On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote:

> > On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:36, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > My final question above still stands, though, and I do feel that an
> answer
> > from the ED or the Board is in order. In November, Lila claimed
> > (inaccurately, IMO) that the 2010 process was "outsourced" and
> > insufficiently transparent, and that this process would be more
> > transparent.
> {{citation needed}} please? Although I don't disagree with everything else
> you say, I'm puzzled by this remark, and I haven't seen that claim before.

Thanks for calling that out, Mike -- you're right, I should have been more
specific. The only time I'm aware of where the Strategic Planning process
has been discussed in any depth in public was the November 2015 Metrics &
Activities meeting. (It was introduced starting at 20:00; and there was
another excellent question at 57:50.)

My question as submitted:

In 2010, the WMF invested ~ $1 million in engaging 1,000 stakeholders to
build a five year strategic plan. In 2015, it seems efforts toward a
strategic plan is originating within the walls of WMF. Why the change? And
-- since you stated that it's important that community members feel a sense
of ownership over it -- how do you plan to achieve that without deep

This question was relayed (using different wording) and answered by Lila
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePV-7nhO-z0#t=60m26s

Lila Tretikov's answer, transcribed:

No, actually -- it's an interesting question. We were trying to design a
much more iterative process, actually the Board has asked me, in the
beginning, to make the process more incremental, rather than have a five
year plan, like they used to have in the Soviet Union..."5 years in 4
years...you have to deliver..."

We need to be able to adjust. The things that you saw today, this
incredible work that the teams are doing -- they're learning, every day.
And we need to give them flexibility to learn, to make changes to their
thinking, and to adjust.

But what we do need, as a community -- "us the community," not "us the WMF"
-- is to make sure that we're setting the right objectives in front of our
teams. So what our goal was, is to run a very extensive program, including
a community consultation that actually yielded more collaborators, than the
one that we ran for $1 million by outsourcing the process -- we in-sourced
it. Because we wanted to be the ones that are talking to our community
members, talking to people outside the Foundation, and talking internally
about it. We wanted the process to really be owned by all of us, not just
"us the WMF," but "us as the wider community", and we wanted it to be
adjustable, so that when somebody somewhere, including here at WMF, or a
volunteer who is experimenting, somewhere across the world, figures out or
finds out something new that works much better, we can change. The strategy
can emerge based on that learning. We're a learning organization, we're a
learning movement, we need a strategy that's flexible enough for us to be
able to adjust."


Me, editorializing, very briefly for now:

This answer is very bizarre. Characterizing the 2010 process as having been
"outsourced" or not involving staff is wildly inaccurate, as I'm sure
anybody on staff (or on the Board -- such as the board member who was in
attendance at that meeting) would know. And while it may be that more
people answered specific questions used to inform the plan this time
around, the kind of specific questions asked were worlds away from the kind
of deep engagement encouraged in the 2010 process.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to