On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Steven Walling
<steven.wall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> Following up on this...
> The Editor Engagement Experiments team had the first one of these with Erik
> and Sue last Tuesday (the 15th). Tilman was there to take notes, and I
> published our slide deck, so there is a transcript and PDF to review for
> those interested at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editor_engagement_experiments
> Erik will likely share some notes soon on how he and Sue want to rejigger
> the meeting structure based on this first try. Overall it was helpful for
> all parties, but obviously in a meeting this long and covering this kind of
> material, adjustments can and should be made.
> Steven

The minutes and slides from the E3 team's second quarterly review
meeting can now be found at

Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to