Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have > summarised > > my concerns on the related talk page on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Hi Rogol, On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Leila, > > I am sorry to hear that your management have not seen fit to allow you the > ​ > time to read this report since it is on a topic that is key to work that > you do. ​This is not a concern on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

Hi Andreas, On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have summarised > my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.[3] > ​I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your

[Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

For the past couple of days, there has been a discussion[1] of the 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy[2] and the associated recommendations for WMF messaging in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. The audit was performed by, or in collaboration with, political consultants

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone. Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this will help to keep the conversation focused and