Hey Chris, I think that saying this happened because of the recommendations remains a fair statement but for sure there are some caveats with that. I don’t want to speak for the entire org but I'm also pretty confident in saying that there are a lot more than just two recommendations with work having started or about having work spun up on. Infrastructure and Financial sustainability, User Experience, Safety and Inclusion work are all things aligned with work the foundation is doing and that are in step with the strategy recommendations.
With the WMF’s planning process for 2020-21, I think it is fair to say it was done with both eyes firmly on what was working its way through Phase 2 of the strategy and we aligned or are aligning plans with what came out back in May. In this instance improvements to infrastructure and in this case APIs, data interfaces etc. have been present throughout that and were the output from two separate working groups during phase 2. The recommendations of those two working groups aren't moving forward in isolation either and the WMF is looking to improve its API infrastructure in a much broader sense and that work is also getting up to speed as we move into the next financial year. The reason for that is that we must keep in mind that the strategy process has gone on for nearly 4 years and the phase we just completed has been going on for nearly two years now. The recommendations we have today have grown from that entire 4 year body of work and the whole process has had a huge influence on the WMF and what goals it is working towards. Although sometimes many of us might think it, the organisation doesn’t work in a silo and with that comes the reality that planning timelines don’t align. I know that if the strategy had come out and the WMF had just sat on its hands for 16 months until June 2021, waiting for another cycle, before it started any of the work contained within the strategy, I would have had a very strongly raised eyebrow and I think there would have been frustrations from many people. Given that it makes sense that the WMF has been actively preparing, readying itself and laying the groundwork to get straight to work in implementing those recommendations. Seddon On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:43 PM Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's interesting that of all the strategy recommendations, two are so far > being implemented. One is the Universal Code of Conduct, which has at least > had plenty of discussion and publicity, that even precedes the strategy > process. The other is this, which hasn't been particularly prominent > before, but the WMF seems to have a team working on it just a couple of > weeks after the final recommendations were published. > > So while doing this is one of the strategy recommendations, it doesn't seem > that is is now happening *because of* the strategy recommendations.... > > Chris > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:46 AM Gergő Tisza <gti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You can find some more discussion at > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_3/Promote_Sustainability_and_Resilience#Freemium > > > > As I mentioned there, the premise of the recommendation is that the > > movement needs new revenue sources; in part because the 2030 strategy is > > ambitious and requires a significant increase in resources, in part > because > > our current lack of diversity (about 40% of the movement's budget is from > > donations through website banners, and another 40% from past banners via > > email campaigns and such) is a strategic risk because those donations can > > be disrupted by various social or technical trends. For example, large > tech > > companies which are the starting point of people's internet experience > > (such as Facebook or Google) clearly have aspirations to become the end > > point as well - they try to ingest and display to their users directly as > > much online content as they can. Today, that's not a whole lot of content > > (you might see fragments of Wikipedia infoboxes in Google's "knowledge > > panel", for example, but nothing resembling an encyclopedia article). Ten > > years from now, that might be different, and so we need to consider how > we > > would sustain ourselves in such a world - in terms of revenue, and also > in > > terms of people (how would new editors join the project, if most people > > interacted with our content not via our website, but interfaces provided > by > > big tech companies where there is no edit button?). > > > > The new API project aims to do that, both in the sense of making it > > possible to have more equitable arrangements with bulk reusers of our > > content (who make lots of money with it), and by making it easier to > reuse > > content in ways that align with our movement's values (currently, if you > > reuse Wikipedia content in your own website or application, and want to > > provide your users with information about the licensing or provenance of > > that content, or allow them to contribute, the tools we provide for that > > are third rate at best). As the recommendation mentions, erecting > > unintentional barriers to small-scale or non-commercial reusers was very > > much a concern, and I'm sure much care will be taken during > implementation > > to avoid it. > > > > Wrt transparency, I agree this was communicated less clearly than ideal, > > but from the Wikimedia Foundation's point of view, it can be hard to know > > when to consult the community and to what extent (churning out so much > > information that few volunteers can keep up with it can be a problem too; > > arguably early phases of the strategy process suffered from it). This is > a > > problem that has received considerable attention within the WMF recently > > (unrelated to API plans) so there's at the very least an effort to make > the > > process of sharing plans and gathering feedback more predictable. > > Also, the pandemic has been a huge disruption for the WMF. Normally, by > > this point, the community would have been consulted on the draft annual > > plan, which is where new initiatives tend to be announced; but that has > > been delayed significantly due to so many staff members' lives being > > upheaved. Movement events where such plans are usually discussed had to > be > > cancelled, and so on. > > > > (Written with my volunteer hat on. I was involved in the strategy process > > and helped write the recommendation snippet Yair quoted upthread; I'm not > > involved in the API gateway project.) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- Seddon *Community and Audience Engagement Associate* *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>