With many, many years of experience from delivering software to internal users, I have a reflection on this issue, without getting into the case of Visual Editor.
Compared with what I am used to, the designers at WMF are both competent and good in their responsiveness from users (that still could be improved though). But what I am missing compared with likewise enterprises is a reference group/steering committee. It is customary that such exist and it is they who follow up plans, progress, delivery and support. Now when the software development is being organized in a dedicated department, would it also be appropriate at the same time to set up such a group?
Anders
Nathan skrev 2013-07-23 15:32:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
As is usually the case, I'm not saying this to have a go at the developers or anyone else involved (who are obviously doing their best), but I think that some of the communication on this topic has been a bit clumsy and has caused a lot of unnecessary angst that could probably have been avoided if it had been planned for in advance. Does the Foundation have formal communication plans for things like this that focus on gaining community buy-in? If not, then you probably should. Obviously more testing and specifically more user acceptance testing would have been helpful in this case, although I understand the political pressures in getting the product shipped on time.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
I alluded to this same issue in my earlier reply and thought this deserved its own thread. We all know that it has happened many times - a change, policy or other initiative emanates from the Foundation or a member of its staff, and various community groups respond negatively. The response is ignored or not properly addressed in a timely manner, and it snowballs into something much larger.
The WMF staff often seem to be caught flat-footed when this happens, and only after an unnecessary degree of escalation within the community do they engage fully (in what I think of as "crisis mode" communications, usually from Erik, Sue or another WMF senior leader).
So if it hasn't already, perhaps the WMF should consider making a robust plan for active communications a part of every significant initiative and rollout process. This should mean regular and coordinated posts to mailing lists, blog posts, and community centers on affected products - and a special effort should be made to discover complaints and provide specific, regular and detailed feedback in response. And I don't mean only product development; this ought to apply equally to the full spectrum of WMF interaction with the movement, from MediaWiki development to adjustments to the FDC process to Board resolutions and so on. All teams, from engineering to product to fundraising to community liaisons, should be evaluated and held responsible for the quality of their movement communications.
Perhaps that is unusual for a software house, and thus not the normal mental go-to or skillset for WMF staff used to working with a different type of customer. But I think it is acutely evident that this type of rapid, serious engagement would pay major dividends for the WMF in terms of its relationship with the various editing communities and the Wikimedia movement.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe