I think these are interesting discussions. My first feedback - Let's get as granular as possible about describing activities undertaken now. Leave out the "by who" and org structure for the moment.
For example, I can even see five tech organization activities. Internal IT, website ops, back end dev, UI dev, and tools. For every activity we need to understand who the customer(s) are. Is that "the reader", "free information concept globally", "the editor", "the foundation organization(s)", "researchers", "the board", "large benefactors/donors", "global movement", etc. This is not complete, please add to it. Customer focus is where we understand all the roles and customers, and align organizationally so that orgs or sub orgs have as good a focus on a smaller customer set and roles set as possible. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 17, 2016, at 11:56 PM, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-03-17 22:54 GMT-07:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>: >> I agree that these options should be explored. I'm wondering what the best >> way would be to facilitate this conversation. >> >> Perhaps, Erik, would you be willing to set up a page on Meta for discussion? > > Hi Pine, > > Thanks for the comments! I wanted to start here to get a sense if > people are supportive of the idea(s) in general. In my experience a > listserv is good for kicking things around a bit before getting too > emotionally invested. ;-) And this list has a good cross-set of folks > with different backgrounds including WMF and affiliates. If there's a > general sense that this is worth exploring further, then I'd be more > than happy to help organize pages on Meta, e.g. to think about > specific spin-offs like the MediaWiki Foundation (if there isn't > already an extant proposal for it). > >> On the WMF side, I'm wondering how this would fit into their annual >> planning. Their plan is supposed to be published on April 1. This >> discussion will need resources from WMF's end in the form of staff time, >> including Katherine's, as well as Board time. The required investment in >> the short term will be modest, but cumulatively through the year it may be >> significant, particularly if the discussions get momentum. So I'm wondering >> how, at this point, it would be possible to take these discussions into >> account in the WMF AP. > > Unless WMF plans to dramatically expand in the next fiscal (which I > doubt), I think this discussion can and needs to happen on its own > timeline. I expect that if WMF suggests to depart a bit from what's > written into a one-year plan, with good reasons, the institutions of > the movement will have the flexibility to accommodate that. > > I also understand WMF folks are very busy with the plan right now, and > I don't think there's special urgency to this conversation, which is > one with lots of long term implications. I do hope folks have a chance > to weigh in, but if that happens over the course of few weeks/months > in different venues, I personally think that's fine. > >> This series of operations, while complicated, may yield a more resilient >> movement in the end, possibly with more combined funding, more >> accountability and transparency, and more credibility. > > Yes, I hope so. :) But let's take it slowly and poke at this from > different angles to see if it makes sense. > > Warmly, > > Erik > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>