I agree to a point. I think if we had some carefully chosen people involved, like a representative from the FDC in the case of Grantmaking, or a representative from the proposed Technology Committee in the case of a Product or Engineering team, there might be some value. I agree though that the handling of this might prove to be more effort than it's worth.
This particular discussion with Grantmaking was 1.5 hours. Here's another thought: there could be a live broadcast of the quarterly review for 1.5 hours, and have a half hour after that made available for community Q&A through IRC, including questions and comments that are queued during the first 1.5 hours. Pine On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not think it is a good idea to have community members directly > involved in these meetings. First off, any community member who > participates is in no way representative of the broad international > community as a whole, so granting individuals access gives them a radically > disproportionate influence on the outcome of these meetings. > > Secondly, this is the team's ONE chance per quarter to have the undivided > attention of the Executive Director, and they need to be able to > communicate directly with her for the purpose of evaluation of their work. > They have one hour, and they have to be able to ensure that they cover > the essential points of their message. Even a few off-point > questions can have a significantly adverse effect on their ability > to update the ED on their progress on the responsibilities within their > portfolio. This is part of the evaluation of the performance of the teams > and its individual members, which is directly a responsibility of the ED > and the executives, and is absolutely not a responsibility of the > community. > > I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask community members to put their > questions on the talk pages of the minutes, and for the community to expect > that questions relevant to the responsibility of the team will receive a > response. > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > > > On 5 October 2014 14:13, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Tilman, > > > > Thanks for redirecting the thanks to Anna and Maria. > > > > Erik mentioned quarterly reviews accounting for community feedback: > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/471142. Involving > > community members directly in meetings could be interesting if done > > carefully, and/or there could also be ways of amplifying the weight given > > to community feedback already received about projects like Flow when > > conducting quarterly reviews. I believe that Communications already wants > > to find someone who will perform sentiment analysis, and perhaps > > summarizing community sentiment for quarterly reviews could be part of > > their job. > > > > Let me quote the end of the notes from this quarterly review of > > Grantmaking: > > > > Anasuya: As we are. If we are moving to a much more proactive structure, > we > > are going to need much more tech support internally. There needs to be a > > larger long term strategy around that. > > Lila: it should show success and then Product can invest. We need to > > integrate these projects in the communities. Let's say the library is a > > good one, someone in product needs to look at it and see what is the > > threshold of success and how much staffing do we need so that we can > match > > it. And it seems like Growth may be the place to evaluate these things. > > Erik: We also need to look at your team's short term needs. Like I did on > > Friday with Frank Schulenburg and Floor with regard to the education > > program's needs. > > Lila: I think the next steps is to group about this and determine next > > steps. > > > > To me it sounds like there is further significant business to be > discussed > > that is effectively a part of this quarterly review but time expired for > > this particular meeting, so I am hoping that there will be notes from the > > discussion that follows. In order for me to comment usefully, it would be > > good to know if that follow up discussion has already happened and if so > > what was decided in that discussion, or if that discussion is planned for > > the near future. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Tilman Bayer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > (For other readers: Pine appears to refer to the publication of the > > > minutes from the quarterly review meeting for the Wikimedia > > > Foundation's Grantmaking team, announced in a separate thread at > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/074824.html > > > ) > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Tilman, thanks for those notes. > > > > > > > As mentioned at the top of the page, these minutes were actually taken > > > by Anna Koval and Maria Cruz. (I had been unable to attend this > > > particular review due to a conflicting meeting.) So the thanks should > > > go to them ;) > > > > > > > There was discussion awhile ago about involving the community in > > > quarterly > > > > reviews, > > > I don't recall that discussion, do you have a link? > > > > > > > and I have some questions and comments about this review, mostly > > > > for Lila. > > > Sure! Feel free to leave them on the talk page - as community members > > > have already been doing with other reviews this week. > > > > > > > > > > > However, I would like to see the notes from the "group" mentioned at > > the > > > end > > > > of the quarterly review before I make comments, or if there is an > > > > opportunity for community participation in the "group", I would like > to > > > > participate in a community capacity, if that is ok. (: > > > > > > > Well, again, I wasn't at the meeting myself, but my interpretation of > > > that sentence is that "to group about this" simply was a somewhat > > > colloquial expression meaning to have a smaller followup meeting > > > between staff from the Product team and from the Grantmaking team, > > > including Erik and possibly Lila, about the particular issue in > > > question - technical support for grantmaking work which would need > > > dedicated time from WMF software developers in the Product team. I'm > > > not sure what you meant by "the notes" - please be aware that not > > > every WMF staff meeting has a designated minute-taker - and in any case > > > "group" was a verb here, not a noun ;) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > [email protected] > > < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/[email protected] > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
