Hi Sam,
first of all, let me thank you for your involvement in this—it's
appreciated! Other comments follow in-line.
By the time we see a final-draft plan in April/May, there is already
little leeway for significant change.
This probably means that there is something wrong with the process
Excellent idea Ziko! I have added the WMAU strategic plan (
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Strategic_plan ) to the list on Meta also.
Cheers,
Craig Franklin
President - Wikimedia Australia
On 23 April 2013 09:21, Everton Zanella Alvarenga t...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Great idea. [2]
I think
On 22 April 2013 23:22, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy
Would you like to make a link to your strategy document?
I added a link to WMUK's five year strategy document, however I am
wondering if this might work even better if the links appeared
Hi,
It's already there:
- Provide advice (on request) with regards to other large-scale
Wikimedia events to the community and movement bodies.
*~Orsolya*
2013/4/23 Butch Bustria bu...@wikimedia.org.ph
Hi,
I suggest Wikimedia Conference Coordination Committee (WC3) so that
As you say, the WMF and a few chapters do have such an induction process
already. Perhaps we can coordinate those existing processes with whatever
is developed for the rest of the affiliates. For instance, there might be
a few of these workshops each year; at least one of them at Wikimania. The
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Hi Sam,
first of all, let me thank you for your involvement in this—it's
appreciated! Other comments follow in-line.
By the time we see a final-draft plan in April/May, there is already
little leeway for
Hello again,
A few comments inline:
Leslie Carr writes:
As someone who works for the foundation and has had to deal with
budget issues in engineering (though this is my personal opinion)
the budget process is already incredibly long, drawn out, and stressful.
This is a problem that we should
The necessity of public comment on a detailed budget is overblown. I
don't think the Foundation should dedicate a lot of time or resources
into getting input into the budget development process from members of
the community. This is one area where expertise and the ability to
dedicate a
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Nathan wrote:
The necessity of public comment on a detailed budget is overblown. I
don't think the Foundation should dedicate a lot of time or resources
into getting input into the budget development process from members of
the community. This is one area where
Thank you for taking this step! I am glad that the board now involves the
community in its bylaw changing process.
Lodewijk
2013/4/22 Risker risker...@gmail.com
Just in case others had problems with the links (thanks gmail...)
The Human Hacking Field Guide - a story about open source and open content
hackerdom - What's in it for you and how you can help.
Hi all,
you will hopefully enjoy reading this story:
Lodewijk, 23/04/2013 18:11:
Thank you for taking this step! I am glad that the board now involves the
community in its bylaw changing process.
+1
What appears obvious in bylaws changes, never is.
Vacancies, in particular, are among the trickiest matters to deal with
in bylaws; I left a
Steven Walling, 23/04/2013 17:58:
I fully agree.
My team, Editor Engagement Experiments, was one of the few submitted to the
FDC for approval.[1] We got almost no substantive questions or comments on
the Talk page or mailing lists from community members about our budget. [...]
That the FDC
Steven,
I am actually disappointed to see you bring such an example to back up a
thesis that — that's the impression I'm getting — the community cannot
provide valuable feedback on budget-related matters.
The experience that I have is quite opposite: as far as I am aware,
community members
from my point of view, it would be really great if there was more feedback
from the community on the FDC proposals, but I also understand that reading
detailed proposals is not necessarily something that many active members
have the necessary time for.
I think it is clear that the community can
Hey all,
As you might know, the Editor Engagement Experiments team spent several weeks in
2012-13 testing changes to the account creation page, aiming to make
it easier for new editors to join our projects.[1]
Soon you'll see wider announcements on-wiki and on the blog about the
soft launch of
Exactly. The community is involved in the strategic planning process,
and has the opportunity to review the spending and changes over time,
both through the visible elements of annual planning and the annual
reports. In addition, there is (obviously) pretty robust discussion
here when questions
It's good to see so much interest in this thread.
The purpose of transparency is not feedback. It is valuable in its own right.
It reduces surprise and supports planning discussions elsewhere in the movement.
And any information shared in a lookahead document would be at a high
level; not
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see so much interest in this thread.
The purpose of transparency is not feedback. It is valuable in its own
right.
It reduces surprise and supports planning discussions elsewhere in the
movement.
I do
19 matches
Mail list logo
