Hello!
I've been working a presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ctlqdLA__0OxDuO7mJEIDLP-xt9a7E4jv4INMlZAHdQ that gives a summary of who Discovery is, what our mission is, and what's coming up for the rest of the year. I'd like to share it all with you!
This presentation is a living document. The content and style can and will change over time, perhaps even drastically. This is especially true for the roadmap slide. I made it clear in the presentation, but it's worth pointing out again.:-)
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them!
Thanks, Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery Wikimedia Foundation
Hey!
I really like the last slide ("The Team"). I usually hate organigrams, but this one looks good, captures a lot of our multi-team / cross functional / slightly crazy organisation, and stays simple enough to be read easily. Good job!
A few comments about slide 3:
* It seems that search is more represented than other projects, and from a different level of details. It is probably because the mission / roadmap of search is much more concrete / understood than for example maps, which is more experimental at this point. While this probably represent the different current realities of our projects, we might want to work a bit on clarifying this to present a more structured communication. * We sometimes talk about graphs, but they don't seem to have the same visibility as the other projects. Probably because graphs are mainly the glue between maps, search, wdqs, ... Do we want to talk about graphs a bit more? (Honest question, I really have no idea).
Have fun!
MrG
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello!
I've been working a presentation that gives a summary of who Discovery is, what our mission is, and what's coming up for the rest of the year. I'd like to share it all with you!
This presentation is a living document. The content and style can and will change over time, perhaps even drastically. This is especially true for the roadmap slide. I made it clear in the presentation, but it's worth pointing out again.:-)
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them!
Thanks, Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery Wikimedia Foundation
discovery mailing list discovery@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
On 22 November 2016 at 11:38, Guillaume Lederrey glederrey@wikimedia.org wrote:
I really like the last slide ("The Team"). I usually hate organigrams, but this one looks good, captures a lot of our multi-team / cross functional / slightly crazy organisation, and stays simple enough to be read easily. Good job!
Wes deserves all the praise for that! I lifted it from an old presentation he put together, and just updated it. :-)
- It seems that search is more represented than other projects, and
from a different level of details. It is probably because the mission / roadmap of search is much more concrete / understood than for example maps, which is more experimental at this point. While this probably represent the different current realities of our projects, we might want to work a bit on clarifying this to present a more structured communication.
That's a good point. I'll have a think about a way to clarify this.
Search does have more people working on it, so it's natural that this happened. I also don't think maps is really such an experimental project anymore given that we're moving forwards with deployments. I'll think about the best way to communicate that.
- We sometimes talk about graphs, but they don't seem to have the same
visibility as the other projects. Probably because graphs are mainly the glue between maps, search, wdqs, ... Do we want to talk about graphs a bit more? (Honest question, I really have no idea).
The role of graphs in content discovery is somewhat unclear to me, as well as what's planned for improvements. I'd welcome some clarification on that.
Thanks, Dan
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 22 November 2016 at 11:38, Guillaume Lederrey glederrey@wikimedia.org wrote:
I really like the last slide ("The Team"). I usually hate organigrams, but this one looks good, captures a lot of our multi-team / cross functional / slightly crazy organisation, and stays simple enough to be read easily. Good job!
Wes deserves all the praise for that! I lifted it from an old presentation he put together, and just updated it. :-)
- It seems that search is more represented than other projects, and
from a different level of details. It is probably because the mission / roadmap of search is much more concrete / understood than for example maps, which is more experimental at this point. While this probably represent the different current realities of our projects, we might want to work a bit on clarifying this to present a more structured communication.
That's a good point. I'll have a think about a way to clarify this.
Search does have more people working on it, so it's natural that this happened. I also don't think maps is really such an experimental project anymore given that we're moving forwards with deployments. I'll think about the best way to communicate that.
- We sometimes talk about graphs, but they don't seem to have the same
visibility as the other projects. Probably because graphs are mainly the glue between maps, search, wdqs, ... Do we want to talk about graphs a bit more? (Honest question, I really have no idea).
The role of graphs in content discovery is somewhat unclear to me, as well as what's planned for improvements. I'd welcome some clarification on that.
/me too! Which was probably the reason for my initial comment :)
Thanks, Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery Wikimedia Foundation
discovery mailing list discovery@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
Guillaume Lederrey, 22/11/2016 21:08:
The role of graphs in content discovery is somewhat unclear to me, as well as what's planned for improvements. I'd welcome some clarification on that.
/me too! Which was probably the reason for my initial comment :)
Related: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Interactive_Team#Scope
Nemo
And once again I'd like to extend a special thanks to Wes for his latest design touch-ups to the slide deck, bringing it in line with the WMF stylesheet for presentations. Thanks Wes! :-)
Dan
On 22 November 2016 at 11:44, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 22 November 2016 at 11:38, Guillaume Lederrey glederrey@wikimedia.org wrote:
I really like the last slide ("The Team"). I usually hate organigrams, but this one looks good, captures a lot of our multi-team / cross functional / slightly crazy organisation, and stays simple enough to be read easily. Good job!
Wes deserves all the praise for that! I lifted it from an old presentation he put together, and just updated it. :-)
- It seems that search is more represented than other projects, and
from a different level of details. It is probably because the mission / roadmap of search is much more concrete / understood than for example maps, which is more experimental at this point. While this probably represent the different current realities of our projects, we might want to work a bit on clarifying this to present a more structured communication.
That's a good point. I'll have a think about a way to clarify this.
Search does have more people working on it, so it's natural that this happened. I also don't think maps is really such an experimental project anymore given that we're moving forwards with deployments. I'll think about the best way to communicate that.
- We sometimes talk about graphs, but they don't seem to have the same
visibility as the other projects. Probably because graphs are mainly the glue between maps, search, wdqs, ... Do we want to talk about graphs a bit more? (Honest question, I really have no idea).
The role of graphs in content discovery is somewhat unclear to me, as well as what's planned for improvements. I'd welcome some clarification on that.
Thanks, Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery Wikimedia Foundation