While that's a good step to see, I think that an average of five hours per week for nine months is still a lot to ask, and is not something that I'm likely to recommend to most people.
However, I have the impression that WMF is trying to involve the community in this in a significant way, and I appreciate the good intentions.
In this case, the good intentions and the practical realities are difficult to reconcile. I doubt that there is a perfect solution. If I was in WMF's position I would be thinking carefully about what mix of staff time and volunteer time would be best.
If WMF was asking people to volunteer for an average of five hours per week for one month, I would view that differently than asking people for an average of five hours per week for nine months. For the latter, I doubt that there will be many volunteers, and I think that attrition would be a significant concern.
There aren't a lot of great options here, unfortunately. If requesting an average of five hours per week for nine months is necessary, then I think that compensating the participants for their time should be considered. I wouldn't apply myself, but I think that it's unreasonable to ask people to do so much work for free. I realize that a few selfless people on the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, Wikimania volunteers, and others put in this kind of commitment and are not paid, but I think that such a high level of sacrifice is unrealistic to ask of most people.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't like to steal Kaarel's thunder here, but he actually changed the number of hours from minimum 5 per week to average 5 per week (which is a significant improvement): https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/ Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups&curid=10598095& diff=18129628&oldid=18125168
Probably good to know. Thanks Kaarel & Nicole.
Best, Lodewijk
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
comment
on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly
to
keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
Product
group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both
areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
engineers
who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
and
could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share,
here
or on the talk page < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain
how
you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication
of
effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
talk
page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
good
to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research
and
preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
versa.
This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
that
they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
they
will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That
is
the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
strategic
planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
organization
or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
people
participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
good
intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
the
strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe