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
(
)
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <kvaidla(a)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
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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>