On 30 May 2015 at 17:03, Sam Klein <sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote: > <snip> > > > > And also a little addition (from ): > > «The FDC would like to encourage the WMF to share more data in > > advance, and to do so publicly as much as possible. > > > Very much agreed. > > > > > The Board may need to adjust the > > calendar of FDC work, but allowing for a comprehensive review by a > > committee from the community (such as the FDC) rather than the > > Wikimedia Foundation itself is essential, especially in light of the > > minimal feedback from the community on the public pages. > > > > What do you think would be a reasonable sort of review? > > Lila has mentioned the idea of moving towards updated plans every 6 months, > with detailed reports every quarter. > > I would welcome an FDC-style review of the 'latest published biannual plan > + report', on any timescale that works for the FDC, assessing the same > things that it does for all annual plans. A review of that sort in April > or May would be timed well to influence the 'Annual Plan' discussion, even > if it was a review of the published plan & report as of January, rather > than the draft plan developed in April. How would current FDC members > feel about this? Can we find a way to do this without obliging the current > FDC members to do more work? [considering that there are others with > similar experience in the movement] > > > Speaking only for myself and not for the FDC as a whole, I don't think that the FDC has the level of expertise or frankly the amount of time required to review the Annual Plan of the WMF, with its budget being 10x the size of the largest chapter, and its range of activities equally more extensive than anything else that the FDC looks at. As a rule of thumb, most members are spending on average between 15 and 30 hours reviewing each submission now (including historical information), and the WMF plan by itself would probably require at least 100 hours to really understand if the FDC was given the same amount of information by the WMF that it expects of the other entities seeking funds. My brief review and analysis of this very high level plan (including reading and cross-referencing related documents/emails) took pretty much all the volunteer time I had between the time it was published onwiki to the time I posted my comments - and that was only one member, not a committee response.
Instead, I think the WMF is due for a serious third-party, impartial, expert review of its Annual plan, with the report going directly to the Board of Directors for its consideration. This is pretty standard amongst many non-profits, and with its international scope and its considerably expanded budget, it's time for the WMF to start getting this level of feedback. It may also prove useful to demonstrate that the plans have been reviewed by an external body when seeking out new partners and new sources of income or endowment. I do believe that community review is also very important to assist in identifying priority topics, significant gaps in the plan, and synergies amongst the entire WMF family of organizations, projects, and volunteers. I personally do not think that the current draft plan really explains where the WMF leadership wants the WMF to go, or where it sees itself a year down the road, let alone two or three years from now. While I am well aware of the need to continuously evaluate progress against goals and to reassess whether or not those goals are appropriate, there does not seem to be a well-articulated long-term vision in this plan. Instead there is the suggestion that the organization may change course quite significantly, and that projects intended to take 3 or 4 quarters to accomplish might get shelved before completion. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>