Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF September 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, October 2, 18:00 UTC

2014-09-30 Thread Pine W
Sounds good, thanks Erik.

Pine
On Sep 29, 2014 10:02 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
  Thanks Praveena. For future meetings, could you set up a place on Meta
  where people can make requests and suggestions for presentation topics?

 Please post any such requests/suggestions on the talk page for the
 pending meeting, e.g.:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2014-10

 Re: analytics, this week's meeting will feature an update on the new
 vital signs dashboard the team has been working on. The minutes and
 slides for the most recent Analytics quarterly review (which took
 place last week) will be posted soon and include details on other
 recent work, including progress towards better readership metrics on
 mobile and desktop.

 Erik
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Product  Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 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] Damon Sicore joins WMF as Vice President of Engineering

2014-09-30 Thread Nurunnaby Hasive
+1
Welcome, Damon!

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:10 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

  Re: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:Staff_and_contractors
 
  What's the timeline for re-organizing the current Engineering and Product
  Development group? End of 2014, the first quarter of 2015, sooner, later?

 Damon is in charge of the following areas as of today, and handover is
 underway:
 - Platform Engineering
 - Features Engineering
 - Language Engineering
 - Mobile Engineering
 - Technical Operations
 - Team Practices Group

 I'll continue to be responsible for the following groups:
 - Product Management
 - User Experience
 - Analytics
 - Community Engagement
 - Wikipedia Zero (minus the engineering part, which lives in Mobile
 Engineering)

 These changes will be reflected on the staff page shortly. Needless to
 say we are providing support in transitioning approvals, hiring
 pipelines, and other day-to-day management responsibilities.

 As noted before, Analytics is a bit of an odd fit in either group,
 since it includes both engineers and data analysts, and we'll continue
 talking about what makes sense here, but it needs to be closely
 aligned with product management which is why it's in my group at this
 time.

 Any growing org structure needs some tweaking over time. There's been
 a fair bit of internal discussion already about the best future org
 structure for these internal groups in particular:
 Platform/Features/Language/Mobile. There are some felt pain points in
 the current division of engineering responsibilities through those
 groupings (in particular, some of the silo effects that it creates).
 Discussions about how to improve the org structure will continue under
 Damon's leadership, and it'll be up to him to set the timetable for
 any changes he wants to make.

 Erik

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

 ___
 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




-- 
*Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive*
Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia
http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive
Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/People
Social Media Interaction Moderator | The Daily Prothom-Alo
http://www.prothom-alo.com
Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network
http://www.okfn.org
Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN) http://www.bdosn.org
Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh http://www.mozillabd.org
fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive http://www.twitter.com/nhasive | Skype: nhasive
| www.nhasive.com
___
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] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2016 - Jury Announcement and Start of Bidding

2014-09-30 Thread
On 29 September 2014 15:53, Ellie Young eyo...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 We have a system that works for jury selection.   What I would STRONGLY like 
 to encourage people in the community to do is seek out prospective people who 
 would be good hosts and work with me on preparing a bid.   That is is our 
 biggest need!  The CFP was posted earlier this month.

Perhaps it would be easier to respond to assertions rather than direct
questions, such as those posted yesterday by Béria. If anyone is aware
of why these assertions are incorrect, perhaps they would be kind
enough to link to where we can see how things work? Note, the
Wikimania jury is not elected, it is selected by the Wikimania
Steering Committee.

Assertion: The Steering Committee is not required to be transparent in
its selection criteria.
Assertion: The Steering Committee has no published process or policies.[1]
Assertion: The Steering Committee is directed by WMF employees.[1]
Assertion: At least 5/7 of Wikimania 2016 jury members have been
employees of the WMF or Wikimedia Chapters.

Links
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_jury

P.S. CFP as used by Ellie, stands for Call for Participation.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2016 - Jury Announcement and Start of Bidding

2014-09-30 Thread Lodewijk
I'm seriously having doubts why this is becoming such a drama for some
people. There's a clear process (the Wikimania committee selects a jury,
which selects a winning bid to be confirmed by the WMF) and they asked for
volunteers, which they selected a jury from. Yay.

Because lets face it, being on the jury is a boring task and little fun.
Why are you (plural) trying so hard to make it even less fun...

These are indeed assertions, and I agree to focus on responding to factual
questions instead.

So again: Thanks for spending all this effort and time!

Lodewijk

2014-09-30 14:35 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:

 On 29 September 2014 15:53, Ellie Young eyo...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  We have a system that works for jury selection.   What I would STRONGLY
 like to encourage people in the community to do is seek out prospective
 people who would be good hosts and work with me on preparing a bid.   That
 is is our biggest need!  The CFP was posted earlier this month.

 Perhaps it would be easier to respond to assertions rather than direct
 questions, such as those posted yesterday by Béria. If anyone is aware
 of why these assertions are incorrect, perhaps they would be kind
 enough to link to where we can see how things work? Note, the
 Wikimania jury is not elected, it is selected by the Wikimania
 Steering Committee.

 Assertion: The Steering Committee is not required to be transparent in
 its selection criteria.
 Assertion: The Steering Committee has no published process or policies.[1]
 Assertion: The Steering Committee is directed by WMF employees.[1]
 Assertion: At least 5/7 of Wikimania 2016 jury members have been
 employees of the WMF or Wikimedia Chapters.

 Links
 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_jury

 P.S. CFP as used by Ellie, stands for Call for Participation.

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 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] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2016 - Jury Announcement and Start of Bidding

2014-09-30 Thread
On 30 September 2014 14:12, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
 I'm seriously having doubts why this is becoming such a drama for some
 people. There's a clear process (the Wikimania committee selects a jury,
 which selects a winning bid to be confirmed by the WMF) and they asked for
 volunteers, which they selected a jury from. Yay.

There is no process published. You may think this is clear, but there
are no records published and no criteria are set. As an example I have
been unable to identify who sits on the Wikimania Steering Group nor
find any published minutes for its meetings, despite this being a body
that bears responsibility for hundreds of thousands of dollars of
donated funds. Perhaps you do, and can link us to this information?

 Because lets face it, being on the jury is a boring task and little fun.
 Why are you (plural) trying so hard to make it even less fun...

 These are indeed assertions, and I agree to focus on responding to factual
 questions instead.

The questions in this thread (as raised by Itzik, Beria and myself)
were not answered, they appear to be sidestepped. It is unclear why,
so I put some assertions which you are free to counter with any facts
you are aware of, such as whether at least 5 out of 7 jury members
have been employees of the WMF or chapters.

 So again: Thanks for spending all this effort and time!

No problem. Wikimedia has a shared value of openness and transparency,
I believe it is worth spending a moment to pick up on where our
processes, such as for Wikimania governance, appear to be failing
these values. It may not be the fun you are advocating, but governance
is an important part of what we need to do.

Fae

___
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] Damon Sicore joins WMF as Vice President of Engineering

2014-09-30 Thread Lila Tretikov
Frederico, in simple terms:

Product == what (we build)
Engineering == how (well we build it)

Think of this as an architect and the builder. Both are required to make
sure the building is sound.

L

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Lila Tretikov, 29/09/2014 19:38:

 We are excited to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation now has a Vice
 President of Engineering. Damon Sicore will be filling this vital role.


 Nice to see this long story reach an end. Welcome, Damon. It will be
 interesting to see the experience from previous friend orgs merge into ours.

 Will we also soon get to know what this role is actually going to do? :)
 I still have the same questions: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.
 org.wikimedia.foundation/62910/focus=62937 (98 weeks old, gmane helpfully
 calculates).

 Nemo


 ___
 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] Damon Sicore joins WMF as Vice President of Engineering

2014-09-30 Thread Cristian Consonni
2014-09-29 23:37 GMT+02:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
 On 29 September 2014 16:32, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com
 wrote:
[...]
 (for the lazy ones:
 «[Damon] spent six years at the Mozilla Corporation, where he grew a
 small team of 27 people to a team of more than 600 open source
 software engineers, technical leads, managers, and directors in
 developing Mozilla Firefox, the Mozilla open source platform, Firefox
 for Android, and Firefox OS. Most recently Damon served as VP of
 Engineering at Edmodo, Inc., an educational content network, and was
 responsible for all web, platform, and mobile engineering, security,
 IT operations, support, and QA efforts.»)

 I am admittedly amongst the lazy, so thanks, Cristian.

2014-09-30 4:10 GMT+02:00 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com:
 Hah, yes, my thanks as well. The context was very helpful. :-)

You are welcome :)

That said, I forgot to mention the source:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/29/damon-sicore-joins-wmf-as-vice-president-of-engineering/

C

___
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] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-30 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Analytics team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 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



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
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] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-30 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 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



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
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] Damon Sicore joins WMF as Vice President of Engineering

2014-09-30 Thread Wil Sinclair
Hi Damon, looking forward to meeting you. I'd like to welcome you not
only to WMF, but to the wikimedia-l list. I encourage you to join the
discussions here, even if you feel like you don't have the deep
expertise and broad community context that a lot of the big shots who
post here may have. I don't, and that hasn't stopped me. :) I'm sure
everyone will be happy to help you get up to speed. No doubt others
here would agree with me when I say that your active participation in
the community is at least as important as your responsibilities within
the WMF. In short, the WMF and our community are not sold separately.
They are the yang yin that have made the Wikimedia projects what they
are today, and one can't exist without the other.

I'm not one to tip-toe around taboos, so I'll directly address
something that's important but rarely discussed on this list.
Sometimes people get upset and post things here or onwiki that hurt
feelings or come off as confrontational. In fact, you'll see the
occasional post that has no purpose beyond putting people down and/or
making them feel unwelcome. It has been directed at one time or
another to pretty much every highly active and/or high-profile
Wikipedian. Please understand that this is a natural behavior for
passionate volunteers who have done something extraordinary and want
to make sure that their hard work continues to have a positive impact
in our world.

Our community members have set the bar pretty high by providing
content that the entire world depends on, and their high expectations
from the WMF and the Mediawiki team to provide the best tools possible
for displaying and manipulating that content are well deserved. When
I've found myself in the crosshairs, this thought puts me back in the
big picture and helps me find a productive path forward.

I hope this helps, and I'm looking forward to your first post on this
list. I'm numbering myself among those who are looking forward to your
first post.

Best.
,Wil



On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Dear all,

 We are excited to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation now has a Vice
 President of Engineering. Damon Sicore will be filling this vital role.
 Please join us in welcoming him to the team.

 The VPE role will be crucial to further developing and maintaining the
 technology that supports the very core of the Wikimedia movement, and
 ensuring the development, scale, and stability of the MediaWiki
 architecture.


 Damon joins us as part of planned growth of our product and engineering
 teams, first announced in November 2012. As we have grown, we need
 dedicated focus on product and engineering as separate departments, to
 ensure development of best practices like performance engineering,
 continuous delivery, A/B testing, software re-architecture, UI/UX work, and
 user research. Erik Moeller, who filled the role of VP for both product and
 engineering since 2011, led in the creation of this new role and was
 essential to the search process.  From today onward, Erik will focus on his
 role as VP of Product and Strategy and Deputy Director of the WMF, while
 Damon will take over leadership of the Engineering team; both will report
 to me as part of the c-level team.

 Damon has a unique track record of managing large platform rollouts using
 distributed teams like ours, while understanding the essential role of
 community contributions and working in a transparent, open source
 environment. These skills and experiences will be invaluable in his work
 here at the Foundation. It’s unusual to find someone who understands us so
 well, and so I want to thank the many people from across the organization,
 especially in the engineering, product, and human resources teams, who have
 been involved in making this search successful.

 We are very happy to have Damon on board. His proven track record of
 managing large platform rollouts using distributed teams like ours, while
 understanding the essential role of community contributions and working in
 a transparent, open source environment, is unique and invaluable as part of
 our movement.

 We’ll be sending around a copy of the press release shortly. You’ll also be
 be able to meet Damon, and ask him questions, this Thursday at our monthly
 Metrics Meeting
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings.
 Please join us there!

 Please join me in welcoming Damon.

 Lila
 ___
 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-30 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from last week's mid-year review meeting of the
Foundation's Wikipedia Education Program team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Education_Program/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 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



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
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