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
2016-03-17 22:54 GMT-07:00 Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>om>:
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?
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.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org