Hi Isarra, somehow I missed your email from the 16th and only just noticed it when I saw Kevin's response, which I think is totally spot on. I've added some additional responses inline below:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, so you want to clarify... something, and build trust. What needs clarifying? What has been unclear? For whom, and building trust with whom? Are these even the right questions?
I mentioned this in my previous response: "With the statement itself, we seek to gain clarity and shared understanding about what design at the WMF is here for and trying to achieve (at a big-picture level). Through the process of defining the statement of purpose, we hope to build trust amongst the design group and with their principle stakeholders."
So - what's been unclear? What it is exactly that design at the WMF is trying to achieve at a big-picture level. Who are we trying to build trust with? Amongst people in the design group as well as their stakeholders (like product managers and software developers at the WMF, users and folks in the Wikimedia community).
A problem here, from what you're saying, seems to be that things with Design have been historically overly complicated/confused, and there hasn't been good communication with other teams, with the community, even within Design itself. Though a step in the right direction, this seems to me like a continuation of that pattern, frankly. The more big words you use, the more passive voice, the more overarching 'themes' and less direct problem statements, the more you distance yourselves from what you're doing and who you're working with, and I would if anything strongly recommend the opposite. Keep it simple.
Thanks for this feedback, it's helpful for me to hear. Do you think that the draft statement of purpose itself is overly complicated, or is it that the way we have been talking about this stuff (like on this thread) is overly complicated?