I appreciate the combined QRs. Questions and comments: 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2) a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF Board may eventually ratify. 2. CA says that there are "...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned users", "a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users" and that it will "Supply to Conference Coordinators for events beginning in Q1 (6/30)." Here at Cascadia Wikimedians, I didn't receive the list or the protocol. I'm not sure that we need the list, but having access to the protocol would be helpful, and I suggest that it be circulated among the leaders of affiliate organizations which have in-person meetings even if they are not "conferences", since we may want to use WMF's protocol as a basis for developing our own, keeping in mind that local laws may vary. This aligns with the general goal of having friendly spaces in Wikimedia, both physical and virtual. 3. What are the goals for the CA meeting with Stewards? 4. For F&A, I propose that next year there is an additional measure of success for the Annual Plan that goes something like this: "Complete annual plan draft with all supporting documents such as budget tables and job descriptions will be published for community review by April 15. Community review and discussion period will happen through May 15, with staff responding to each question within one week of the question being asked. Annual Plan revisions, taking community feedback into account, are completed by June 1 for Board to review during the full month of June. At least one Board meeting during which the Annual Plan is reviewed will be open to the community through remote video participation." 5. A couple of teams in a few departments seem to have spent significant time on simply developing their goals for the next year. The amount of time being used on planning seems excessive in some cases. I would suggest developing standardized processes for goal development, perhaps with the assistance of Team Practices, Learning & Evaluation, and/or Human Resources. 6. A Communications Department goal was to "Advance Wikimedia movement goals through Executive Director visits and speeches". I feel the need to ask if it's necessary for the WMF ED to travel so much when neither senior position in WMF technology and engineering is filled, and the ED isn't keeping up with community discussions on her talk page or the Annual Plan talk page. This suggests an overstretched ED. I would suggest more time on technology/engineering management and community discussion, and de-prioritization of site visits until engineering management is stabilized. In the future, I would also encourage building more time into ED schedule for reactive measures, such as for more publicly visible leadership and communications surrounding the Annual Plan process that went off-track in 2015. 7. I am glad that the "Future of knowledge" film was cut from the budget. There are many better uses for those funds, such as videos that market Wikipedia editing to potential editors, or that explain to potential editors how to add content to Wikipedia. 8. "Messaging platform": in one place the Comms QR says that this was cancelled, and in another place the QR says that this was postponed. Which is it, and what is the goal for this platform? 9. Comms appendix E: I would cut "Many happy returns" and "Rallying cry". The latter is particularly problematic given that we're also fighting for user privacy. I would amplify "Everyone is a Wikipedian" and "Capture the entire world's experience of Wikipedia", because I think that those will resonate. We may also want to add another concept about the value of Wikipedia for readers; ask "What would the world be like without Wikipedia?" 10. I was impressed with the detailed development of the personas for user research. Those can be useful for thinking about product development and testing. 11. I like the overall QR format, the notes on Meta, and their consolidation in to the format presented here. This makes it relatively easy to understand what's happening inside of WMF. The evolution of the QR process is very nice to see. I know that this causes some stress for people who are presenting their projects, but overall I think the organization is healthier for having these reviews, and the transparency is especially welcome. Regards, Pine Pine On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Anne Gomez <agomez(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions>, and the policy for office actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me that the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after community consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board should consider creating one. Pine On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin &lt;kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

As well-intentioned as that policy was, I can't find that there was ever an authority (the Board or the community) who ratified the policy. It's well intentioned and it seems to me that it might very well pass an RfC. The Board or the community might agree to expand it to cover all grants name spaces, in one form or another. I support the concept of having a friendly space policy, and it should be implemented the right way. This next quarter seems like a good time for that to happen. Pine On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:05 PM, James Alexander &lt;jalexander(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation, and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta. Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy goes through an RfC. Thanks, Pine On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" &lt;cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net&gt; wrote:

Hi Gerard, The process for starting an RfC is relatively easy, and I'm generally willing to be the initiator of one. Likewise, board resolutions happen freqently, can be straightforward, and could take place to support a friendly space policy. If there isn't an RfC or board resolution or some kind of process for saying that a document that governs community behavior is actually a policy that has gone through a quality control and transparent approval process, then we could go down the path of letting WMF staff write policies for the community without explicit Board or community involvement and consent; in this case the policy in question will govern community content and behavior, including meta content and community speech which are especially sensitive subjects for WMF to be regulating. I don't think that's a good idea in the semi-democratic movement of Wikimedia. Staff can make proposals, facilitate discussion, and ask questions. The policymakers should be the Board and/or the community. There is a role for the WMF staff to play here. In particular it would be great for WMF Legal and Community Advocacy to facilitate discussion and make suggestions about a friendly space policy with the goal of having a final product that receives approval from the community or the Board and is enforceable by community administrators as a genuine policy of the community. Pine On Jul 20, 2015 9:53 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 19 July 2015 at 15:42, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I can only speak for my own experience, but you may be pleased to hear that the new quarterly review process has actually made things significantly* less* stressful for me! Previously expectations around what should be included were unclear, so preparing for the review was a week-long affair of compiling all of the events of the quarter and all plans for next quarter into a single slide deck, normally of over 50 slides. In contrast, the new process is simple and straightforward. The standardisation of the template lets everyone know what to expect, and makes the slide decks significantly more useful to those that didn't participate directly in the review. Terry and his team deserve immense praise for how they've evolved this process to be lightweight and useful. Thank you! Dan -- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Pine, Thanks for your questions regarding the Communications QR slides. Answers in-line below. On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: We agree that this wasn't the right year to move forward with this concept, which is why we cancelled it following further exploration. Along the lines of what you suggest, we have plans to develop videos this year that support engagement and outreach. The specifics of these videos are under development now, but one of the first will address new editing features in Visual Editor. This was postponed. A message platform is a jargon term for a outline of your objectives, rendered in clear, compelling language for a particular audience(s). A very simple example would be answering the questions: What do we do? Why do we do it? How do we do it? Why does it matter? While our shared movement vision is clear, different audiences may respond to different explanations -- for example, a university considering an education partnership will be interested in different things than a conference audience of open source developers. The goal of a message platform is to help a listener or reader easily grasp key points by by improving clarity and consistency in written or spoken communications. As we embark on the emergent strategy, a messaging platform can support clarity regarding proposed actions and desired outcomes. I should clarify that these concepts were developed by Wikimedia stakeholders in a workshop about messaging about Wikipedia for a broader audience, and are meant to be representative of ongoing work, not final concepts. We ran two versions of the same workshop last week at Wikimania, and are exploring ways to hold similar exercises online so that more community members can participate. We agree in the importance of testing ideas to see what resonates. -- Katherine Maher Chief Communications Officer Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher(a)wikimedia.org