Re: [Wikimedia-l] general strategic goals
One of the tricks about using metrics to make decisions is that many metrics are more or less easily manipulated to affect the decisions themselves. It's a sort of social version of the Uncertainty principle, and the uncertainty in this case would be the integrity of the metrics. That's not to say that metrics should not influence policy or other decisions; it simply means that good metrics are typically measurements of indirect and aggregate data. ,Wil On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Philippe Beaudette wrote: ... asking which of those things people support *in a vacuum* [is] not the question at hand That is true. A community survey leading to revision of strategic goals should be asked of actual contributors, i.e., by selecting editors from wikis' recent changes around the clock in proportion to the volume of edits each hour, and asking them which do you think would help editors the most, _A_, or _B_? Ideally their total number of contributions should be noted along with their pairwise preference so that it is possible to produce an unweighted ranking and rankings where the number of contributions is given greater weight. Then the resulting rankings should be submitted to the ED and Board to mull over as to what would be spreading work too thin, where various opportunities and roadblocks are for the top ranking preferences, etc. Step one, collect the data. Because of the nature of such a survey, most people can do that themselves. Ideally the Foundation would want to be at the forefront of collecting and publishing the underlying information. Best regards, James Salsman ___ 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] general strategic goals
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:02 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: There have been 64 respondents from about nine people on three continents to http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft I think it's important to point out that the survey you have created there is without context. That is, simply asking which of those things people support *in a vacuum* is not informative. It's also not the question at hand. What you intend to ask is which they would prefer *that the Wikimedia Foundation*, an organization chartered for a particular goal, adopt as action points. Your survey is grossly misleading through the absence of context. pb *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki ___ 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] general strategic goals
Philippe Beaudette wrote: ... asking which of those things people support *in a vacuum* [is] not the question at hand That is true. A community survey leading to revision of strategic goals should be asked of actual contributors, i.e., by selecting editors from wikis' recent changes around the clock in proportion to the volume of edits each hour, and asking them which do you think would help editors the most, _A_, or _B_? Ideally their total number of contributions should be noted along with their pairwise preference so that it is possible to produce an unweighted ranking and rankings where the number of contributions is given greater weight. Then the resulting rankings should be submitted to the ED and Board to mull over as to what would be spreading work too thin, where various opportunities and roadblocks are for the top ranking preferences, etc. Step one, collect the data. Because of the nature of such a survey, most people can do that themselves. Ideally the Foundation would want to be at the forefront of collecting and publishing the underlying information. Best regards, James Salsman ___ 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] general strategic goals
Regarding https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-01-31#Strategy_discussion The Board discussed how they will develop the process for the next strategic plan. The Board would like the strategic planning process to involve input from the community, but the exact process should be flexible. Sue advised that the Board should design the process with the next Executive Director. The Board reflected on the process for designing the previous strategic plan, and questions, such as movement roles, which should be addressed in the next plan. The Board agreed that the next strategic plan need not be a five-year plan in the model of the previous strategic plan, but agreed to settle on the plan's form with the next Executive Director. 1. Does anyone contend that the general strategic goals created when the volunteer corps was apparently growing exponentially are no longer appropriate? 2. Is it appropriate to augment current strategic goals which would allow including more content with goals designed to result in more volunteer time for existing and potential volunteers? 3. Do the proposed policy additions listed at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000395.html cover a sufficient extent of such potential goals for additional volunteer time? 4. Is the fact that I proposed such a list the reason that I am now unable to post to the advocacy_advisors list? If not, what is that reason? 5. Is there a more appropriate way to involve the community in making decisions about the Foundation's general strategic goals than offering pairwise comparisons between random selections from a combined list to active community members to produce a ranking for the ED and Board to work from? 6. When creating such a ranking, should the preferences of volunteers with many contributions be weighted more than those with fewer contributions? Can this question be resolved by producing both unweighted and weighted rankings for the ED and Board to discuss? Sincerely, James Salsman ___ 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] general strategic goals
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-01-31#Strategy_discussion The Board discussed how they will develop the process for the next strategic plan. The Board would like the strategic planning process to involve input from the community, but the exact process should be flexible. Sue advised that the Board should design the process with the next Executive Director. The Board reflected on the process for designing the previous strategic plan, and questions, such as movement roles, which should be addressed in the next plan. The Board agreed that the next strategic plan need not be a five-year plan in the model of the previous strategic plan, but agreed to settle on the plan's form with the next Executive Director. 1. Does anyone contend that the general strategic goals created when the volunteer corps was apparently growing exponentially are no longer appropriate? 2. Is it appropriate to augment current strategic goals which would allow including more content with goals designed to result in more volunteer time for existing and potential volunteers? 3. Do the proposed policy additions listed at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000395.html cover a sufficient extent of such potential goals for additional volunteer time? 4. Is the fact that I proposed such a list the reason that I am now unable to post to the advocacy_advisors list? If not, what is that reason? 5. Is there a more appropriate way to involve the community in making decisions about the Foundation's general strategic goals than offering pairwise comparisons between random selections from a combined list to active community members to produce a ranking for the ED and Board to work from? 6. When creating such a ranking, should the preferences of volunteers with many contributions be weighted more than those with fewer contributions? Can this question be resolved by producing both unweighted and weighted rankings for the ED and Board to discuss? Sincerely, James Salsman Not being the moderator I can't know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say the reason you are moderated on the advocacy list is because you repeatedly (and I mean *repeatedly*) suggest the same actions on multiple lists. There is only so long people will tolerate you grinding the same ax before switching you off, and judging by the replies (and lack thereof) to your posts... there is very little, if any, support for most of your demands. ___ 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
