Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences

[Pine W]

Hi Alex, per Dan's suggestion that I provide a reminder of the original
question, here is a reminder of part of what I wrote previously at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-September/091113.html
.

"I think that it would be helpful to have a big picture understanding of
the goals, plans, and budgets for conferences collectively.

"As far as I know, these are the types of recurring conferences:

"(1) Wikimania, which seems to be a multi-purpose international conference,
with somewhat open admission if someone can afford to attend, is willing to
attend, and can get the necessary legal permissions;

"(2) the Wikimedia Summit (which I hope will get a name change to reflect
its actual scope, because it's not an all-Wikimedia summit) which will
focus on WMF, WMF committees that work with WMF affiliate organizations,and
WMF affiliate organizations;

"(3) thematic conferences, such as the Wikisource Conference;

"(4) regional conferences, such as WikiConference North America;

"(5) organization-specific meetings of various kinds, including affiliate
organizations' annual general meetings and WMF All Hands, and

"(6) the Wikimedia Technical Conference.

"I believe that WMF intended to do some strategic planning for the
collection of conferences as a part of the larger WMF-led strategic
planning process. Is this type of planning underway for conferences, and if
so can we get an update regarding what is happening?"

I would also like to know why my inquiries about this subject, which
started in late September 2018, have been substantively unanswered for over
four months despite my multiple requests. I don't expect anyone to
instantly stop what they're doing in order to answer a non-urgent email,
but I also don't expect four months of delay or for so many requests to be
necessary.

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

It may be helpful if you repeat the specific question you're asking. Right
now from your email I don't know what your question is other than asking
what the "strategy for conferences" is, which is so open and vague as to be
basically unanswerable. I think you have perhaps made your question clearer
in the past, but staff are quite frequently buried in so many emails that
more difficult to answer emails tend to languish. The easier you make it to
get an answer, the more likely you are to get one.

Dan

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:37, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> I hope that you are doing well. I originally started this email thread on
> Wikimedia-l near the end of September 2018, and four months have passed. I
> am still hoping to hear an update about WMF's strategy for conferences. I
> am trying to be patient and considerate, but I think that you may
> understand that I have difficulty with the length of the delay here. It
> seems to me that questions like this should not take WMF four months to
> answer, and that no one should need to send repeated requests for
> information like this. Once in awhile someone might be on vacation or an
> email might get stuck in a draft folder so one additional reminder or
> request might be necessary, but I think that the situation with this email
> thread should not ever happen. In addition to my original questions
> regarding conference strategy, I would like to know what has caused the
> lengthy delay and the lack of responsiveness from WMF. I am trying to be
> patient, but there is a problem here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences

[Pine W]

Hi Alex,

I hope that you are doing well. I originally started this email thread on
Wikimedia-l near the end of September 2018, and four months have passed. I
am still hoping to hear an update about WMF's strategy for conferences. I
am trying to be patient and considerate, but I think that you may
understand that I have difficulty with the length of the delay here. It
seems to me that questions like this should not take WMF four months to
answer, and that no one should need to send repeated requests for
information like this. Once in awhile someone might be on vacation or an
email might get stuck in a draft folder so one additional reminder or
request might be necessary, but I think that the situation with this email
thread should not ever happen. In addition to my original questions
regarding conference strategy, I would like to know what has caused the
lengthy delay and the lack of responsiveness from WMF. I am trying to be
patient, but there is a problem here.

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences

[Pine W]

Hi Alex,

I hope that your 2019 is starting well. You may remember this thread from
Wikimedia-l that I started near the end of September. Would you please
provide an update regarding strategic planning for conferences? I realize
that you may have several projects on your agenda including hiring a new
staff member, so perhaps this thread got lost in the shuffle.

Thanks,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:59 PM Marti Johnson  wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> The Program Officer for Conference Grants does serve as a single point of
> contact for conference funding at the Wikimedia Foundation.  However, that
> position has been open for last several months and we've been undergoing a
> hiring process to fill it.
>
> I'm copying in Alex Wang, who oversees that position so she can respond to
> your questions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marti
>
>
>
>
> *Marti Johnson*
>
> *Pronouns: she/her/hersProgram Officer*
> *Individual Grants*
> *Wikimedia Foundation *
> *1 Montgomery, Ste. 1600*
> *San Francisco, CA  94104*
> +1 415-839-6885
> Skype: Mjohnson_WMF
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>  in the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make
> it
> a reality!
> Support Wikimedia
> 
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences

[Marti Johnson]

Hi Pine,

The Program Officer for Conference Grants does serve as a single point of
contact for conference funding at the Wikimedia Foundation.  However, that
position has been open for last several months and we've been undergoing a
hiring process to fill it.

I'm copying in Alex Wang, who oversees that position so she can respond to
your questions.

Kind regards,

Marti




*Marti Johnson*

*Pronouns: she/her/hersProgram Officer*
*Individual Grants*
*Wikimedia Foundation <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>*
*1 Montgomery, Ste. 1600*
*San Francisco, CA  94104*
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: Mjohnson_WMF

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
<http://youtu.be/ci0Pihl2zXY> in the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it
a reality!
Support Wikimedia
<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>


On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 10:16 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Ad,Thanks for pointing out that open position. I am glad that WMF seems
> to agree that at least some of these questions are worth asking and that
> WMF is willing to dedicate staff time for this purpose.This is not a job
> that I am seeking. I have too many disagreements and have had too many
> disappointing experiences with WMF to want to work for them in a staff
> role. Maybe that will change someday. I am already in the difficult
> position of wanting work to get done by staff and/or potential grantees (I
> include myself in the latter category) when I distrust WMF, and becoming an
> employee myself is unlikely to be something that I would agree to do. Some
> things and people are not for sale.I don't know what your qualifications
> for the job are, so I would feel uncomfortable saying one way or another
> whether I think that you are a good candidate. If you want to apply for it
> then I wish you good luck.Regards,Pine(
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>  Original message From: Ad Huikeshoven <
> ad.huikesho...@gmail.com> Date: 11/4/18  12:11 PM  (GMT-08:00) To:
> Wikimedia Mailing List  Subject: Re:
> [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences hello Pine,Did you have a
> look at the events team manager job description? It is anopen position, so
> there is currently nobody at the wmf to answer yourquestion. For me the
> concept of 'event' is broader than the range ofconferences you described.
> Would you consider yourself as a candidate forthe position. Wpuld you
> consider me?greetings,AdOp zo 4 nov. 2018 20:58 schreef Pine W <
> wiki.p...@gmail.com:> Hello,>> My request from September has gone
> unanswered, so I am trying again. I> don't think that there is a single
> point of contact for conference funding> and strategy at WMF, but I think
> that there should be, and perhaps the lack> of such a person is why there
> hasn't been a response to this email. I don't> know who I should ping but
> I'm hoping that Katy can provide at least a> partial response, or direct
> this email to someone who can do so.>> Thanks,>> Pine> (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )>>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at
> 5:55 PM Pine W  wrote:>> > Mindful of the ongoing
> discussions about conferences, I think that it> > would be helpful to have
> a big picture understanding of the goals, plans,> > and budgets for
> conferences collectively.> >> > As far as I know, these are the types of
> recurring conferences:> >> > (1) Wikimania, which seems to be a
> multi-purpose international> conference,> > with somewhat open admission if
> someone can afford to attend, is willing> to> > attend, and can get the
> necessary legal permissions;> >> > (2) the Wikimedia Summit (which I hope
> will get a name change to reflect> > its actual scope, because it's not an
> all-Wikimedia summit) which will> > focus on WMF, WMF committees that work
> with WMF affiliate organizations,> > and WMF affiliate organizations;> >> >
> (3) thematic conferences, such as the Wikisource Conference;> >> > (4)
> regional conferences, such as WikiConference North America;> >> > (5)
> organization-specific meetings of various kinds, including affiliate> >
> organizations' annual general meetings and WMF All Hands, and> >> > (6) the
> Wikimedia Technical Conference.> >> > I believe that WMF intended to do
> some strategic planning for the> > collection of conferences as a part of
> the larger WMF-led strategic> > planning process. Is this type of planning
> underway for conferences, and> if> > so can we get an update from someone
> who is familiar with the situation?> If> > the person who will respond is a
> paid staff member, then please feel free> > to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences

[Pine W]

Hi Ad,Thanks for pointing out that open position. I am glad that WMF seems to 
agree that at least some of these questions are worth asking and that WMF is 
willing to dedicate staff time for this purpose.This is not a job that I am 
seeking. I have too many disagreements and have had too many disappointing 
experiences with WMF to want to work for them in a staff role. Maybe that will 
change someday. I am already in the difficult position of wanting work to get 
done by staff and/or potential grantees (I include myself in the latter 
category) when I distrust WMF, and becoming an employee myself is unlikely to 
be something that I would agree to do. Some things and people are not for 
sale.I don't know what your qualifications for the job are, so I would feel 
uncomfortable saying one way or another whether I think that you are a good 
candidate. If you want to apply for it then I wish you good luck.Regards,Pine( 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
 Original message From: Ad Huikeshoven 
 Date: 11/4/18  12:11 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia 
Mailing List  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] 
Strategic planning for conferences hello Pine,Did you have a look at the events 
team manager job description? It is anopen position, so there is currently 
nobody at the wmf to answer yourquestion. For me the concept of 'event' is 
broader than the range ofconferences you described. Would you consider yourself 
as a candidate forthe position. Wpuld you consider me?greetings,AdOp zo 4 nov. 
2018 20:58 schreef Pine W  Hello,>> My request from 
September has gone unanswered, so I am trying again. I> don't think that there 
is a single point of contact for conference funding> and strategy at WMF, but I 
think that there should be, and perhaps the lack> of such a person is why there 
hasn't been a response to this email. I don't> know who I should ping but I'm 
hoping that Katy can provide at least a> partial response, or direct this email 
to someone who can do so.>> Thanks,>> Pine> ( 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )>>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:55 PM 
Pine W  wrote:>> > Mindful of the ongoing discussions 
about conferences, I think that it> > would be helpful to have a big picture 
understanding of the goals, plans,> > and budgets for conferences 
collectively.> >> > As far as I know, these are the types of recurring 
conferences:> >> > (1) Wikimania, which seems to be a multi-purpose 
international> conference,> > with somewhat open admission if someone can 
afford to attend, is willing> to> > attend, and can get the necessary legal 
permissions;> >> > (2) the Wikimedia Summit (which I hope will get a name 
change to reflect> > its actual scope, because it's not an all-Wikimedia 
summit) which will> > focus on WMF, WMF committees that work with WMF affiliate 
organizations,> > and WMF affiliate organizations;> >> > (3) thematic 
conferences, such as the Wikisource Conference;> >> > (4) regional conferences, 
such as WikiConference North America;> >> > (5) organization-specific meetings 
of various kinds, including affiliate> > organizations' annual general meetings 
and WMF All Hands, and> >> > (6) the Wikimedia Technical Conference.> >> > I 
believe that WMF intended to do some strategic planning for the> > collection 
of conferences as a part of the larger WMF-led strategic> > planning process. 
Is this type of planning underway for conferences, and> if> > so can we get an 
update from someone who is familiar with the situation?> If> > the person who 
will respond is a paid staff member, then please feel free> > to wait to 
respond until a convenient workday next week. In the meantime,> > other people 
may wish to comment or ask questions.> >> > Thanks!> >> > Pine> > ( 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )> >> 
___> Wikimedia-l mailing list, 
guidelines at:> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and> 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> New messages to: 
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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-lNew messages to: 
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgUnsubscribe: 
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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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] Strategic planning for conferences

[Ad Huikeshoven]

hello Pine,

Did you have a look at the events team manager job description? It is an
open position, so there is currently nobody at the wmf to answer your
question. For me the concept of 'event' is broader than the range of
conferences you described. Would you consider yourself as a candidate for
the position. Wpuld you consider me?

greetings,

Ad

Op zo 4 nov. 2018 20:58 schreef Pine W  Hello,
>
> My request from September has gone unanswered, so I am trying again. I
> don't think that there is a single point of contact for conference funding
> and strategy at WMF, but I think that there should be, and perhaps the lack
> of such a person is why there hasn't been a response to this email. I don't
> know who I should ping but I'm hoping that Katy can provide at least a
> partial response, or direct this email to someone who can do so.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:55 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Mindful of the ongoing discussions about conferences, I think that it
> > would be helpful to have a big picture understanding of the goals, plans,
> > and budgets for conferences collectively.
> >
> > As far as I know, these are the types of recurring conferences:
> >
> > (1) Wikimania, which seems to be a multi-purpose international
> conference,
> > with somewhat open admission if someone can afford to attend, is willing
> to
> > attend, and can get the necessary legal permissions;
> >
> > (2) the Wikimedia Summit (which I hope will get a name change to reflect
> > its actual scope, because it's not an all-Wikimedia summit) which will
> > focus on WMF, WMF committees that work with WMF affiliate organizations,
> > and WMF affiliate organizations;
> >
> > (3) thematic conferences, such as the Wikisource Conference;
> >
> > (4) regional conferences, such as WikiConference North America;
> >
> > (5) organization-specific meetings of various kinds, including affiliate
> > organizations' annual general meetings and WMF All Hands, and
> >
> > (6) the Wikimedia Technical Conference.
> >
> > I believe that WMF intended to do some strategic planning for the
> > collection of conferences as a part of the larger WMF-led strategic
> > planning process. Is this type of planning underway for conferences, and
> if
> > so can we get an update from someone who is familiar with the situation?
> If
> > the person who will respond is a paid staff member, then please feel free
> > to wait to respond until a convenient workday next week. In the meantime,
> > other people may wish to comment or ask questions.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences

[Pine W]

Hello,

My request from September has gone unanswered, so I am trying again. I
don't think that there is a single point of contact for conference funding
and strategy at WMF, but I think that there should be, and perhaps the lack
of such a person is why there hasn't been a response to this email. I don't
know who I should ping but I'm hoping that Katy can provide at least a
partial response, or direct this email to someone who can do so.

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:55 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Mindful of the ongoing discussions about conferences, I think that it
> would be helpful to have a big picture understanding of the goals, plans,
> and budgets for conferences collectively.
>
> As far as I know, these are the types of recurring conferences:
>
> (1) Wikimania, which seems to be a multi-purpose international conference,
> with somewhat open admission if someone can afford to attend, is willing to
> attend, and can get the necessary legal permissions;
>
> (2) the Wikimedia Summit (which I hope will get a name change to reflect
> its actual scope, because it's not an all-Wikimedia summit) which will
> focus on WMF, WMF committees that work with WMF affiliate organizations,
> and WMF affiliate organizations;
>
> (3) thematic conferences, such as the Wikisource Conference;
>
> (4) regional conferences, such as WikiConference North America;
>
> (5) organization-specific meetings of various kinds, including affiliate
> organizations' annual general meetings and WMF All Hands, and
>
> (6) the Wikimedia Technical Conference.
>
> I believe that WMF intended to do some strategic planning for the
> collection of conferences as a part of the larger WMF-led strategic
> planning process. Is this type of planning underway for conferences, and if
> so can we get an update from someone who is familiar with the situation? If
> the person who will respond is a paid staff member, then please feel free
> to wait to respond until a convenient workday next week. In the meantime,
> other people may wish to comment or ask questions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning for conferences

[Pine W]

 Mindful of the ongoing discussions about conferences, I think that it
would be helpful to have a big picture understanding of the goals, plans,
and budgets for conferences collectively.

As far as I know, these are the types of recurring conferences:

(1) Wikimania, which seems to be a multi-purpose international conference,
with somewhat open admission if someone can afford to attend, is willing to
attend, and can get the necessary legal permissions;

(2) the Wikimedia Summit (which I hope will get a name change to reflect
its actual scope, because it's not an all-Wikimedia summit) which will
focus on WMF, WMF committees that work with WMF affiliate organizations,
and WMF affiliate organizations;

(3) thematic conferences, such as the Wikisource Conference;

(4) regional conferences, such as WikiConference North America;

(5) organization-specific meetings of various kinds, including affiliate
organizations' annual general meetings and WMF All Hands, and

(6) the Wikimedia Technical Conference.

I believe that WMF intended to do some strategic planning for the
collection of conferences as a part of the larger WMF-led strategic
planning process. Is this type of planning underway for conferences, and if
so can we get an update from someone who is familiar with the situation? If
the person who will respond is a paid staff member, then please feel free
to wait to respond until a convenient workday next week. In the meantime,
other people may wish to comment or ask questions.

Thanks!

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

13.01.2016 2:48 AM "Vituzzu"  napisał(a):

>
> Yep, since the second one is, eventually, way to pursue the first one.

I agree in principle, while I think it would yet be unwise to delay WMF
strategic planning and community consultations this year.

However, I think it would be really good to think WHO could coordinate the
community strategy development. While it would have been done
collaboratively, there should be a facilitator.

The idea of two boards has been around for a while. I also think that
organizations in the movement could have a coordinating body.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2016-01-13 06:06, rupert THURNER wrote:
>
> Interesting summary,  what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and
>> one example what should not have gone into the plan?
>>
>
> anybody can do it


I agree! :) I enjoyed seeing your reflections, and would love to hear from
more people on this. (For what it's worth, here's the summary of the
Strategic Plan

.)

My own take on Rupert's (excellent) question:

== Three major outcomes ==
1. It helped many Wikimedians (and I count myself among them) develop a
much stronger understanding of what our international, and multi-project,
world looks like. Hearing ideas -- whether new or familiar -- from
Wikimedians from different countries, different languages, different
projects -- was very refreshing, and having it done in a context that
invited conversation and deliberation made it very "real." 2009-10 were the
years my perspective on Wikimedia substantially shifted from Oregon to
international (though working at the WMF in that time was also a major
contribution). I suspect this is true of many of us.

2. Building on #1, we developed a great deal of capacity for shared
strategic thinking. Taking part in strategic discussions, in a mode outside
the drama or excitement of the day, established lines of communication that
still exist, and are still actively used. Much of what I see is in the
volunteer world; but I also suspect the process greatly informed the
grant-giving arms of the WMF, which were formalized in the wake of the
process. I'd be very interested to hear from Asaf, Siko, and others from
the grants programs on this.

3. It generally gave the WMF, and all organizations and people wanting to
broadly serve or address the Wikimedia community, a better understanding of
who they're talking to, and what goals and values are widely held. Whether
or not one makes explicit reference to the five strategic goals, having a
sense of what they are is a powerful conceptual tool. This, in particular,
has certainly found its way into the grant-giving programs, and perhaps
other areas of WMF's operations.

== What should not have gone in the plan? ==
In hindsight, the plan has one significant flaw (which I blogged about
 during the Board
Election). Philippe Beaudette, recently quoted in Liam Wyatt's blog post
, said: "The
Wikimedia Foundation has one unique strategic asset: the editing community."

The following "Virtuous Circle graphic was produced by the strategic
planning process (hey, look at me, I'm an ASCII artist!). It's purpose is
to show what dynamics drive Wikimedia's continuous improvement:

  Y  -->
 TR
I  E
   LA
  A  C
 U [[ ? ]]H
Q
  |
 ^   v
  \ PARTICIPATION

In the original, it had "infrastructure" in the middle, i.e. technical
infrastructure.

The graphic is accurate. But (to summarize my blog post briefly) it does
not capture what is UNIQUE about Wikimedia. In fact, almost EVERY major web
site -- at least the social ones like Facebook, eBay, etc. -- has a
technical core that supports a cycle of improving/increasing content,
reach, and participation.

Wikimedia should have something social in the middle. You can still call it
infrastructure -- in an important way, it is -- but it should be "volunteer
infrastructure" or "community infrastructure."

That would help us better contemplate the thing that makes us unique, and
the thing that must be protected and nourished if we're going to help all
of humanity engage with all knowledge.

That's something we should address this side around. Technology pervades
all parts of this diagram -- but it should be contemplated in the ways it
impacts groups of people working in the system, not the other way around.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-01-13 06:06, rupert THURNER wrote:


Interesting summary,  what are the three major outcomes of this plan, 
and

one example what should not have gone into the plan?



I do not know. It was six years ago after all, and I was not involved in 
drafting of the final plan. I can of course re-read it and see what in 
the end of the day was a good idea and what was not really a good idea, 
but anybody can do it, I am in no way special. There were over a hundred 
barnstars sent around if I remember correctly, and most of those people 
are still around somewhere in the movement (though not necessarily in 
the same roles as six years ago - me not being an exception).


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[James Heilman]

+1 to the idea of developing a movement strategic plan, we can than judge
how well different movement partners including the WMF are aligned with
movements goals

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[rupert THURNER]

On Jan 12, 2016 16:51, "Yaroslav M. Blanter"  wrote:
>
> On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>>
>> All:
>>
>>
>>
>> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
>> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
should
>> we be moving foward?
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>
> I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
impressed.
>
> Concerning the process itself:
>
> 1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
>
> 2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
still wanted to mention.
>
> 3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the
task force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory
answer. May be I just asked wrong people.
>
> 4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization
in the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force
coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that
I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second
round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
>
> 5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used
again for such process.
>
> 6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not
just the English Wikipedia.

Interesting summary,  what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and
one example what should not have gone into the plan?

Rupert
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:
>
> Also agree.
>
> I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then
> one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is
> finished.
>
>

​That has long been one of my take-aways from the process.  Count me as a
+1 for this idea.

pb

PS - Yaroslav, few things make me happier than hearing that your children
are impressed by the iron barnstar.  I'd love to take credit, but that
credit belongs solely in my friend Eugene Eric Kim's camp - that was his
idea; I just had charge of execution, but I'm so very glad that it is an
idea that you liked.  Working with Eugene was an honor and a privilege, and
I learned a tremendous amount about coordination of a massive process from
him.

​

-- 


Philippe Beaudette

phili...@beaudette.me
415-691-8822
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[John Mark Vandenberg]

'On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Anna Stillwell
 wrote:
> I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the
> Foundation.
> I think that is a good idea.

Also agree.

I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then
one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is
finished.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Anna Stillwell]

I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the
Foundation.
I think that is a good idea.
/a

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> Thank you for the reflections, Yaroslav, Specific replies inline below.
>
> Pine, thank you for the invitation; actually, this video was done in
> preparation for my panel session at the Wikipedia 15 celebration, which
> will also be live-streamed later in the day. Eugene will be one of my
> panelists, and we will certainly dig into these issues! Please bring your
> own reflections and questions (and feel free to send them ahead of time so
> I can try to incorporate them into the main panel discussion).
>
> To Yaroslav's points:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> wrote:
>
> > On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> >
> >> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last
> round
> >> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
> >> should
> >> we be moving foward?
> >>
> >
> > I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
> > and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
> > impressed.
> >
>
> Very cool -- I hope the barnstar becomes a treasured family heirloom :) It
> sounds like it was well deserved. And I hope you do watch the video --
> based on your comments below I believe you will find Eugene's design goals
> and reflections very interesting.
>
> 1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
> > there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
> >
>
> Agreed
>
> 2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
> > forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
> > still wanted to mention.
> >
>
> It seems to me (and Eugene or Philippe might correct me here) that the
> expectation was that "coordination" would happen somewhat organically,
> since it was hosted on a wiki. I did browse a number of the task forces at
> the time, and commented on a few, and some others were doing so as well.
> Perhaps there could/should have been a more focused effort to get
> cross-pollination, though?
>
> 3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task
> > force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer.
> May
> > be I just asked wrong people.
> >
>
> Again from my own, somewhat limited perspective: I believe the intention
> was for volunteers to play a stronger and more central role in the
> synthesis of the Task Force outcomes into a final Strategic Plan. Since
> this was the first time this was attempted, it's not surprising to me that
> this wasn't fully realized. I think a second iteration of this could be
> much more successful, as it could be informed by what worked well and what
> didn't the last time.
>
> 4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in
> > the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
> > mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task
> force
> > coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so
> that
> > I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the
> second
> > round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
> >
>
> Ah, noise vs. signal -- always an issue in a community that values openness
> and inclusion! But again, perhaps there are ways to improve on the process
> so that it's easier to navigate toward the "signal."
>
> 5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again
> > for such process.
> >
>
> I'll leave my opinion on LT (and Flow) aside for the moment, but I do agree
> that using a discussion technology that was unfamiliar to a core set of
> constituents led to some confusion, and may have discouraged participation.
> (However, it's also possible that it encouraged some participation by those
> who were NOT familiar with wiki page discussion, and may have found
> threaded discussion a little easier to deal with.)
>
> 6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
> > on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
> > things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
> > was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community,
> not
> > just the English Wikipedia.
>
>
> I agree strongly with this, and am especially glad to hear that it was fun!
>
> Speaking for my own perspective, I started working for WMF during the
> process, and because of that I did not participate deeply -- I was in a
> transitional state between "volunteer" and "staff" and lacked a clear
> perspective in that time on how to appropriately use my voice. But I
> observed the process very closely, and talked a lot with Eugene and others
> about it. I do think it was a valuable exercise in helping both the WMF and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Pete Forsyth]

Thank you for the reflections, Yaroslav, Specific replies inline below.

Pine, thank you for the invitation; actually, this video was done in
preparation for my panel session at the Wikipedia 15 celebration, which
will also be live-streamed later in the day. Eugene will be one of my
panelists, and we will certainly dig into these issues! Please bring your
own reflections and questions (and feel free to send them ahead of time so
I can try to incorporate them into the main panel discussion).

To Yaroslav's points:

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
>> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
>> should
>> we be moving foward?
>>
>
> I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
> and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
> impressed.
>

Very cool -- I hope the barnstar becomes a treasured family heirloom :) It
sounds like it was well deserved. And I hope you do watch the video --
based on your comments below I believe you will find Eugene's design goals
and reflections very interesting.

1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
> there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
>

Agreed

2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
> forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
> still wanted to mention.
>

It seems to me (and Eugene or Philippe might correct me here) that the
expectation was that "coordination" would happen somewhat organically,
since it was hosted on a wiki. I did browse a number of the task forces at
the time, and commented on a few, and some others were doing so as well.
Perhaps there could/should have been a more focused effort to get
cross-pollination, though?

3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task
> force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer. May
> be I just asked wrong people.
>

Again from my own, somewhat limited perspective: I believe the intention
was for volunteers to play a stronger and more central role in the
synthesis of the Task Force outcomes into a final Strategic Plan. Since
this was the first time this was attempted, it's not surprising to me that
this wasn't fully realized. I think a second iteration of this could be
much more successful, as it could be informed by what worked well and what
didn't the last time.

4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in
> the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
> mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force
> coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that
> I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second
> round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
>

Ah, noise vs. signal -- always an issue in a community that values openness
and inclusion! But again, perhaps there are ways to improve on the process
so that it's easier to navigate toward the "signal."

5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again
> for such process.
>

I'll leave my opinion on LT (and Flow) aside for the moment, but I do agree
that using a discussion technology that was unfamiliar to a core set of
constituents led to some confusion, and may have discouraged participation.
(However, it's also possible that it encouraged some participation by those
who were NOT familiar with wiki page discussion, and may have found
threaded discussion a little easier to deal with.)

6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
> on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
> things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
> was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not
> just the English Wikipedia.


I agree strongly with this, and am especially glad to hear that it was fun!

Speaking for my own perspective, I started working for WMF during the
process, and because of that I did not participate deeply -- I was in a
transitional state between "volunteer" and "staff" and lacked a clear
perspective in that time on how to appropriately use my voice. But I
observed the process very closely, and talked a lot with Eugene and others
about it. I do think it was a valuable exercise in helping both the WMF and
community members see across languages, country borders, and project
borders, and in learning to listen better to one another and develop a
fuller understanding of the big picture. I believe the resulting plan was
strongly reflective of common sentiments within our community; and even if
imperfect, it's the first (and maybe only) time a document has really
attempted to do that, and I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:

All:


And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last 
round
(or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How 
should

we be moving foward?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]



I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community 
process and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children 
are still impressed.


Concerning the process itself:

1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning: 
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.


2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task 
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but 
still wanted to mention.


3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the 
task force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory 
answer. May be I just asked wrong people.


4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization 
in the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I 
was mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the 
task force coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came 
back, so that I took on the coordination myself and delivered some 
summary to the second round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.


5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used 
again for such process.


6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to 
work on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really 
shaping things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. 
And that was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole 
community, not just the English Wikipedia.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Pine W]

Pete, thanks for bringing up this subject. May I ask you to please do a
lightning talk about this during the Wikipedia Day conference?

Pine

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> All:
>
> With the expiration of the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, many of us are
> interested in future strategic planning efforts. With that in mind (and as
> part of a series of interviews I'm doing to celebrate Wikipedia Day), I
> interviewed Eugene Eric Kim, who designed the community engagement process
> for that plan. I think the organization and the community has, probably for
> a variety of reasons, lost track of much of what was learned during that
> process, so I think a recap will be valuable. It's a 25 minute video -- and
> if I may be so bold, I think it's well worth the time investment for
> anybody interested in this stuff.
>
> Wikipedia 15 for 15: Eugene Eric Kim
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Eq4l4KmBc=3=PLnDuxSh4Rp5gsvae2Iegcom5-fzK6nk0d
>
> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should
> we be moving foward?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> p.s. Yes, this is licensed CC BY, and I will be uploading the whole series
> to Commons when I get a moment!
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Pete Forsyth]

All:

With the expiration of the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, many of us are
interested in future strategic planning efforts. With that in mind (and as
part of a series of interviews I'm doing to celebrate Wikipedia Day), I
interviewed Eugene Eric Kim, who designed the community engagement process
for that plan. I think the organization and the community has, probably for
a variety of reasons, lost track of much of what was learned during that
process, so I think a recap will be valuable. It's a 25 minute video -- and
if I may be so bold, I think it's well worth the time investment for
anybody interested in this stuff.

Wikipedia 15 for 15: Eugene Eric Kim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Eq4l4KmBc=3=PLnDuxSh4Rp5gsvae2Iegcom5-fzK6nk0d

And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
(or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should
we be moving foward?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

p.s. Yes, this is licensed CC BY, and I will be uploading the whole series
to Commons when I get a moment!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,