I've no idea what you mean by " second iteration". I was told by Work Group
members that those are the recommendations that were used as starting
points for the discussions by the Work Groups at Tunis last weekend.
Therefore, all that is most probably outdated stuff by now (it was already
The recommendations from the second iteration are available now:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
Looking at the formatting with discussion links and so on, I assume
community feedback is still welcome. It would be good to announce this in
Every participant in an iterative multi-party process likes to be the
last. In a certain sense the larger community will be the last. They can
opt to abandon the movement. But for those volunteers who will be loyal to
the movement, it is the far-away Board has the last look and final say-so.
Hello,
the "Recommendations" are a problem because we are so late in the strategy
process. They are supposed to give the community a chance for community
input. If the quality of the "Recommendations" is so poor, then the chance
for the community to give substantial input is very limited.
In this
Hi Ziko and all,
Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a response
to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as
well. Let me know if you need further clarification.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
Best
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke wrote:
> "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which
> working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as
>
I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that
timeframe. In one week
To be more precise: on September 15 Working Group members, the Board of
Trustees Members, and all Chiefs of the Foundation will convene in Tunis
for a sprint to discuss these materials.
The working groups will have a lot of work to do to come up with something
that convinces decision makers to
gests that they really do need review, to avoid some
> really
> > bad stuff getting passed.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
>
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 09:00, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Do you speak for one or more working groups in an official or
> semi-official capacity?
>
I don't think it would make sense, if a WG member would write this. I speak
my opinion as an editor. To be clear: I meant I assume the WMF will
] On Behalf Of
Aron Manning
Sent: 16 August 2019 21:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
reconsider!
I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are
drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
>
> Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have bee
Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
reconsider!
Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind
of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha&q
media-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
>
> I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline
] On Behalf Of
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
reconsider!
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the
published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on
this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
Hey Ziko,
I'm sure you yourself can point out the recommendations that are based on a
year of deliberations and research than those that are not. It is pretty
hard work to gather all the feedback from the last year as well as analyse,
weight and incorporate it into the final recommendations. This
16 matches
Mail list logo
