Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Hello, July 1 is almost here. Can we get an update about the status of the draft revisions and the Board deliberations? Thanks, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Since Wikimania is in July this year, perhaps we could do this there: public review discussion of the WMF plan, and using that as a point of departure to continue the discussion of planning from WMCON. Sam I would suggest not using this WMF proposed plan as a starting point for talking about good annual plans with affiliates, both because of its scale which is out of scope for any other affiliate, and because of the issues and regressions with the WMF plan and process that we've already discussed in this thread. I think it would be best to proceed on two tracks, the first being discussions about good planning practices and development of peer supports and tools for affiliates as we develop our plans, and a second track about WMF's plan. I like Risker's idea of having an outside professional review of WMF's plan with community and affiliate input, with the caveat that I have often had reason to think that consultants do subpar work (even those consultsnts with expensive brand names), so the consultant will need to be selected with great care. I think that a peer review from another public service organization might be a good option. Regarding Risker's point about WMF's plan lacking a sense of direction, I am hoping that the strategic planning process will help with this, though I must say that the WMF strategic planning process has been opaque from my perspective, and therefore I am wary about its potential. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
hi, as a stepping down FDC member I agree with Risker only to some extent. Sure, the FDC will have trouble with capacity for evaluation of the whole plan. However, it is possible to single out some programs (the famous 'core' vs. 'non-core' division) and comment on them. It does not exclude a professional external review, but is probably the only way that the community can somehow really participate in feedback. best, dj On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 May 2015 at 17:03, Sam Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote: snip And also a little addition (from [1]): «The FDC would like to encourage the WMF to share more data in advance, and to do so publicly as much as possible. Very much agreed. The Board may need to adjust the calendar of FDC work, but allowing for a comprehensive review by a committee from the community (such as the FDC) rather than the Wikimedia Foundation itself is essential, especially in light of the minimal feedback from the community on the public pages. What do you think would be a reasonable sort of review? Lila has mentioned the idea of moving towards updated plans every 6 months, with detailed reports every quarter. I would welcome an FDC-style review of the 'latest published biannual plan + report', on any timescale that works for the FDC, assessing the same things that it does for all annual plans. A review of that sort in April or May would be timed well to influence the 'Annual Plan' discussion, even if it was a review of the published plan report as of January, rather than the draft plan developed in April. How would current FDC members feel about this? Can we find a way to do this without obliging the current FDC members to do more work? [considering that there are others with similar experience in the movement] Speaking only for myself and not for the FDC as a whole, I don't think that the FDC has the level of expertise or frankly the amount of time required to review the Annual Plan of the WMF, with its budget being 10x the size of the largest chapter, and its range of activities equally more extensive than anything else that the FDC looks at. As a rule of thumb, most members are spending on average between 15 and 30 hours reviewing each submission now (including historical information), and the WMF plan by itself would probably require at least 100 hours to really understand if the FDC was given the same amount of information by the WMF that it expects of the other entities seeking funds. My brief review and analysis of this very high level plan (including reading and cross-referencing related documents/emails) took pretty much all the volunteer time I had between the time it was published onwiki to the time I posted my comments - and that was only one member, not a committee response. Instead, I think the WMF is due for a serious third-party, impartial, expert review of its Annual plan, with the report going directly to the Board of Directors for its consideration. This is pretty standard amongst many non-profits, and with its international scope and its considerably expanded budget, it's time for the WMF to start getting this level of feedback. It may also prove useful to demonstrate that the plans have been reviewed by an external body when seeking out new partners and new sources of income or endowment. I do believe that community review is also very important to assist in identifying priority topics, significant gaps in the plan, and synergies amongst the entire WMF family of organizations, projects, and volunteers. I personally do not think that the current draft plan really explains where the WMF leadership wants the WMF to go, or where it sees itself a year down the road, let alone two or three years from now. While I am well aware of the need to continuously evaluate progress against goals and to reassess whether or not those goals are appropriate, there does not seem to be a well-articulated long-term vision in this plan. Instead there is the suggestion that the organization may change course quite significantly, and that projects intended to take 3 or 4 quarters to accomplish might get shelved before completion. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- __ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Hi Sam, That all sounds good. A couple of quick points: 1. What is meant by excellent goals and plans is open to interpretation and dependent on context. For example, an excellent annual plan for a new user group will look much different than an excellent annual plan for WMFR or WMF, and I'm not sure that there is a canonical set of criteria for what constitues an excellent plan. 2. Can we have the review of the WMF plan in July that you proposed, plus a separate community discussion that attempts to help everyone including WMF to come up with a list of suggested attributes for excellent annual plans and a list of suggested ways of streamlining planning processes while increasing the quality of plans? This might be a good follow up discussion from WMCON. WMF would be a peer and partner of this process, and I think it would be great if the FDC could lead this discussion. Thanks, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Sent from my iPhone On May 30, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: @Garfield - I would love to hear what sort of community feedback you are hoping for; and what you would ideally get out of it. Was this past week's input helpful? Are you looking for additional feedback over the coming weeks? Liam writes: It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following the rules that it sets for others, itself. This is not only good, but necessary, if we want any sort of coordination of planning and strategy across the movement. This year's plan was much later than expected — the first draft shared a week ago — motivated by recent changes in senior staff and plans, particularly shifts in engineering and the creation of the community engagement department. As all have noted, this leaves little time for public or board feedback, and less for dialogue about that feedback. I suspect a draft plan 2 months earlier would have been very useful *all the same*, even knowing it was bound to change due to the reorganization. This highlights a basic problem with having static annual plans in a quickly changing environment. I thought we would move away from the 'static annual' planning model this year, and this still seems to be the intent, just delayed. I hope the current plan draft will be the last to follow the old model, and plan updates will become more flexible and frequent this year. In that case, we can still aim to get public and expert thoughtfully, say by mid-July, specifically inviting input from affiliates and community projects that have excellent goals and plans. Then this feedback can guide the implementation of the plan from July on, and guide the development of any mid-year update of the plan. Regardless of the deadline mentioned on the publication page, the Board is discussing the plan at its monthly meeting on June 11, and will review a summary of community feedback as of June 9. [The board approval vote is indeed at the end of June, but by the time the board meets to review that, it is an up-or-down vote with no time for revision.] Pine writes: It does make sense to me that there would be at least a month between publication of the full draft plan, including the documentation requested More data detail is needed, even for this draft. But given how late everything was, I appreciate that things were published for the community as soon as they were available, despite being in a draft state. I think that the WMF audit committee or the WMF Board might be in a better position than the FDC to do a thorough review of the plan, including holding public Hangout meetings in which the plan is discussed, much like how government legislative bodies review proposed budgets in public. A fine idea. Let's try it and see how it works: a public discussion, inviting a set of voiced participants making a stream available to all, even if some invitees cannot make it. The third week of June would fit the current compressed schedule. Such a public discussion would also be a chance to make [more] connections between WMF planning and movement strategy. Sam ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: 1. What is meant by excellent goals and plans is open to interpretation and dependent on context. For example, an excellent annual plan for a new user group will look much different than an excellent annual plan for WMFR or WMF, and I'm not sure that there is a canonical set of criteria for what constitues an excellent plan. That is true. And different plans will excel in different ways (clarity, focus, effectiveness, leverage, foresight...) It might help to invite people to suggest plans that they have found useful or instructive (in their context), and compare what each gets right. 2. Can we have the review of the WMF plan in July that you proposed, plus a separate community discussion that attempts to help everyone including WMF to come up with a list of suggested attributes for excellent annual plans and a list of suggested ways of streamlining planning processes while increasing the quality of plans? This might be a good follow up discussion from WMCON. WMF would be a peer and partner of this process, and I think it would be great if the FDC could lead this discussion. Since Wikimania is in July this year, perhaps we could do this there: public review discussion of the WMF plan, and using that as a point of departure to continue the discussion of planning from WMCON. Sam %2B1%20617%20529%204266 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16 (Ido)
From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com To: Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl, Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16 Message-ID: caatu9wlhkf44ogkagyq2_-j1n_8kpwrturnok5+dkh4bhsa...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 @Garfield - I would love to hear what sort of community feedback you are hoping for; and what you would ideally get out of it. Was this past week's input helpful? Are you looking for additional feedback over the coming weeks? I'm Echoing Sam's callout for the level of feedback; The annual plan, in its current structure, is fairly high-level. I find most of the goals to be agreeable, but am looking for more details about the following: 1) How the increase in staffing is translated into aggressive goals (especially in areas like community engagement, engineering, communications - where staffing has increased significantly) 2) On the other end of the scale, what current areas of operation will be discontinued / significantly reduced in scope - this is also a part of a good workplan. --Ido / [[user:Alleycat80]] There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. (unknown) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-28 11:42 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com: The WMF talks about eating your own dog food[2] in terms of engineering, but it would be good if something similar would take place in the annual planning too... Chapters are required to submit their annual plans to a two *month* period of quite thorough public review before the FDC gives its recommendations, and then there's a further period before the actual decision/appeals.[3] Agreed. In the first place, the problems with such a heavy process of review are felt by all participating groups – including the burden of having to publish a draft budget so long before the start of the relevant year. Either this is a poor idea and all should find a better way, or the WMF should do it as well. And also a little addition (from [1]): «The FDC would like to encourage the WMF to share more data in advance, and to do so publicly as much as possible. Very much agreed. The Board may need to adjust the calendar of FDC work, but allowing for a comprehensive review by a committee from the community (such as the FDC) rather than the Wikimedia Foundation itself is essential, especially in light of the minimal feedback from the community on the public pages. What do you think would be a reasonable sort of review? Lila has mentioned the idea of moving towards updated plans every 6 months, with detailed reports every quarter. I would welcome an FDC-style review of the 'latest published biannual plan + report', on any timescale that works for the FDC, assessing the same things that it does for all annual plans. A review of that sort in April or May would be timed well to influence the 'Annual Plan' discussion, even if it was a review of the published plan report as of January, rather than the draft plan developed in April. How would current FDC members feel about this? Can we find a way to do this without obliging the current FDC members to do more work? [considering that there are others with similar experience in the movement] The WMF has high competencies in governance and in running a large organization, and should be significantly more proactive in disseminating its knowledge and supporting chapters and thematic organizations through training, onboarding plans, and fostering cross-chapter exchange. Bearing in mind the size and budget of the new Community Engagement department, I'd be interested to see more specific suggestions here, or pointers to examples of this done well. As it was already said above. I, personally, do think that we can discuss about making some adjustments to the process to make it work for an organisation of the size of the WMF, but I also would like to see the WMF play along the rule of everybody else in the movement (again, considering all the special need and characteristics of this). I think we can make it work. There are other movements with collaborative budgeting or community review that we can learn from. What sorts of adjustments do you have in mind? Sam ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Perhaps in July we can have an office hour to discuss improvements to annual planning for all orgs including WMF? Annual plans for any organization are a pain to develop and involve some guesswork about what will happen during the year. However, given the natures of annual fundraising and grant cycles, orgs need to know how much money we have to work with on an annual basis and to have some accountability for how it will be spent. The immediate problem is the short time period for the community to review WMF's plan, and the limits of the documentation that have been provided so far. I suggest that WMF should address these problems first, and after this year's full plan with supporting documentation is reviewed by the community, we can have a discussion about annual planning more generally. I suggest that the WMF Board vote on the plan be postponed until the end of June in order to allow the community more time to review the plan and allow WMF more time to produce supporting documentation. Thanks, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
@Garfield - I would love to hear what sort of community feedback you are hoping for; and what you would ideally get out of it. Was this past week's input helpful? Are you looking for additional feedback over the coming weeks? Liam writes: It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following the rules that it sets for others, itself. This is not only good, but necessary, if we want any sort of coordination of planning and strategy across the movement. This year's plan was much later than expected — the first draft shared a week ago — motivated by recent changes in senior staff and plans, particularly shifts in engineering and the creation of the community engagement department. As all have noted, this leaves little time for public or board feedback, and less for dialogue about that feedback. I suspect a draft plan 2 months earlier would have been very useful *all the same*, even knowing it was bound to change due to the reorganization. This highlights a basic problem with having static annual plans in a quickly changing environment. I thought we would move away from the 'static annual' planning model this year, and this still seems to be the intent, just delayed. I hope the current plan draft will be the last to follow the old model, and plan updates will become more flexible and frequent this year. In that case, we can still aim to get public and expert thoughtfully, say by mid-July, specifically inviting input from affiliates and community projects that have excellent goals and plans. Then this feedback can guide the implementation of the plan from July on, and guide the development of any mid-year update of the plan. Regardless of the deadline mentioned on the publication page, the Board is discussing the plan at its monthly meeting on June 11, and will review a summary of community feedback as of June 9. [The board approval vote is indeed at the end of June, but by the time the board meets to review that, it is an up-or-down vote with no time for revision.] Pine writes: It does make sense to me that there would be at least a month between publication of the full draft plan, including the documentation requested More data detail is needed, even for this draft. But given how late everything was, I appreciate that things were published for the community as soon as they were available, despite being in a draft state. I think that the WMF audit committee or the WMF Board might be in a better position than the FDC to do a thorough review of the plan, including holding public Hangout meetings in which the plan is discussed, much like how government legislative bodies review proposed budgets in public. A fine idea. Let's try it and see how it works: a public discussion, inviting a set of voiced participants making a stream available to all, even if some invitees cannot make it. The third week of June would fit the current compressed schedule. Such a public discussion would also be a chance to make [more] connections between WMF planning and movement strategy. Sam ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
perhaps you're right. But keep in mind that the FDC has been set up specifically as a committee advising the Board in this specific area, and is composed of people with particular competence in finance, grants, etc. Whichever body is chosen though, a longer feedback/comment period is necessary. best, dj On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: It does make sense to me that there would be at least a month between publication of the full draft plan, including the documentation that requested, and the closure of the comment period. In its current form the plan is too vague for me to support it as written. I think that the WMF audit committee or the WMF Board might be in a better position than the FDC to do a thorough review of the plan, including holding public Hangout meetings in which the plan is discussed, much like how government legislative bodies review proposed budgets in public. This would increase public confidence in the quality of the plan. Regards, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- __ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
It does make sense to me that there would be at least a month between publication of the full draft plan, including the documentation that requested, and the closure of the comment period. In its current form the plan is too vague for me to support it as written. I think that the WMF audit committee or the WMF Board might be in a better position than the FDC to do a thorough review of the plan, including holding public Hangout meetings in which the plan is discussed, much like how government legislative bodies review proposed budgets in public. This would increase public confidence in the quality of the plan. Regards, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
This draft WMF annual plan was first published on Meta on the 25th.[1] It was then announced by the mailing list late on the 26th. Yet the document itself says, The comment period for this version will close May 29, 2015. This gives approximately 3 days to engage in community consultation on the WMF annual plan (value: $67M) because it is important that [we] make certain that we have community feedback on this initial draft and because we value this input. I recognise that the deadline of the WMF Board of Trustees needing to vote on this (June 15) is looming, so the timeline is short. I am sure the original *intention* was to have a longer time period but that due to some delays in preparing the document for review the time just slipped away. Nevertheless, three days is not stakeholder engagement - it's just ticking the box of inform the community before sending it to the Board. The WMF talks about eating your own dog food[2] in terms of engineering, but it would be good if something similar would take place in the annual planning too... Chapters are required to submit their annual plans to a two *month* period of quite thorough public review before the FDC gives its recommendations, and then there's a further period before the actual decision/appeals.[3] Some of these annual plans are also considerably more detailed than the WMF's, while asking for a considerably smaller amount of money. It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following the rules that it sets for others, itself. - Liam / Wittylama [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16action=history [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
2015-05-28 17:38 GMT+02:00 Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com: This. in particular: It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following the rules that it sets for others, itself. (as a clarification, I strong agree with Liam, especially in the point above). I also left out a relevant sentence from the FDC recommedation: «The FDC recognizes that there have been some attempts by the WMF for gathering community feedback, but believes that the current approach has proven insufficient in generating a strategic vision. The FDC strongly believes that there is a dire need for new ways to generate strategies and a new strategic vision for the Wikimedia movement, and urges the Board to make a significant effort to make sure that there is a roadmap to transition to the next strategic milestones. »[1] C [1] (again) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2#Wikimedia_Foundation_.28WMF.29 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
I think it is safe to say that the FDC had a pretty clear consensus since the very beginning that WMF should lead by example. Also, the FDC's addition to general community feedback is possibly the only practical way to deal with this issue - as the Board receives the plan too late to make major amendments. Within the FDC, I've been advocating for an exactly such solution (as suggested also by Liam). Of course, a real question will be whether the FDC will have the bandwidth to handle even parts of the WMF plan. But all in all, there definitely should be sufficient time for the community at large to comment AND to get feedback from the FDC. Best Dariusz pundit 28 maj 2015 18:18 Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com napisał(a): 2015-05-28 17:38 GMT+02:00 Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com: This. in particular: It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following the rules that it sets for others, itself. (as a clarification, I strong agree with Liam, especially in the point above). I also left out a relevant sentence from the FDC recommedation: «The FDC recognizes that there have been some attempts by the WMF for gathering community feedback, but believes that the current approach has proven insufficient in generating a strategic vision. The FDC strongly believes that there is a dire need for new ways to generate strategies and a new strategic vision for the Wikimedia movement, and urges the Board to make a significant effort to make sure that there is a roadmap to transition to the next strategic milestones. »[1] C [1] (again) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2#Wikimedia_Foundation_.28WMF.29 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list are now automatically rejected. Please be aware that all messages to this list are archived and viewable by the public. If you have a confidential communication to make, please rather email info [at] wikimedia.org. Thank you. -- Forwarded message -- From: Dariusz Jemielniak da...@friend.pl To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:08:08 +0200 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16 Hi Liam, Within the FDC, during the very first rounds of the process, I was making a point repeatedly (seconded e.g. by Mike Peel) that WMF should undergo some control and feedback through the FDC. Since then the WMF decided to drop the division between the core and non-core activities and withdrew its operations from the FDC feedback (perhaps also because it was exerting a lot of strain on the FDC). I personally strongly believe that the community should have sufficient time to comment on the WMF plan, and also that the FDC should have a possibility to evaluate and give feedback at least to some of it. Large (and small) chapters and thematic organizations are required to undergo a very specific process of review, with inflexible deadlines and detailed requirements. I believe that the WMF, as the organization that is both the most professionalized, and also uses the most of our movement's funds, should set an example and lead by showing how proper community feedback can be conducted. Best, Dj 28 maj 2015 11:44 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com napisał(a): This draft WMF annual plan was first published on Meta on the 25th.[1] It was then announced by the mailing list late on the 26th. Yet the document itself says, The comment period for this version will close May 29, 2015. This gives approximately 3 days to engage in community consultation on the WMF annual plan (value: $67M) because it is important that [we] make certain that we have community feedback on this initial draft and because we value this input. I recognise that the deadline of the WMF Board of Trustees needing to vote on this (June 15) is looming, so the timeline is short. I am sure the original *intention* was to have a longer time period but that due to some delays in preparing the document for review the time just slipped away. Nevertheless, three days is not stakeholder engagement - it's just ticking the box of inform the community before sending it to the Board. The WMF talks about eating your own dog food[2] in terms of engineering, but it would be good if something similar would take place in the annual planning too... Chapters are required to submit their annual plans to a two *month* period of quite thorough public review before the FDC gives its recommendations, and then there's a further period before the actual decision/appeals.[3] Some of these annual plans are also considerably more detailed than the WMF's, while asking for a considerably smaller amount of money. It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following the rules that it sets for others, itself. - Liam / Wittylama [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16action=history [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
2015-05-28 11:42 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com: The WMF talks about eating your own dog food[2] in terms of engineering, but it would be good if something similar would take place in the annual planning too... Chapters are required to submit their annual plans to a two *month* period of quite thorough public review before the FDC gives its recommendations, and then there's a further period before the actual decision/appeals.[3] [...] This. in particular: It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following the rules that it sets for others, itself. And also a little addition (from [1]): «The FDC would like to encourage the WMF to share more data in advance, and to do so publicly as much as possible. It was very difficult to evaluate this proposal when some data were made available on short notice. Also, the budget submitted to the FDC is not a final one, and the FDC has to comment on a working version of a proposal. As a result, the FDC has to work on a proposal with a significant growth in administration and hiring, although it is also immediately clear that the suggested numbers were theoretical maximums, not meant to be met. For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other entities in the movement. The Board may need to adjust the calendar of FDC work, but allowing for a comprehensive review by a committee from the community (such as the FDC) rather than the Wikimedia Foundation itself is essential, especially in light of the minimal feedback from the community on the public pages. [...] The FDC is worried that the WMF has not followed the FDC’s recommendations from the previous round (2012–2013 Round 1), and that the WMF has excused itself from proposing an amount in the current round. The WMF should either clearly withdraw from the FDC process or undergo it on equal basis with other organizations in the movement. In particular, the WMF should apply for an amount, and should submit a full final proposal. The calendar for the FDC process may need to be adjusted to accommodate the WMF, but these requirements are important for the process. Allowing a thorough review of the WMF proposals by a community-driven body is especially important, since a lot of staffing and budget increases are not clearly and directly linked with the strategic priorities. The WMF has high competencies in governance and in running a large organization, and should be significantly more proactive in disseminating its knowledge and supporting chapters and thematic organizations through training, onboarding plans, and fostering cross-chapter exchange. [...] Some FDC members object to the fact that the FDC is not being asked to provide a dollar amount for the WMF proposal, as this is a distinct difference from how the FDC assesses the other organizations that apply to it. They would like to see the WMF apply with a dollar amount next year, and to run its annual planning process on a similar timescale to that expected from other organizations participating in the FDC process.» As it was already said above. I, personally, do think that we can discuss about making some adjustments to the process to make it work for an organisation of the size of the WMF, but I also would like to see the WMF play along the rule of everybody else in the movement (again, considering all the special need and characteristics of this). Cristian [1] source: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2#Wikimedia_Foundation_.28WMF.29 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Pine, I have answered your questions in the text of your email. Regards, Garfield On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: ... * Are SMART goals documented for each department? If so, where can we see them? In the quarterly goal setting process, the annual plan will be segmented into quarterly goals for each department or team. The success of the quarterly goals set by each department or team will reported on in the Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q3_(January-March).pdf. To add, for people who are specifically interested in the current quarterly goals of the Engineering and Product teams: Those have already been published at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals . -- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Hi Pine, I have answered your questions in the text of your email. Regards, Garfield On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Garfield, Thanks for this update. * Is this intended to be the last annual plan, as WMF shifts to a quarterly planning cycle? If so, how will Fundraising know how much money to raise each quarter/year? This will not be the last annual plan. We will continue the annual plan process in future years. * Are SMART goals documented for each department? If so, where can we see them? In the quarterly goal setting process, the annual plan will be segmented into quarterly goals for each department or team. The success of the quarterly goals set by each department or team will reported on in the Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q3_(January-March).pdf. * I see that there are many new proposed FTEs but I'm unclear on what SMART goals those FTEs are intended to address. Is there a page that documents clear links between the FTE hires, the SMART goals for their departments, and explanations of how current capacity is insufficient to address the needs that these new hires are addressing? Additional information will be provided on the goals and how the new hires will impact those goals. I support making targeted in FTE increases that are clearly linked to goals and/or filling gaps, and I would like to see those links in this document or in an appendix. Thank you for this feedback. I am very interested in hearing what my fellow Wikimedians think of this document, particularly those who have experience with managing our affiliates and those with FDC experience. Thanks, Pine On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote: The draft Annual Plan for FY 15-16 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16 is available for community input and comments. Please post any suggestions on the Talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16action=editredlink=1 . The objective of this process is to make certain that we have community feedback on this initial draft of the annual plan for next fiscal year (7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016) . We value this input to assist in the improvement of the final version . This draft version of the annual plan is also being reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees so that the Wikimedia Foundation can review input from the Board of Trustees and community at the same time. T he final version of the Annual Plan is scheduled to be submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for a vote on June 15, 2015 . Best regards, Garfield Best regards, Garfield -- Garfield Byrd Chief of Finance and Administration Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext 6787 415.882.0495 (fax) www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! *https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Garfield Byrd Chief of Finance and Administration Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext 6787 415.882.0495 (fax) www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! *https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Garfield, Sounds good. I look forward to seeing further development of the Plan. Thank you for your work on this. Partially because of my involvement with Cascadia Wikimedians' planning and budgeting, I'm aware of how much work is likely involved in developing WMF's annual plan. Pine On May 26, 2015 7:46 PM, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Pine, I have answered your questions in the text of your email. Regards, Garfield On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Garfield, Thanks for this update. * Is this intended to be the last annual plan, as WMF shifts to a quarterly planning cycle? If so, how will Fundraising know how much money to raise each quarter/year? This will not be the last annual plan. We will continue the annual plan process in future years. * Are SMART goals documented for each department? If so, where can we see them? In the quarterly goal setting process, the annual plan will be segmented into quarterly goals for each department or team. The success of the quarterly goals set by each department or team will reported on in the Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q3_(January-March).pdf . * I see that there are many new proposed FTEs but I'm unclear on what SMART goals those FTEs are intended to address. Is there a page that documents clear links between the FTE hires, the SMART goals for their departments, and explanations of how current capacity is insufficient to address the needs that these new hires are addressing? Additional information will be provided on the goals and how the new hires will impact those goals. I support making targeted in FTE increases that are clearly linked to goals and/or filling gaps, and I would like to see those links in this document or in an appendix. Thank you for this feedback. I am very interested in hearing what my fellow Wikimedians think of this document, particularly those who have experience with managing our affiliates and those with FDC experience. Thanks, Pine On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote: The draft Annual Plan for FY 15-16 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16 is available for community input and comments. Please post any suggestions on the Talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16action=editredlink=1 . The objective of this process is to make certain that we have community feedback on this initial draft of the annual plan for next fiscal year (7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016) . We value this input to assist in the improvement of the final version . This draft version of the annual plan is also being reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees so that the Wikimedia Foundation can review input from the Board of Trustees and community at the same time. T he final version of the Annual Plan is scheduled to be submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for a vote on June 15, 2015 . Best regards, Garfield Best regards, Garfield -- Garfield Byrd Chief of Finance and Administration Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext 6787 415.882.0495 (fax) www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! *https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Garfield Byrd Chief of Finance and Administration Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext 6787 415.882.0495 (fax) www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! *https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
The draft Annual Plan for FY 15-16 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16 is available for community input and comments. Please post any suggestions on the Talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16action=editredlink=1 . The objective of this process is to make certain that we have community feedback on this initial draft of the annual plan for next fiscal year (7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016) . We value this input to assist in the improvement of the final version . This draft version of the annual plan is also being reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees so that the Wikimedia Foundation can review input from the Board of Trustees and community at the same time. T he final version of the Annual Plan is scheduled to be submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for a vote on June 15, 2015 . Best regards, Garfield Best regards, Garfield -- Garfield Byrd Chief of Finance and Administration Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext 6787 415.882.0495 (fax) www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! *https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Hi Garfield, Thanks for this update. * Is this intended to be the last annual plan, as WMF shifts to a quarterly planning cycle? If so, how will Fundraising know how much money to raise each quarter/year? * Are SMART goals documented for each department? If so, where can we see them? * I see that there are many new proposed FTEs but I'm unclear on what SMART goals those FTEs are intended to address. Is there a page that documents clear links between the FTE hires, the SMART goals for their departments, and explanations of how current capacity is insufficient to address the needs that these new hires are addressing? I support making targeted in FTE increases that are clearly linked to goals and/or filling gaps, and I would like to see those links in this document or in an appendix. I am very interested in hearing what my fellow Wikimedians think of this document, particularly those who have experience with managing our affiliates and those with FDC experience. Thanks, Pine On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote: The draft Annual Plan for FY 15-16 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16 is available for community input and comments. Please post any suggestions on the Talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16action=editredlink=1 . The objective of this process is to make certain that we have community feedback on this initial draft of the annual plan for next fiscal year (7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016) . We value this input to assist in the improvement of the final version . This draft version of the annual plan is also being reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees so that the Wikimedia Foundation can review input from the Board of Trustees and community at the same time. T he final version of the Annual Plan is scheduled to be submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for a vote on June 15, 2015 . Best regards, Garfield Best regards, Garfield -- Garfield Byrd Chief of Finance and Administration Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext 6787 415.882.0495 (fax) www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! *https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
