Hi all, following up on Sue's invitation to comment on the draft annual plan (which has since been posted on Meta), I'd like to call attention to a document that we have published as appendix to the FDC proposal.
It's titled "Ongoing work areas of the Wikimedia Foundation<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas> " and gives a comprehensive overview of ongoing, long-term work that WMF staff and contractors are carrying out in support of the Wikimedia projects, much of which is usually not very visible. This list of work areas is complementing the larger, one-time endeavours and key programs that are highlighted in the main WMF annual plan draft document and are usually already documented fairly well in announcements, blog posts, etc. elsewhere. I.e. you won't find much about, say, the work of the Flow or VisualEditor/Parsoid teams, but on the other hand can read about the constant software testing work done by the Quality Assurance team, or how many contracts the Legal department negotiates, reviews, and approves per year. The text was put together for the WMF FDC proposal/annual plan publication, but might be reused elsewhere as a long-time reference about the Foundation's work. On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Sue Gardner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey folks, > > The purpose of this note is to remind you that the WMF will be > participating in the FDC Process Round 2, which begins tomorrow. I'd > like to invite you to comment on the plan-in-progress, which will be > at this URL within about 24 hours: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form > > The WMF welcomes your thoughts on the draft plan. Of course you're > free to ask questions and make comments on whatever aspects of it > interest you, but we'd probably find high-level input the most useful. > Does it seem to you that the WMF's 2014-15 planning is generally on > the right track? Do you believe the four "crucial initiatives" as > described in the draft are where the WMF should be focusing its > energy? What do you think about our plans WRT the technical > infrastructure, our mobile work, editor engagement, and non-technical > movement support? Bearing in mind that we're an organization focused > fairly narrowly on product & engineering and on grantmaking, is there > anything really significant that you see as missing from the draft? > Are we missing any important risks to the organization or to the > movement overall? > > Please don't reply here, because your input might get missed by the > people who should see it. Please reply on meta, at the link above. > > And a few explanatory caveats: > > First, it's important to know that the plan, at this point, is draft. > That's new. Last year the WMF submitted material after it had been > approved by the WMF Board and after the fiscal year had begun. That > was an okay first step to getting input from community members, but > obviously the input will have more impact if we get it before the > plan's locked down. That's why this year we're submitting a draft > version of the WMF plan, rather than a final version. We've > deliberately synched up the timing of the WMF planning and FDC review > processes such that the community/FDC input will come in during April > and early May, which is exactly when the plan is being actively > refined and revised on a near-daily basis by the team responsible for > it (primarily the C-level people, and also the people who work in > their departments).The benefit of this timing is that community/FDC > input can easily be incorporated into our thinking while we're > actively discussing and rethinking and revising internally at the WMF. > The drawback is it means you'll be reviewing material that is still a > work-in-progress, and so you may find mistakes. The plan may also be a > little confusing, which is partly because it's still in-progress, and > also partly because we are merging this year the original > WMF-Board-only format with the FDC proposal requirements. It'll be a > little clunky: we ask you to bear with us as we work out the kinks. > > Second. You'll need to bear with us if we seem a little slow or > unresponsive during the discussions. It's a busy time for the WMF: > we're currently actively recruiting my successor as ED, which means > Erik, Geoff, Gayle and I are far busier than we normally would be. > And, the WMF will be working through roles-and-responsibilities for > the FDC process in real time during the discussion period, which means > questions may languish for a while before we figure out internally > who's supposed to answer them. It might also be worth me saying that > we won't have unlimited time for the process, and we're hoping it will > be broadly participatory rather than being dominated by a small number > of people. That means that if any particular person has lots of > questions and follow-ups, we may eventually be unable to keep > responding. If that happens to you, please don't be insulted -- it > won't be personal. Also, if questions are asked and you know the > answers (or can link to answers or more information) please feel free > to help each other as well: you don't need to wait for us. > > Third. You should know -- the WMF is not asking the FDC to recommend a > dollar allocation for the WMF to the WMF Board for approval. Partly > that's because from a timing perspective there's no good way to make > it work. The WMF Board needs to approve the plan by 1 July 2014 when > the new fiscal year begins, and the FDC input is released 1 June. That > month-long window doesn't leave sufficient time for the WMF to > adequately incorporate a dollar amount recommendation from the FDC > into our cycle, particularly given that the window needs to also > include WMF Board approval. Ultimately, I think it's fine that the WMF > Board would approve a dollar amount from the WMF rather than the FDC: > I think the most important function the FDC can play here is to help > the WMF to evaluate and assess the strength of the plan overall. And > so, I've asked the FDC to i) provide input on the plan on the WMF's > proposal page during the community review period (the month of April), > ii) give the WMF formal feedback (reinforcement, support, suggestions, > concerns) on 8 May, and iii) if it chooses to, give a more full and > detailed assessment of the WMF plan as part of its overall package of > recommendations on 1 June. Any June assessment will not be received in > time to significantly influence the plan upon which the Board votes, > but we would take it under advisement as the year plays out. This is > perhaps not ideal but there is no perfect solution, and I think it's a > step forward from last year, because it'll mean the WMF gets community > and FDC input at the point in the process when it will be most > influential. > > I am really pleased to have the WMF participating for the first time > with its full draft plan in the FDC process. The draft will be posted > within the next 24 hours, and your input is welcome from then until 30 > April. We look forward to hearing what you think. > > Thanks, > Sue > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
