Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

I think all the conversation about this is really helpful, and it's
been particularly useful thus far to hear from community members about
what's confusing about the current and proposed structures. ("Not
being confusing" isn't the primary motivation for a restructure, but
it's obviously worth consideration.)

I do want to underline though, from Erik's original note, this: "To
avoid fear and anxiety, and to make sure the plan makes sense, I
want to start an open conversation now. If you think any of the below
is a terrible idea, or have suggestions on how to improve the plan,
I’d love to hear from you," and "I look forward to hearing your
thoughts & discussing this further in coming weeks."

I kind of have the sense that people are considering this a done deal.
I understand why people might assume that -- in an ordinary
organization, a note like Erik's doesn't go out until things are
pretty much locked down. But it's important that you realize that's
not what's happening here: your input is wanted. Particularly for
staff who'd be directly affected by these changes --- this is your
window to shape what happens. If you think there are likely to be
downstream effects of these proposed changes that are worth
considering, or additional improvements that could be folded into
this, or an aspect that warrants being revisited: this is your window.
You can talk with Erik (by e-mail because he's travelling), me, Gayle,
or whoever else seems relevant. That was the whole point of Erik's
note :-)

So to be super-clear: None of this is a done deal at this moment. Lots
of conversations are happening in various places, and it's all good.
That's why Erik made the pre-announcement --- to create a window for
discussion & iteration and further thinking :-)

Thanks,
Sue



--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

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/

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Howie Fung]

Picking up this thread as Erik asked me to explain the different functions
that fall under "Product".  To do that, it's worth describing in a bit more
detail how our project teams work.

This may be a bit reductive (apologies in advance), but there are a basic
set of things that need to happen when building a product.  These things
happen regardless of what the product actually is (e.g., t-shirts count):

1.  Decide what to build
2.  Design it
3.  Build it
4.  Measure how it's used (if you want to improve the product)

Roughly speaking, that's how we organize our teams when it comes to
building features.  Product Managers decide what features to build,
Designers design the feature, Developers build the feature, and Analysts
measure how the features perform.  (features = things on our websites or
mobile that readers or editors would use).

Let's take PageCuration as an example of a feature that WMF developed.  In
this case, the feature development team consisted of a Product Manager,
Designers, Developers, and Analysts, all working together.  Here's how the
various roles worked:

1.  Product Manager [1]:  Represents the user's point of view.  Works with
the rest of the team to identify and solve a user problem.  For example, we
knew that the backlog for Special:NewPages on the English Wikipedia was
consistently too large and that existing page patrollers felt overworked.
To solve the problem, we needed to make page patrolling more efficient
[2].  Product Manager worked with the rest of the team to develop potential
solutions to this problem.  The outcome of this was the decision to build
two separate features for the end user (i.e., page patrollers):
Special:NewPagesFeed [3] (redesign of Special:NewPages) and the Curation
Toolbar.

The Product Manager worked with the rest of the WMF and volunteers in the
community to identify specific features by asking question such as "If we
were to redesign Special:NewPages, what kind of information would page
patrollers want to see that would make their jobs more efficient.  Out of
this inquiry came ideas like surfacing the # of categories, # of citations,
whether an article is an orphan, a snippet of the content, etc. as these
pieces of information would help the patroller determine which articles
warranted attention.  Fabrice Florin was the Product Manager.

We also have a Community Liaison (Oliver Keyes) who is responsible for
reaching out to the editor community to make sure the feature we're
building actually meets the needs of our editors.  The Community Liaison
creates the space where community members can give input into the feature
by holding IRC chats, on-wiki discussions, reaching out to editors, etc.

2.  Designer:  The designer then takes this input and designs the user
interface for Special:NewPagesFeed.  Part of this is Interaction Design [4]
e.g., how are the elements of the page laid out so that page patrollers can
easily parse the information?   How does a page patroller actually
accomplish the task of selecting an article to review (e.g., should there
be a "Review" button associated with each article, or should the article
link be sufficient?).  Does this action open up a separate tab?  How should
filtering of this list work? Etc.

There's also Visual Design:  How do we use color to help identify the
different states of an article?  How can icons be used to reduce the
cognitive load associated with parsing information?  How can we create a
look & feel that's visually engaging?

Brandon Harris and Vibha Bamba were the designers for Page Curation.

3.  Developer: The developers then take these functional and design ideas
and code the feature.  On this project, the developers were Ryan Kaldari
and Benny Situ.

4.  Analyst: The data analyst works with the developers to determine what
types of stats would give the team a handle on whether/how the feature is
being used.  For example, here is the dashboard that Dario Taraborelli:
http://toolserver.org/~dartar/pc/

These roles aren't rigidly defined.  For example, ideas for features can
come from anywhere, not just the Product Manager.  In my view, a
well-functioning team is one where everyone is engaged in coming up with
ideas.  But there should be someone responsible for ensuring that the
various ideas come together into a coherent whole, ones that addresses the
problem at hand.  That responsibility lies with the Product Manager.

Also, Product Managers and Designers don't spec out stuff which they then
hand over to developers to build.  Teams work collaboratively to come up
with solutions.

That's how our project teams are structured.  When it comes to the proposed
organizational structure, "Product" consists of Product Managers,
Designers, and Analysts (1, 2 and 4) and "Engineering" consists engineers
across the different areas Terry describes.  One way to view it is that
"Product" involves everything outside of writing code for a feature and
developers in "Engineering" write the code.  It's oversimplific

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Platonides  wrote:

> You can see several teams in that page, with members from multiple
> "sections". Which leads to the (naive?) question on what's the purpose
> of being splitted in those sections if then the work is done in teams
> with a completely different organization.

The purpose of functional groupings is to ensure that there is
coordination and communication among people who share a function (e.g.
all designers), and that they have management support, ideally from
someone who understands their function and purpose in the
organization, and is able to help them grow in their career and as an
individual contributor. It creates escalation points in case of
conflicts, and can help to remove blockers.

The purpose of team groupings is to ensure that a team is assembled
cross-functionally, from all the required skills, and fully focused on
delivering its objectives.

The two organizational models are complementary; the singular focus on
one or the other tends to lead to silos. Achieving a healthy balance
between intra-functional team development and growth and
cross-functional delivery is one of the key challenges of management.

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Platonides  wrote:

> > Thanks for your explanation but personally I'm more confused than before
> > about the difference between Engineering and Product, also because the
> > terminology didn't appear internally consistent. :-)
>
> I feel like you, Nemo. I am glad by Terry explanation, but as I went on
> reading it, the less I felt I understood it. It would benefit from a
> more layman explanation. Maybe it's just complex to everybody.


Simplest possible explanation of what Erik is proposing: we need to split a
large department in to two, and add more managers. It's too big ad too
critical for one person to manage.

In three steps...

   1. Right now there is one department, Engineering & Product Development.
   It includes engineers, designers, product managers, community liasons, data
   analysts, and more. It's the biggest department at the Wikimedia
   Foundation.
   2. In 6-8 months there will be two departments, Engineering and Product
   Development. Each will have their own leaders that report to Sue, instead
   of everyone reporting to Erik. Engineering will contain software engineers
   and their managers, for the most part. Product Development will contain
   designers, product managers, and data analysts, for the most part.
   3. There will also probably be new Director-level positions under the
   new departments, such as to manage the design team.

That glosses over the entirety of the reasons for proposing this and the
benefits, obviously. Howie's explanation of what each of these roles are
will help define why product development is distinct from engineering, I'm
sure.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Tilman Bayer]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Platonides  wrote:
> On 07/11/12 22:21, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> Terry Chay, 07/11/2012 21:04:
 You aren't the only one. It turns out we use a lot of industry
 terminology, without realizing that we are poorly communicating what
 that means to most people. [...]
 First of all, this will help greatly to the others (you already
 read it): .
>>
>> Thanks for your explanation but personally I'm more confused than before
>> about the difference between Engineering and Product, also because the
>> terminology didn't appear internally consistent. :-)
>
> I feel like you, Nemo. I am glad by Terry explanation, but as I went on
> reading it, the less I felt I understood it. It would benefit from a
> more layman explanation. Maybe it's just complex to everybody.
>
>
>> So, to keep it simple, that page has:
>>
>> 2 Engineering and Product Development
>> 2.1 Platform
>> 2.2 Features
>> 2.3 Technical Operations
>> 2.4 Mobile and Special Projects
>> 2.5 Language
>> 2.6 Product
>>
>> and as first approximation "Product" would be something like 2.2+2.6 and
>> "Engineering" something like 2.1+2.3, with 2.4 and 2.5 aside?
>
> I thought that 2.4 (Mobile) would also be Product.
>
>
>
 [...] On the "Engineering" side, there exists an amalgam of
 specific focused groups with their own directors. The focused groups
 are: Language (formerly "i18n and Experimentation",
 internationalization/localization/globalization is a cross-cutting
 concern), and Mobile (formerly, "Mobile and Special Projects: the
 mobile web, the mobile app, also including Wikipedia Zero). The
 "area" focused ones are: Operations (keeping the lights on), Platform
 (keeping the code working) and Features (ostensibly new features). [...]
>>
>> What you call the Engineering side here, at a first glance, could seem
>> product development, and in fact those two "focused groups" currently
>> have some members which are under 2.6 (Product). Surely the same happens
>> for the other areas you mentioned.
>
>
> You can see several teams in that page, with members from multiple
> "sections". Which leads to the (naive?) question on what's the purpose
> of being splitted in those sections if then the work is done in teams
> with a completely different organization.
>
>
> After staring for a while to [[Staff and contractors]] and trying to
> match people with its work, my only conclusion is that I don't know what
> most employees do.
>
It often (not always) helps to click through to the employee's user
page and read the "My work" section there. Earlier this year, Gayle
harassed us all a lot to put something informative there ;)

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:

> Whatever the result, I hope we end up with teams where software developers,
> sysadmins, product managers, designers etc are well mixed in focused teams
> going after clear common goals.

Absolutely. Teams are assembled cross-functionally to ensure that all
required skills are present in a team. This will not change in the new
structure. Indeed there are ways in which we need to do better (e.g.
involving ops/architects earlier in the development process on major
feature initiatives). The departments represent functional groupings,
while teams are inherently cross-functional, which is a pretty
conventional structural approach.

I've asked Howie to weigh in a bit on the definition and role of
Product Managers, User Experience Designers, Visual Designers,
Interaction Designers, Research Analysts, Community Liaisons and other
functions grouped in Product. I'll write a bit more in this thread in
a few days as well (about to head to Bangalore for the hackathon
there).

All best,
Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Thank you, Erik. Before (or rather than) commenting, I have a single 
question below; the rest of the email is just a premise+addendum to it. ;-)


Terry Chay, 07/11/2012 21:04:

You aren't the only one. It turns out we use a lot of industry 
terminology, without realizing that we are poorly communicating what that means 
to most people. [...]
First of all, this will help greatly to the others (you already read it): 
.


Thanks for your explanation but personally I'm more confused than before 
about the difference between Engineering and Product, also because the 
terminology didn't appear internally consistent. :-)

So, to keep it simple, that page has:

2 Engineering and Product Development
2.1 Platform
2.2 Features
2.3 Technical Operations
2.4 Mobile and Special Projects
2.5 Language
2.6 Product

and as first approximation "Product" would be something like 2.2+2.6 and 
"Engineering" something like 2.1+2.3, with 2.4 and 2.5 aside?



[...] On the "Engineering" side, there exists an amalgam of specific focused groups with their 
own directors. The focused groups are: Language (formerly "i18n and Experimentation", 
internationalization/localization/globalization is a cross-cutting concern), and Mobile (formerly, "Mobile 
and Special Projects: the mobile web, the mobile app, also including Wikipedia Zero). The "area" focused 
ones are: Operations (keeping the lights on), Platform (keeping the code working) and Features (ostensibly new 
features). [...]


What you call the Engineering side here, at a first glance, could seem 
product development, and in fact those two "focused groups" currently 
have some members which are under 2.6 (Product). Surely the same happens 
for the other areas you mentioned.

Which brings me to my question.

Erik Moeller, 06/11/2012 04:03:
> A split dept structure wouldn’t affect the way we assemble teams --
> we’d still pull from required functions (devs, product, UI/UX, etc.),
> and teams would continue to pursue their objectives fairly
> autonomously.

Could you please elaborate on this?

"The [current] way we assemble teams" is very obscure to me.
Will members of each team become more or less scattered among different 
responsibles than they currently are?
For instance, if I understand correctly, what Terry called the 
Engineering side is distinguished by being "used" by teams in other 
areas/department for "cross-cutting concerns" in addition to having some 
product-development-like tasks? Will the mixed functions which 
individual persons/teams have become more or less clear by the split in 
two departments?

Thanks,
Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Philippe Beaudette]

One thing that I really like here:  Terry specifically calls out past
projects (ArticleFeedbackTool, PageCuration, MoodBar), as things that his
team continues to support, though in a less structured/rigid/team-based
method (my own interpretation of what he said).  I want to say that this
has been a massive help to me - it's nice to know that features aren't
abandoned when deployed, and that - for the time they're out there - we
still support them.

pb

___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org



On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Terry Chay  wrote:

> Sry, apparently this message gout bounced :-)
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Terry Chay 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org
> structure
> > Date: November 7, 2012 11:47:56 AM PST
> > To: Wikimedia developers 
> > Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> >
> > Quim,
> >
> > On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, am I the only one having difficulties understanding the proposal
> and what it implies?
> >
> >   You aren't the only one. It turns out we use a lot of industry
> terminology, without realizing that we are poorly communicating what that
> means to most people. For instance, I once introduced our Director of
> "Product" to someone and Howie got inundated with a request for help in
> getting them a Wikimedia T-shirt. :-D
> >
> >>
> >> On 11/05/2012 07:03 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> >>> we need to split the current department into an engineering dept
> >>> and a product dept in about 6-8 months.
> >>
> >> It is strange to see "engineering" and "product" side by side, since
> (as i understand them) these words belong to different categories.  :)
> >
> >   First of all, this will help greatly to the others (you already
> read it): .
> >
> >   In this case, the current structure has three separate concepts
> under the banner of "Product": they are product design (i.e. new software
> features ), project
> management (getting those features out on a schedule), and
> user-interface/user experience/design (in this case, the pixels as the
> actual coding of the UX/UI is in "Features").
> >
> >   On the "Engineering" side, there exists an amalgam of specific
> focused groups with their own directors. The focused groups are: Language
> (formerly "i18n and Experimentation",
> internationalization/localization/globalization is a cross-cutting
> concern), and Mobile (formerly, "Mobile and Special Projects: the mobile
> web, the mobile app, also including Wikipedia Zero). The "area" focused
> ones are: Operations (keeping the lights on), Platform (keeping the code
> working) and Features (ostensibly new features).
> >
> >   (In reality, taking my division, Features, as an example, I have
> teams working on the Visual Editor (actually three challenges: the visual
> editor, the parser, and integrating the two), FR-tech (engineering support
> for the Fundraiser), Editor Engagement (this year: Notifications and
> Messaging), and Editor Engagement Experimentation (i.e. post-edit feedback,
> account creation, new user flows, and analytics to support it), and
> normally Multimedia (Commons, video, UploadWizard). Plus there is stuff I
> haven't counted but take resources here and there: maintenance of existing
> stuff, being available for UI/UX for platform,
> ResourceLoader/ResourceLoader2, the Agora project for standardized UI/UX,
> previous and current Editor engagement projects (ArticleFeedbackTool,
> PageCuration, MoodBar), and MicroDesign.)
> >
> >> Do you mean a "platform" team and "product" team, both filled with
> engineers and other profiles but each one focusing on different things? The
> MediaWiki (platform) team and the Wikimedia (product) teams, so to say?
> >>
> >> Or are you indeed referring to the classical separation between
> "product managers + designers" and "developers + testers"? The first ones
> defining requirements and the second ones implementing them?
> >
> >   I believe what is being talked about is more the latter, less the
> former: a separation of "Product" into distinct teams. Initially that will
> probably be splitting the product and project managers from the UI/UX
> piece. Already, Product works closely with Features (projects), Mobile, and
> Language providing the product management support and design. On doing
> this, it elevates Product Development as a whole to a higher level (along
> with Global Dev, Fundraising, Legal and Community, Finanace and
> Administration and HR, and distinct from Engineering). This does not mean
> that they are separate. For example, currently, Mobile (in engineering)
> works closely with mobile partnerships in Global Development on Wikipedia
> Zero, FR-tech in Features works closely with Fundraising (obviously), and
> none of us can 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Sue Gardner]

On 7 November 2012 11:47, Terry Chay  wrote:
> Take care,
>
> terry

Terry this is great, thank you for writing it. I was on a two-hour
call glancing at this thread, knowing Erik's travelling, and wondering
if I should reply in his stead. Glad you did it :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Terry Chay]

Sry, apparently this message gout bounced :-)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Terry Chay 
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org 
> structure
> Date: November 7, 2012 11:47:56 AM PST
> To: Wikimedia developers 
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> 
> Quim,
> 
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:
> 
>> Hi, am I the only one having difficulties understanding the proposal and 
>> what it implies?
> 
>   You aren't the only one. It turns out we use a lot of industry 
> terminology, without realizing that we are poorly communicating what that 
> means to most people. For instance, I once introduced our Director of 
> "Product" to someone and Howie got inundated with a request for help in 
> getting them a Wikimedia T-shirt. :-D
> 
>> 
>> On 11/05/2012 07:03 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>>> we need to split the current department into an engineering dept
>>> and a product dept in about 6-8 months.
>> 
>> It is strange to see "engineering" and "product" side by side, since (as i 
>> understand them) these words belong to different categories.  :)
> 
>   First of all, this will help greatly to the others (you already read 
> it): .
> 
>   In this case, the current structure has three separate concepts under 
> the banner of "Product": they are product design (i.e. new software features 
> ), project management (getting 
> those features out on a schedule), and user-interface/user experience/design 
> (in this case, the pixels as the actual coding of the UX/UI is in "Features").
> 
>   On the "Engineering" side, there exists an amalgam of specific focused 
> groups with their own directors. The focused groups are: Language (formerly 
> "i18n and Experimentation", internationalization/localization/globalization 
> is a cross-cutting concern), and Mobile (formerly, "Mobile and Special 
> Projects: the mobile web, the mobile app, also including Wikipedia Zero). The 
> "area" focused ones are: Operations (keeping the lights on), Platform 
> (keeping the code working) and Features (ostensibly new features).
> 
>   (In reality, taking my division, Features, as an example, I have teams 
> working on the Visual Editor (actually three challenges: the visual editor, 
> the parser, and integrating the two), FR-tech (engineering support for the 
> Fundraiser), Editor Engagement (this year: Notifications and Messaging), and 
> Editor Engagement Experimentation (i.e. post-edit feedback, account creation, 
> new user flows, and analytics to support it), and normally Multimedia 
> (Commons, video, UploadWizard). Plus there is stuff I haven't counted but 
> take resources here and there: maintenance of existing stuff, being available 
> for UI/UX for platform, ResourceLoader/ResourceLoader2, the Agora project for 
> standardized UI/UX, previous and current Editor engagement projects 
> (ArticleFeedbackTool, PageCuration, MoodBar), and MicroDesign.)
> 
>> Do you mean a "platform" team and "product" team, both filled with engineers 
>> and other profiles but each one focusing on different things? The MediaWiki 
>> (platform) team and the Wikimedia (product) teams, so to say?
>> 
>> Or are you indeed referring to the classical separation between "product 
>> managers + designers" and "developers + testers"? The first ones defining 
>> requirements and the second ones implementing them?
> 
>   I believe what is being talked about is more the latter, less the 
> former: a separation of "Product" into distinct teams. Initially that will 
> probably be splitting the product and project managers from the UI/UX piece. 
> Already, Product works closely with Features (projects), Mobile, and Language 
> providing the product management support and design. On doing this, it 
> elevates Product Development as a whole to a higher level (along with Global 
> Dev, Fundraising, Legal and Community, Finanace and Administration and HR, 
> and distinct from Engineering). This does not mean that they are separate. 
> For example, currently, Mobile (in engineering) works closely with mobile 
> partnerships in Global Development on Wikipedia Zero, FR-tech in Features 
> works closely with Fundraising (obviously), and none of us can do anything 
> without Finance and Administration, HR, and Legal counsel.
> 
>   Right now, Erik wears three hats: deputy director, VP of engineering, 
> VP of product development. As you have noticed from the staff and contractors 
> page, "Engineering and Product Development" is an umbrella that encompasses 
> nearly half the WMF. While groups like Mobile and Language are focused, 
> Features, Platform, and Ops have become "catch-all" areas and lack focus. As 
> the groups have grown, fragmentation has increased. I showed what Features 
> really looks like above, but I'm sure Rob and CT can share similar examples 
> of that in Platform and Ops.
> 
>   I th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Quim Gil]

Hi, am I the only one having difficulties understanding the proposal and 
what it implies?


On 11/05/2012 07:03 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

we need to split the current department into an engineering dept
and a product dept in about 6-8 months.


It is strange to see "engineering" and "product" side by side, since (as 
i understand them) these words belong to different categories.  :)


Do you mean a "platform" team and "product" team, both filled with 
engineers and other profiles but each one focusing on different things? 
The MediaWiki (platform) team and the Wikimedia (product) teams, so to say?


Or are you indeed referring to the classical separation between "product 
managers + designers" and "developers + testers"? The first ones 
defining requirements and the second ones implementing them?


Or something else? Reading your email + 
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors + 
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering wasn't enough for me 
to understand.


What is clear from your email is that the current Engineering team is 
underrepresented at a high level and you Erik have too much in your 
bucket. A split and flattening getting more people in the high decision 
levels makes total sense.


What also seems to be clear is that such reorganization should solve the 
slightly schizophrenic tension of priorities between Wikimedia/product 
and MediaWiki/platform, right?


Whatever the result, I hope we end up with teams where software 
developers, sysadmins, product managers, designers etc are well mixed in 
focused teams going after clear common goals.


--
Quim


To avoid fear and anxiety, and to make sure the plan makes sense, I
want to start an open conversation now. If you think any of the below
is a terrible idea, or have suggestions on how to improve the plan,
I’d love to hear from you. I’ll make myself personally available to
anyone who wants to talk more about it. (I'm traveling a bit starting
tomorrow, but will be available via email during that time.) We can
also discuss it at coming tech lunches and such.

There’s also nothing private here, so I’m forwarding this note to
wikitech-l@ and wikimedia-l@ as well. That said, there’s no urgency in
this note, so feel free to set it aside for later.

Here’s why I’m recommending to Sue that we create distinct engineering
and product departments:

- It’ll give product development and the user experience more
visibility at the senior mgmt level, which means we’ll have more
conversations at that level about the work that most of the
organization actually does. Right now, a single dept of ~70 people is
represented by 1 person across both engineering and product functions
- me. That was fine when it was half the size. Right now it’s out of
whack.

- It’ll give us the ability to add Director-level leadership functions
as appropriate without making my head explode.

- I believe that separating the two functions is consistent with Sue’s
recommendation to narrow our focus and develop our identity as an
engineering organization. It will allow for more sustained effort in
managing product priorities and greater advocacy for core platform
issues (APIs, site performance, search, ops improvements, etc.) that
are less visible than our feature priorities.

A split dept structure wouldn’t affect the way we assemble teams --
we’d still pull from required functions (devs, product, UI/UX, etc.),
and teams would continue to pursue their objectives fairly
autonomously.

It’s not all roses -- we might see more conflict between the two
functions, more us vs. them thinking, and more communications
breakdowns or forum shopping. But net I think the positives would
outweigh the negatives, and there are ways to mitigate against the
negatives.

The way we’d get there:

I’m prepared to resign from my engineering management responsibilities
and to focus solely on my remaining role as VP of Product, as soon as
a successor for VP of Engineering has been identified. We would start
that hiring process probably in early 2013. I’m recommending to Sue
that we seriously consider internal candidates for the VP of
Engineering role, as we have a strong engineering management team in
place today.

So realistically we'd probably identify that person towards the end of
the fiscal year.

Obviously I can’t make any promises to you that in that brave new
world, you’ll love whoever gets hired into the VP of Engineering role,
so there’s some unavoidable uncertainty there. I’ll support Sue in the
search, though, and I’m sure she’d appreciate feedback from you on the
kind of person who you think would be ideal for the job.

The VP of Product role would encompass a combination of functions.
Howie and I would work with the department to figure out what makes
sense as an internal structure. My opening view is that Analytics and
User Experience are potential areas that may benefit from dedicated
Director-level support roles. (Analytics is tricky because it includes
a strong engineer

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Sue Gardner]

On 7 November 2012 08:40, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
> Crossposting is tricky – Sue's answer didn't reach wikimedia-l as far as I
> can see. From
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-November/064281.html :

Oh thanks, Nemo. I don't know what went wrong there, but I appreciate
you catching it :-)
Sue

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Crossposting is tricky – Sue's answer didn't reach wikimedia-l as far as 
I can see. From 
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-November/064281.html :


Hi K. Peachey,

Generally speaking, the WMF posts and boards for every vacancy. (I
think there's a policy document somewhere to that effect --
regardless, it's been our practice for years.) Sometimes we skip the
posting & boarding process if there's a sufficiently compelling
reason, but mostly we post and board every position.

And so yes, indeed, we will post and board the head of Engineering
vacancy, because it's a newly-created position, and it's vacant. We
won't be posting and boarding the head of Product, though, because it
is not a newly-created position and it's not a vacancy. Even though
the responsibilities and scope of the role are shifting, it is an
existing position, and it has an incumbent (Erik).

Thanks,
Sue

K. Peachey, 06/11/2012 20:30:

(Double Post, Since this was crossposted in the first place, and to
make sure I hit both lists, Sorry Wikitech)

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

The way we’d get there:

I’m prepared to resign from my engineering management responsibilities
and to focus solely on my remaining role as VP of Product, as soon as
a successor for VP of Engineering has been identified. We would start
that hiring process probably in early 2013. I’m recommending to Sue
that we seriously consider internal candidates for the VP of
Engineering role, as we have a strong engineering management team in
place today.

So realistically we'd probably identify that person towards the end of
the fiscal year.


Due to the nature of the foundation and to ensure continued growth and
prosperity I would be hoping that the foundation ensured both
positions became "vacant" and the person/s are chosen on the merits of
their applications to ensure the continued and best growth.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia collaterally damaged by google's autocomplete filter

[Kim Bruning]

Google's autocomplete filter now censors certain search terms.
While this may or may not be successful at stopping "piracy", it certainly 
manages
to filter wikipedia pages on these topics.

See here, and note the top hit for their example:

http://torrentfreak.com/why-is-megaupload-still-censored-by-googles-piracy-filter-121028/

I've also tested a few of the knwn terms myself.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

[Risker]

On 5 November 2012 22:03, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> FYI
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Erik Moeller 
> Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:38 PM
> Subject: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure
> To: Staff All 
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> 
>


> - It’ll give us the ability to add Director-level leadership functions
> as appropriate without making my head explode.
>
> 

An excellent motivation.  :-)

More seriously, this sounds like a reasonable way to separate the functions.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2012 Editor survey launched

[Orsolya Gyenes]

This could not be more difficult... I am a sysop on huwiki for 3 years now
and I'm looking for the link for half an hour now and I still can't find
it... :O

How can you expect newbies to find it?

*~Orsolya*


2012/11/6 Andreas Kolbe 

> I didn't see the banner either, but this solved the problem for me:
>
> 1. Make sure "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" in your
> preferences (it's under gadgets) is NOT checked.
>
> 2. Set your browser to "Private Browsing" or "Incognito" of "Stealth" mode,
> whichever term your browser uses; this is to bypass any cookies that may be
> preventing the banner from being displayed (again).
>
> 3. Go to the English Wikipedia main page: you should then see the banner at
> the top of your screen, with a link enabling you to do the survey.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:13 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> > "On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM, John Vandenberg 
> > wrote:
> > > Thanks Tilman. Good to see the offer is in the public FAQ.
> > >
> > > I was on my phone at the time I saw it, and having some time on my
> hands
> > I
> > > tried to fill it in. I managed to screw up the survey software on the
> > > languages selection by trying to select more than one, and then it
> > wouldnt
> > > let me pick any. I quit thinking I would get another chance...on my
> > desktop.
> > >
> > > I dont remember if the survey told me that I would only have one
> > chance...
> >
> > Looks like it does.  When editing French Wikipedia, the survey popped
> > up again and said
> >
> > "You can pause the survey at any time and finish it later, but this
> > may be the only time you will see this message."
> >
> > I am hoping this is an nefarious ploy by the WMF to promote
> > non-English Wikipedias ;-)
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l