Hello again, everyone.

I'd like to respond to some questions, asked on and off list:

1. In the instructions, I described getting a group of people together to
discuss the group's capacities before submitting assessments.  The model I
had in mind was informal user groups, or volunteer-only chapter boards --
which is the case in the vast majority of the communities I work with.

However, for chapters that have staff, it makes sense to me that a single
staff member can submit assessments on behalf of the organization.  It's
for each org to decide whether and how it would like to perform the
assessments -- some may want a board discussion, while others may happily
delegate to the ED or to some other staff member.

2. The ~40 capacities described in the guidelines and listed in the table
are the result of some research and mapping efforts in the past couple of
years, but are not necessarily definitive and certainly not exhaustive.
This means you *can* add capacities that you think are missing, and that
you consider an important aspect to assess your group's capacity against.
To minimize disruption to the table, I ask that you propose new capacities
in the talk page of [[m:CCM]] first, so we can refine and discuss before
adding them to the table. (Some capacities may turn out to be aspects of
existing capacities, where a revision of the capacity description would
capture it well, etc.)

3. The current format, of a "table of doom", is just a simple attempt at
generating an overview.  I am happy to discuss other ways to collect this
information. For example, would a shared spreadsheet (like a Google Sheet)
be more convenient?  Or a series of Google Forms (one for each capacity?)
linked from the main page?  Or some custom data-entry and querying system?
(If this is preferred, I could build one, but I'd need help with UI design).

4. Finally, I realize the launch happened at a time many of you were on
vacation, holiday, or otherwise occupied.  So I take the opportunity to
encourage you once more to take some time to fill in at least some
assessments for your group (you don't have to do them all at once?).  I
would need to make some resource allocation decisions soon, and the more
data I have, the better I can judge where those resources would best be
utilized.

Cheers,

   Asaf

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:14 PM Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Tomasz that some UI love would be beneficial. I think that
> simplification of the language for people who are not native English
> speakers might also be beneficial.
>
> As I said before, I like the general concept. If affiliates and online
> communities can be persuaded to use this tool or one like it in a somewhat
> systematic way, the patterns in the data could be very interesting.
>
> Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to