[Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

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

[Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

Pete Forsyth-2
All:

With the expiration of the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, many of us are
interested in future strategic planning efforts. With that in mind (and as
part of a series of interviews I'm doing to celebrate Wikipedia Day), I
interviewed Eugene Eric Kim, who designed the community engagement process
for that plan. I think the organization and the community has, probably for
a variety of reasons, lost track of much of what was learned during that
process, so I think a recap will be valuable. It's a 25 minute video -- and
if I may be so bold, I think it's well worth the time investment for
anybody interested in this stuff.

Wikipedia 15 for 15: Eugene Eric Kim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Eq4l4KmBc&index=3&list=PLnDuxSh4Rp5gsvae2Iegcom5-fzK6nk0d

And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
(or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should
we be moving foward?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

p.s. Yes, this is licensed CC BY, and I will be uploading the whole series
to Commons when I get a moment!
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Pine W
Pete, thanks for bringing up this subject. May I ask you to please do a
lightning talk about this during the Wikipedia Day conference?

Pine

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All:
>
> With the expiration of the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, many of us are
> interested in future strategic planning efforts. With that in mind (and as
> part of a series of interviews I'm doing to celebrate Wikipedia Day), I
> interviewed Eugene Eric Kim, who designed the community engagement process
> for that plan. I think the organization and the community has, probably for
> a variety of reasons, lost track of much of what was learned during that
> process, so I think a recap will be valuable. It's a 25 minute video -- and
> if I may be so bold, I think it's well worth the time investment for
> anybody interested in this stuff.
>
> Wikipedia 15 for 15: Eugene Eric Kim
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Eq4l4KmBc&index=3&list=PLnDuxSh4Rp5gsvae2Iegcom5-fzK6nk0d
>
> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should
> we be moving foward?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> p.s. Yes, this is licensed CC BY, and I will be uploading the whole series
> to Commons when I get a moment!
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Strategic planning

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:

> All:
>
>
> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last
> round
> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
> should
> we be moving foward?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>

I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community
process and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children
are still impressed.

Concerning the process itself:

1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.

2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
still wanted to mention.

3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the
task force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory
answer. May be I just asked wrong people.

4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization
in the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I
was mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the
task force coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came
back, so that I took on the coordination myself and delivered some
summary to the second round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.

5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used
again for such process.

6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to
work on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really
shaping things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas.
And that was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole
community, not just the English Wikipedia.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Pete Forsyth-2
Thank you for the reflections, Yaroslav, Specific replies inline below.

Pine, thank you for the invitation; actually, this video was done in
preparation for my panel session at the Wikipedia 15 celebration, which
will also be live-streamed later in the day. Eugene will be one of my
panelists, and we will certainly dig into these issues! Please bring your
own reflections and questions (and feel free to send them ahead of time so
I can try to incorporate them into the main panel discussion).

To Yaroslav's points:

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
>> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
>> should
>> we be moving foward?
>>
>
> I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
> and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
> impressed.
>

Very cool -- I hope the barnstar becomes a treasured family heirloom :) It
sounds like it was well deserved. And I hope you do watch the video --
based on your comments below I believe you will find Eugene's design goals
and reflections very interesting.

1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
> there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
>

Agreed

2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
> forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
> still wanted to mention.
>

It seems to me (and Eugene or Philippe might correct me here) that the
expectation was that "coordination" would happen somewhat organically,
since it was hosted on a wiki. I did browse a number of the task forces at
the time, and commented on a few, and some others were doing so as well.
Perhaps there could/should have been a more focused effort to get
cross-pollination, though?

3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task
> force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer. May
> be I just asked wrong people.
>

Again from my own, somewhat limited perspective: I believe the intention
was for volunteers to play a stronger and more central role in the
synthesis of the Task Force outcomes into a final Strategic Plan. Since
this was the first time this was attempted, it's not surprising to me that
this wasn't fully realized. I think a second iteration of this could be
much more successful, as it could be informed by what worked well and what
didn't the last time.

4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in
> the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
> mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force
> coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that
> I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second
> round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
>

Ah, noise vs. signal -- always an issue in a community that values openness
and inclusion! But again, perhaps there are ways to improve on the process
so that it's easier to navigate toward the "signal."

5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again
> for such process.
>

I'll leave my opinion on LT (and Flow) aside for the moment, but I do agree
that using a discussion technology that was unfamiliar to a core set of
constituents led to some confusion, and may have discouraged participation.
(However, it's also possible that it encouraged some participation by those
who were NOT familiar with wiki page discussion, and may have found
threaded discussion a little easier to deal with.)

6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
> on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
> things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
> was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not
> just the English Wikipedia.


I agree strongly with this, and am especially glad to hear that it was fun!

Speaking for my own perspective, I started working for WMF during the
process, and because of that I did not participate deeply -- I was in a
transitional state between "volunteer" and "staff" and lacked a clear
perspective in that time on how to appropriately use my voice. But I
observed the process very closely, and talked a lot with Eugene and others
about it. I do think it was a valuable exercise in helping both the WMF and
community members see across languages, country borders, and project
borders, and in learning to listen better to one another and develop a
fuller understanding of the big picture. I believe the resulting plan was
strongly reflective of common sentiments within our community; and even if
imperfect, it's the first (and maybe only) time a document has really
attempted to do that, and I think it did an admirable job.

I remain hopeful that some day we will see a "Strategic Planning 2.0"
effort that draws heavily on these lessons. I am increasingly of the
opinion that volunteers should lead the effort to make that happen; and it
might make sense to fully separate two ideas:
* A strategic plan for the movement
* A strategic plan for the Wikimedia Foundation

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Anna Stillwell
I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the
Foundation.
I think that is a good idea.
/a

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thank you for the reflections, Yaroslav, Specific replies inline below.
>
> Pine, thank you for the invitation; actually, this video was done in
> preparation for my panel session at the Wikipedia 15 celebration, which
> will also be live-streamed later in the day. Eugene will be one of my
> panelists, and we will certainly dig into these issues! Please bring your
> own reflections and questions (and feel free to send them ahead of time so
> I can try to incorporate them into the main panel discussion).
>
> To Yaroslav's points:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> >
> >> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last
> round
> >> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
> >> should
> >> we be moving foward?
> >>
> >
> > I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
> > and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
> > impressed.
> >
>
> Very cool -- I hope the barnstar becomes a treasured family heirloom :) It
> sounds like it was well deserved. And I hope you do watch the video --
> based on your comments below I believe you will find Eugene's design goals
> and reflections very interesting.
>
> 1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
> > there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
> >
>
> Agreed
>
> 2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
> > forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
> > still wanted to mention.
> >
>
> It seems to me (and Eugene or Philippe might correct me here) that the
> expectation was that "coordination" would happen somewhat organically,
> since it was hosted on a wiki. I did browse a number of the task forces at
> the time, and commented on a few, and some others were doing so as well.
> Perhaps there could/should have been a more focused effort to get
> cross-pollination, though?
>
> 3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task
> > force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer.
> May
> > be I just asked wrong people.
> >
>
> Again from my own, somewhat limited perspective: I believe the intention
> was for volunteers to play a stronger and more central role in the
> synthesis of the Task Force outcomes into a final Strategic Plan. Since
> this was the first time this was attempted, it's not surprising to me that
> this wasn't fully realized. I think a second iteration of this could be
> much more successful, as it could be informed by what worked well and what
> didn't the last time.
>
> 4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in
> > the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
> > mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task
> force
> > coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so
> that
> > I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the
> second
> > round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
> >
>
> Ah, noise vs. signal -- always an issue in a community that values openness
> and inclusion! But again, perhaps there are ways to improve on the process
> so that it's easier to navigate toward the "signal."
>
> 5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again
> > for such process.
> >
>
> I'll leave my opinion on LT (and Flow) aside for the moment, but I do agree
> that using a discussion technology that was unfamiliar to a core set of
> constituents led to some confusion, and may have discouraged participation.
> (However, it's also possible that it encouraged some participation by those
> who were NOT familiar with wiki page discussion, and may have found
> threaded discussion a little easier to deal with.)
>
> 6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
> > on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
> > things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
> > was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community,
> not
> > just the English Wikipedia.
>
>
> I agree strongly with this, and am especially glad to hear that it was fun!
>
> Speaking for my own perspective, I started working for WMF during the
> process, and because of that I did not participate deeply -- I was in a
> transitional state between "volunteer" and "staff" and lacked a clear
> perspective in that time on how to appropriately use my voice. But I
> observed the process very closely, and talked a lot with Eugene and others
> about it. I do think it was a valuable exercise in helping both the WMF and
> community members see across languages, country borders, and project
> borders, and in learning to listen better to one another and develop a
> fuller understanding of the big picture. I believe the resulting plan was
> strongly reflective of common sentiments within our community; and even if
> imperfect, it's the first (and maybe only) time a document has really
> attempted to do that, and I think it did an admirable job.
>
> I remain hopeful that some day we will see a "Strategic Planning 2.0"
> effort that draws heavily on these lessons. I am increasingly of the
> opinion that volunteers should lead the effort to make that happen; and it
> might make sense to fully separate two ideas:
> * A strategic plan for the movement
> * A strategic plan for the Wikimedia Foundation
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

John Mark Vandenberg
'On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Anna Stillwell
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the
> Foundation.
> I think that is a good idea.

Also agree.

I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then
one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is
finished.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Philippe Beaudette-4
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> Also agree.
>
> I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then
> one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is
> finished.
>
>

​That has long been one of my take-aways from the process.  Count me as a
+1 for this idea.

pb

PS - Yaroslav, few things make me happier than hearing that your children
are impressed by the iron barnstar.  I'd love to take credit, but that
credit belongs solely in my friend Eugene Eric Kim's camp - that was his
idea; I just had charge of execution, but I'm so very glad that it is an
idea that you liked.  Working with Eugene was an honor and a privilege, and
I learned a tremendous amount about coordination of a massive process from
him.



--


Philippe Beaudette

[hidden email]
415-691-8822
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Vi to
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg


Il 12/01/2016 22:25, John Mark Vandenberg ha scritto:
> Also agree. I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done
> first, and then one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's
> plan is finished -- John Vandenberg

Yep, since the second one is, eventually, way to pursue the first one.

Vito


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Pine W
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette-4
Philippe, if you continue to hang around Wikimedia-l, you may find yourself
delegated to run one or both of these planning processes. (:

I've drafted some thoughts about a community process. Hopefully I'll have
some time to refine them and propose some ideas on Meta by Friday.

Pine
On Jan 12, 2016 1:44 PM, "Philippe Beaudette" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Also agree.
> >
> > I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then
> > one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is
> > finished.
> >
> >
>
> ​That has long been one of my take-aways from the process.  Count me as a
> +1 for this idea.
>
> pb
>
> PS - Yaroslav, few things make me happier than hearing that your children
> are impressed by the iron barnstar.  I'd love to take credit, but that
> credit belongs solely in my friend Eugene Eric Kim's camp - that was his
> idea; I just had charge of execution, but I'm so very glad that it is an
> idea that you liked.  Working with Eugene was an honor and a privilege, and
> I learned a tremendous amount about coordination of a massive process from
> him.
>
> ​
>
> --
>
>
> Philippe Beaudette
>
> [hidden email]
> 415-691-8822
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Strategic planning

jmh649
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
+1 to the idea of developing a movement strategic plan, we can than judge
how well different movement partners including the WMF are aligned with
movements goals

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by Yaroslav M. Blanter
On Jan 12, 2016 16:51, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>>
>> All:
>>
>>
>>
>> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
>> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
should
>> we be moving foward?
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>
> I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
impressed.
>
> Concerning the process itself:
>
> 1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
>
> 2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
still wanted to mention.
>
> 3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the
task force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory
answer. May be I just asked wrong people.
>
> 4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization
in the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force
coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that
I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second
round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
>
> 5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used
again for such process.
>
> 6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not
just the English Wikipedia.

Interesting summary,  what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and
one example what should not have gone into the plan?

Rupert
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Vi to
13.01.2016 2:48 AM "Vituzzu" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):

>
> Yep, since the second one is, eventually, way to pursue the first one.

I agree in principle, while I think it would yet be unwise to delay WMF
strategic planning and community consultations this year.

However, I think it would be really good to think WHO could coordinate the
community strategy development. While it would have been done
collaboratively, there should be a facilitator.

The idea of two boards has been around for a while. I also think that
organizations in the movement could have a coordinating body.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
On 2016-01-13 06:06, rupert THURNER wrote:


> Interesting summary,  what are the three major outcomes of this plan,
> and
> one example what should not have gone into the plan?
>

I do not know. It was six years ago after all, and I was not involved in
drafting of the final plan. I can of course re-read it and see what in
the end of the day was a good idea and what was not really a good idea,
but anybody can do it, I am in no way special. There were over a hundred
barnstars sent around if I remember correctly, and most of those people
are still around somewhere in the movement (though not necessarily in
the same roles as six years ago - me not being an exception).

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Strategic planning

Pete Forsyth-2
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 2016-01-13 06:06, rupert THURNER wrote:
>
> Interesting summary,  what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and
>> one example what should not have gone into the plan?
>>
>
> anybody can do it


I agree! :) I enjoyed seeing your reflections, and would love to hear from
more people on this. (For what it's worth, here's the summary of the
Strategic Plan
<https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary>
.)

My own take on Rupert's (excellent) question:

== Three major outcomes ==
1. It helped many Wikimedians (and I count myself among them) develop a
much stronger understanding of what our international, and multi-project,
world looks like. Hearing ideas -- whether new or familiar -- from
Wikimedians from different countries, different languages, different
projects -- was very refreshing, and having it done in a context that
invited conversation and deliberation made it very "real." 2009-10 were the
years my perspective on Wikimedia substantially shifted from Oregon to
international (though working at the WMF in that time was also a major
contribution). I suspect this is true of many of us.

2. Building on #1, we developed a great deal of capacity for shared
strategic thinking. Taking part in strategic discussions, in a mode outside
the drama or excitement of the day, established lines of communication that
still exist, and are still actively used. Much of what I see is in the
volunteer world; but I also suspect the process greatly informed the
grant-giving arms of the WMF, which were formalized in the wake of the
process. I'd be very interested to hear from Asaf, Siko, and others from
the grants programs on this.

3. It generally gave the WMF, and all organizations and people wanting to
broadly serve or address the Wikimedia community, a better understanding of
who they're talking to, and what goals and values are widely held. Whether
or not one makes explicit reference to the five strategic goals, having a
sense of what they are is a powerful conceptual tool. This, in particular,
has certainly found its way into the grant-giving programs, and perhaps
other areas of WMF's operations.

== What should not have gone in the plan? ==
In hindsight, the plan has one significant flaw (which I blogged about
<http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-needs-trustee/> during the Board
Election). Philippe Beaudette, recently quoted in Liam Wyatt's blog post
<http://wittylama.com/2016/01/08/strategy-and-controversy/>, said: "The
Wikimedia Foundation has one unique strategic asset: the editing community."

The following "Virtuous Circle graphic was produced by the strategic
planning process (hey, look at me, I'm an ASCII artist!). It's purpose is
to show what dynamics drive Wikimedia's continuous improvement:

      Y  -->
     T        R
    I          E
   L            A
  A              C
 U     [[ ? ]]    H
Q
                  |
 ^               v
  \ PARTICIPATION

In the original, it had "infrastructure" in the middle, i.e. technical
infrastructure.

The graphic is accurate. But (to summarize my blog post briefly) it does
not capture what is UNIQUE about Wikimedia. In fact, almost EVERY major web
site -- at least the social ones like Facebook, eBay, etc. -- has a
technical core that supports a cycle of improving/increasing content,
reach, and participation.

Wikimedia should have something social in the middle. You can still call it
infrastructure -- in an important way, it is -- but it should be "volunteer
infrastructure" or "community infrastructure."

That would help us better contemplate the thing that makes us unique, and
the thing that must be protected and nourished if we're going to help all
of humanity engage with all knowledge.

That's something we should address this side around. Technology pervades
all parts of this diagram -- but it should be contemplated in the ways it
impacts groups of people working in the system, not the other way around.

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