+1. These are an amazing resource for understanding what's happening. Thanks to Tilman and the teams who put these together.
Is there any thought of making metrics updates more machine-readable, exposing data/metrics/timelines? Right now the excellent data is flattened into slides, and then further flattened into a single pdf. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Bence Damokos <bdamo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for sharing, Tilman! > (These are really useful pages, and nice to see them continue to be > maintained). > > Best regards, > Bence > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Tilman Bayer <tba...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review of the >> Foundation's Mobile Contributions team are now available at >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/May_2014 >> . >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Tilman Bayer >> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) >> Wikimedia Foundation >> IRC (Freenode): HaeB >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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> -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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>
