On 24 February 2015 at 09:19, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > Maggie Dennis wrote: > >You could be on to something there, Craig. :) I think it's fair to say > >that somebody might change his mind in five years for all kinds of > >reasons - including being asked nicely. This process is obviously geared > >to differ widely from the last. Hopefully it will be a good approach for > >everyone. > > > >In terms of the nature of the conversation, it is about the future of the > >movement. There's already quite a lot of feedback on the talk page from > >people who seem happy to discuss exactly that. If you want to join in > >specifically to share your thoughts on the future of the Wikimedia > >Foundation, MZ, that would be welcome, too. > > Why would I get involved in a process with somebody who can't keep his > word? It would lend legitimacy to the process and allow Philippe and > others to manipulate the involvement into a bold claim of community > consultation ("X users posted to the talk page, see!"). > > I try to learn from past mistakes. I was fairly involved in the last > strategic planning process and largely due to that experience I don't > trust Philippe to be involved again. My two questions remain unanswered. > > If you want to pretend as though he's being coerced, that's your business, > though I personally find this view pretty disrespectful. Are you seriously > suggesting that if Philippe said "no, I'd rather not be involved this > time" that he would be forced? What would that say about his boss? > > What I'd say to that, MZM, is that there's no evidence that the previous strategic consultation was a mistake; it was just not a very positive experience for the person co-ordinating it. I'd say that there is good evidence of "learning" because it's not being done the same way this time. I'd say that any organization that expects to be around for many years to come should be periodically reviewing their overall strategy and focusing on key issues, and that it's particularly important for organizations to do so when they have changes to upper level leadership and to their operating environment. I'd say that, looking at the roles and responsibilities within the WMF at this time, it's pretty obvious that community outreach on strategic planning most appropriately falls into the scope of the Director of Community Advocacy. I'd suggest to you that he's not doing the same thing the same way a second time, and that your suggestion that he "can't keep his word" is a rather overblown reaction to a major change in the process in which you seem to have invested a lot of yourself in the past.
I have no real thoughts about whether this very different way of seeking community input into strategy is better or worse. I do hope that you'll participate, because it seems to be an area where you have a lot of thoughts. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ 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>
