Sent from my iPhone

> On May 30, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Samuel Klein <> wrote:
> @Garfield - I would love to hear what sort of community feedback you are
> hoping for; and what you would ideally get out of it.
> Was this past week's input helpful?  Are you looking for additional
> feedback over the coming weeks?
> Liam writes:
>> It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following
>> the rules that it sets for others, itself.
> This is not only good, but necessary, if we want any sort of coordination
> of planning and strategy across the movement.
> This year's plan was much later than expected — the first draft shared a
> week ago — motivated by recent changes in senior staff and plans,
> particularly shifts in engineering and the creation of the community
> engagement department.  As all have noted, this leaves little time for
> public or board feedback, and less for dialogue about that feedback.  I
> suspect a draft plan 2 months earlier would have been very useful *all the
> same*, even knowing it was bound to change due to the reorganization.  This
> highlights a basic problem with having static annual plans in a quickly
> changing environment.
> I thought we would move away from the 'static annual' planning model this
> year, and this still seems to be the intent, just delayed.  I hope the
> current plan draft will be the last to follow the old model, and plan
> updates will become more flexible and frequent this year.  In that case, we
> can still aim to get public and expert thoughtfully, say by mid-July,
> specifically inviting input from affiliates and community projects that
> have excellent goals and plans.  Then this feedback can guide the
> implementation of the plan from July on, and guide the development of any
> mid-year update of the plan.
> Regardless of the deadline mentioned on the publication page, the Board is
> discussing the plan at its monthly meeting on June 11, and will review a
> summary of community feedback as of June 9.  [The board approval vote is
> indeed at the end of June, but by the time the board meets to review that,
> it is an up-or-down vote with no time for revision.]
> Pine writes:
>> It does make sense to me that there would be at least a month between
>> publication of the full draft plan, including the documentation requested
> More data & detail is needed, even for this draft.  But given how late
> everything was, I appreciate that things were published for the community
> as soon as they were available, despite being in a draft state.
>> I think that the WMF audit committee or the WMF Board might be in a better
>> position than the FDC to do a thorough review of the plan, including
>> holding public Hangout meetings in which the plan is discussed, much like
>> how government legislative bodies review proposed budgets in public.
> A fine idea. Let's try it and see how it works: a public discussion,
> inviting a set of voiced participants & making a stream available to all,
> even if some invitees cannot make it.  The third week of June would fit the
> current compressed schedule.   Such a public discussion would also be a
> chance to make [more] connections between WMF planning and movement
> strategy.
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to