
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Kaarel,
>>>> Thank you for following up.
>>>> Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely
>>>> interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of
>>>> responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG
>>>> with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would
>>>> like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps
>>>> on the talk page of the WG.
>>>> I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to
>>>> the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts
>>>> meeting next week.
>>>> Thank you for your responsiveness to input.
>>>> Pine
>>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla <
>>>> [hidden email]> Date: 6/18/18  1:34 PM  (GMT-08:00) To:
>>>> [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement
>>>> Strategy: Open Call for Working Group
>>>>         members
>>>> Dear Pine,
>>>>
>>>> Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a
>>>> product without technology and technology is developed according to our
>>>> product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the
>>>> discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each
>>>> other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia
>>>> Foundation
>>>> Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group
>>>> conversations.
>>>>
>>>> The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to
>>>> discuss
>>>> it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We
>>>> want
>>>> everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also
>>>> need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful
>>>> conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the
>>>> language
>>>> to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has
>>>> already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
>>>>
>>>> It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working
>>>> time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5
>>>> hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide
>>>> with
>>>> the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in
>>>> the
>>>> workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there
>>>> will
>>>> be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and
>>>> perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
>>>>
>>>> Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been
>>>> forwarded to the relevant people.
>>>>
>>>> Have a good continuation to your week!
>>>> Kaarel
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Hi Kaarel,
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]
>>>> >
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
>>>> comment
>>>> > > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way,
>>>> mainly to
>>>> > > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too
>>>> much
>>>> > time
>>>> > > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
>>>> Product
>>>> > > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in
>>>> connecting
>>>> > them
>>>> > > than separating people with expertise and connections within both
>>>> areas.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
>>>> engineers
>>>> > who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say
>>>> that
>>>> > the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks
>>>> ambitious and
>>>> > could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
>>>> > could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share,
>>>> here
>>>> > or on the talk page
>>>> > <
>>>> >
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
>>>> > >,
>>>> > your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is
>>>> the
>>>> > best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please
>>>> explain how
>>>> > you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and
>>>> the
>>>> > Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and
>>>> duplication of
>>>> > effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
>>>> talk
>>>> > page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
>>>> good
>>>> > to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as
>>>> we
>>>> > would
>>>> > > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
>>>> > > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating
>>>> in
>>>> > > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials,
>>>> research and
>>>> > > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some
>>>> time to
>>>> > go
>>>> > > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations
>>>> from
>>>> > the
>>>> > > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
>>>> versa.
>>>> > > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid
>>>> Working
>>>> > Group
>>>> > > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
>>>> > > throughout the process.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
>>>> that
>>>> > they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think
>>>> that they
>>>> > will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
>>>> > willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
>>>> > activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
>>>> > diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
>>>> > significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing.
>>>> That is
>>>> > > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
>>>> > groups,
>>>> > > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
>>>> > representatives
>>>> > > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and
>>>> groups,
>>>> > the
>>>> > > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
>>>> strategic
>>>> > > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
>>>> organization
>>>> > > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide
>>>> what
>>>> > > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
>>>> > contributions.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
>>>> people
>>>> > participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that
>>>> you
>>>> > are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make
>>>> their
>>>> > own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that
>>>> I am
>>>> > likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
>>>> good
>>>> > intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that
>>>> you
>>>> > would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
>>>> > requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
>>>> > around
>>>> > > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation
>>>> in
>>>> > the
>>>> > > Working Groups.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I
>>>> would
>>>> > encourage you to revise them.
>>>> >
>>>> > Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase
>>>> of the
>>>> > strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that
>>>> WMF
>>>> > made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with
>>>> other
>>>> > strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Pine
>>>> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>> ,
>>>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>>>> Process Architect for
>>>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>>>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>>> Process Architect for
>>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>> Process Architect for
>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
> --
> *Kaarel Vaidla*
> Process Architect for
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> 2030.wikimedia.org
>


--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Kaarel Vaidla-2
In reply to this post by Kaarel Vaidla-2
 Dear all,

Here is the link to another (and this time the last) conference call for
the Movement Strategy Process Q&A [1] starting in *1.5 hours*. We will
discuss the call for applications [2]  and the Working Group model in
general.
[1] https://meet.google.com/xac-ecsx-cuv
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply

I am really thankful for all the feedback I have already received and am
happy to answer your further questions. Looking forward to seeing and
discussing strategy with some of you soon!

Best regards,


On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:00 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Here is the link to the conference call for the Movement Strategy Process
> Q&A [1] starting in 2 hours.
> [1] https://meet.google.com/oig-trht-hnd
>
> Looking forward to an interesting discussion and feedback!
> Kaarel
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> (reposting update for readability, as something went wrong with
>> formatting last time)
>>
>> Dear Wikimedians,
>>
>> As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing
>> discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also
>> need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants,
>> we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new
>> deadline being *July 2, 2018*.
>>
>> I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement
>> Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link
>> with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next
>> week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.
>>
>> Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!
>> Kaarel
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
>> [2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities
>>> there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups
>>> and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of
>>> applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week,
>>> new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A
>>> sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I
>>> am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the
>>> offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to
>>> those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply>[2]
>>> https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
>>> <https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n>*
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Kaarel,
>>>> Thank you for following up.
>>>> Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely
>>>> interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of
>>>> responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG
>>>> with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would
>>>> like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps
>>>> on the talk page of the WG.
>>>> I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to
>>>> the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts
>>>> meeting next week.
>>>> Thank you for your responsiveness to input.
>>>> Pine
>>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla <
>>>> [hidden email]> Date: 6/18/18  1:34 PM  (GMT-08:00) To:
>>>> [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement
>>>> Strategy: Open Call for Working Group
>>>>         members
>>>> Dear Pine,
>>>>
>>>> Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a
>>>> product without technology and technology is developed according to our
>>>> product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the
>>>> discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each
>>>> other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia
>>>> Foundation
>>>> Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group
>>>> conversations.
>>>>
>>>> The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to
>>>> discuss
>>>> it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We
>>>> want
>>>> everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also
>>>> need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful
>>>> conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the
>>>> language
>>>> to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has
>>>> already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
>>>>
>>>> It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working
>>>> time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5
>>>> hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide
>>>> with
>>>> the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in
>>>> the
>>>> workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there
>>>> will
>>>> be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and
>>>> perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
>>>>
>>>> Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been
>>>> forwarded to the relevant people.
>>>>
>>>> Have a good continuation to your week!
>>>> Kaarel
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Hi Kaarel,
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]
>>>> >
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
>>>> comment
>>>> > > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way,
>>>> mainly to
>>>> > > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too
>>>> much
>>>> > time
>>>> > > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
>>>> Product
>>>> > > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in
>>>> connecting
>>>> > them
>>>> > > than separating people with expertise and connections within both
>>>> areas.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
>>>> engineers
>>>> > who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say
>>>> that
>>>> > the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks
>>>> ambitious and
>>>> > could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
>>>> > could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share,
>>>> here
>>>> > or on the talk page
>>>> > <
>>>> >
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
>>>> > >,
>>>> > your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is
>>>> the
>>>> > best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please
>>>> explain how
>>>> > you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and
>>>> the
>>>> > Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and
>>>> duplication of
>>>> > effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
>>>> talk
>>>> > page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
>>>> good
>>>> > to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as
>>>> we
>>>> > would
>>>> > > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
>>>> > > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating
>>>> in
>>>> > > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials,
>>>> research and
>>>> > > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some
>>>> time to
>>>> > go
>>>> > > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations
>>>> from
>>>> > the
>>>> > > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
>>>> versa.
>>>> > > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid
>>>> Working
>>>> > Group
>>>> > > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
>>>> > > throughout the process.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
>>>> that
>>>> > they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think
>>>> that they
>>>> > will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
>>>> > willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
>>>> > activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
>>>> > diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
>>>> > significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing.
>>>> That is
>>>> > > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
>>>> > groups,
>>>> > > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
>>>> > representatives
>>>> > > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and
>>>> groups,
>>>> > the
>>>> > > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
>>>> strategic
>>>> > > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
>>>> organization
>>>> > > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide
>>>> what
>>>> > > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
>>>> > contributions.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
>>>> people
>>>> > participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that
>>>> you
>>>> > are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make
>>>> their
>>>> > own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that
>>>> I am
>>>> > likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
>>>> good
>>>> > intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that
>>>> you
>>>> > would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
>>>> > requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
>>>> > around
>>>> > > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation
>>>> in
>>>> > the
>>>> > > Working Groups.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I
>>>> would
>>>> > encourage you to revise them.
>>>> >
>>>> > Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase
>>>> of the
>>>> > strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that
>>>> WMF
>>>> > made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with
>>>> other
>>>> > strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Pine
>>>> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>> ,
>>>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>>>> Process Architect for
>>>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>>>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>>> Process Architect for
>>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Kaarel Vaidla*
>> Process Architect for
>> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
>> 2030.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
> --
> *Kaarel Vaidla*
> Process Architect for
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> 2030.wikimedia.org
>


--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Reminder:: Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

Nicole Ebber
In reply to this post by Nicole Ebber
Dear Wikimedians,

We are closing the application form for Working Group members later
today.[1] Please consider applying, if you are interested in strategic
conversations about movement structures in thematic areas like roles
and responsibilities, revenue streams, resource allocation,
partnerships, capacity building, advocacy, technology and product,
diversity or community health. We have received more than 100
applications by now and are looking for more!

I would like to encourage you to also consider applying even if you
have not contributed to movement strategy conversations before or feel
that you might lack experience or expertise to contribute. Your
perspective might still enrich the discussions and we would like to
see a broad diversity of voices in the conversations, from each corner
of the movement.

We have heard a lot of feedback regarding 5 hours per week that we
expect to be the average time investment for members of the Working
Group. Time investment will vary depending on the week and progress:
there will possibly be weeks with little to do (e.g. reading a
one-pager), but there will also be weeks where members will need to
read, discuss, design or review research tasks, agree, and communicate
with each other and with other groups, have online-meetings or will
attend in person events, write and review documents and emails etc. It
will all also depend on how the working group decides to work
together, and on the members and their individual work and
conversations styles. Working groups will be supported according to
their needs, for example in terms of facilitation, administration and
translation.

If you think you can only invest 2-3 hours, but bring a unique set of
experiences or background, please also consider applying! We will take
a variety of criteria into account when selecting the members together
with our Steering Committee.

Next steps:
Selection of Working Group members will happen in the first half of
July. The minimum number of members for working groups to be
established is 6. That means, we might start with a smaller Working
Group, then map the gaps in terms of diversity, representation and
expertise and identify profiles of members that we need to bring into
the group. Recruiting and selection of additional members will not
only happen in July, but also at later stages in the process,
depending on the needs the Core Team and the Working Groups identify.

If you are interested in applying but still have doubts, please reach
out to Kaarel or me directly. We will work with you all on
clarification.

All the best,
Nicole


[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 03:24, Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Following up on Katherine’s email from last week[1], we are today
> opening the call for Working Group members for 9 Thematic Areas (yes,
> we added one more!).
>
> == Working Group members ==
> The Working Groups will map the present situation of their Thematic
> Area, the obstacles and opportunities, as well as needed changes to
> advance our movement in our strategic direction. They will identify
> possible strategies for making these changes and develop concrete
> recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement
> them.[2]
>
> Working Group members will need to be able to invest a minimum of 5
> hours per week, but that time might vary depending on the workflow
> that each group agrees upon. Members of the Working Groups are
> expected to act in the interest of the movement, not in the interest
> of their own organization or community.
>
> == Selection of members ==
> We are looking for a maximum of 15 members for each of the 9 groups.
> For best results we will need a diverse set of members from across the
> movement. We have developed a set of criteria, to ensure the necessary
> expertise, diversity, and representation.[3] We will assemble a
> Steering Committee to decide upon membership of the Working Groups in
> close coordination with the Core Strategy Team.[4]
>
> == Apply to become a working group member ==
> We encourage everyone with an interest in the strategic conversations
> to apply for becoming a Working Group member in their topic of
> expertise. We recommend that movement organizations and groups create
> internal processes for the selection of their candidates to avoid
> multiple, competing applications.
>
> The call will be open until June 25, 2018. ***Please apply via this
> application form.[5]*** To prepare your application, you can consult
> the overview of the questions asked in the form on Meta.[6]
>
> == Next steps ==
> We expect to be able to announce the Working Group members in the
> second week of July, so that the working groups can be assembled,
> onboarded and ready to start working before Wikimania. The first step
> for the groups will be to agree upon their set-up and scope of work.
> At Wikimania, we plan to convene the attending Working Group members
> in the Strategy Space to discuss and refine their road to the
> recommendations and ensure exchange between the groups.[7]
>
> We invite you all to familiarize yourselves with the existing
> documentation of the Working Group(s) of your interest,[8] add
> comments, additional input or share your concerns via talk pages Your
> comments will be then be taken into consideration by the respective
> Working Groups.
>
> We are looking forward to working and having these long-awaited
> conversations with many of you!
>
> In the name of the Strategy Core Team,
> Nicole
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-June/090417.html
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Who_should_join_the_Working_Groups?
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Steering_Committee
> [5] https://goo.gl/forms/zVElm0hLT9eZvqwF3
> [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply/Form
> [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_is_the_timeline_for_Working_Groups?
> [8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_are_the_key_thematic_areas?
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy Process Lead
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.



--
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>