Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list are now automatically rejected. Please be aware that all messages to this list are archived and viewable by the public. If you have a confidential communication to make, please rather email info [at] wikimedia.org.
Thank you.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darek@friend.pl To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:08:08 +0200 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Hi Liam,
Within the FDC, during the very first rounds of the process, I was making a point repeatedly (seconded e.g. by Mike Peel) that WMF should undergo some control and feedback through the FDC.
Since then the WMF decided to drop the division between the core and non-core activities and withdrew its operations from the FDC feedback (perhaps also because it was exerting a lot of strain on the FDC).
I personally strongly believe that the community should have sufficient time to comment on the WMF plan, and also that the FDC should have a possibility to evaluate and give feedback at least to some of it.
Large (and small) chapters and thematic organizations are required to undergo a very specific process of review, with inflexible deadlines and detailed requirements.
I believe that the WMF, as the organization that is both the most professionalized, and also uses the most of our movement's funds, should set an example and lead by showing how proper community feedback can be conducted.
Best,
Dj 28 maj 2015 11:44 "Liam Wyatt" liamwyatt@gmail.com napisał(a):
This draft WMF annual plan was first published on Meta on the 25th.[1] It was then announced by the mailing list late on the 26th. Yet the document itself says, "The comment period for this version will close May 29, 2015".
This gives approximately 3 days to engage in community consultation on the WMF annual plan (value: $67M) because it is important that "[we] make certain that we have community feedback on this initial draft" and because "we value this input".
I recognise that the deadline of the WMF Board of Trustees needing to vote on this (June 15) is looming, so the timeline is short. I am sure the original *intention* was to have a longer time period but that due to some delays in preparing the document for review the time just slipped away. Nevertheless, three days is not stakeholder engagement - it's just ticking the box of "inform the community" before sending it to the Board.
The WMF talks about "eating your own dog food"[2] in terms of engineering, but it would be good if something similar would take place in the annual planning too... Chapters are required to submit their annual plans to a two *month* period of quite thorough public review before the FDC gives its recommendations, and then there's a further period before the actual decision/appeals.[3] Some of these annual plans are also considerably more detailed than the WMF's, while asking for a considerably smaller amount of money.
It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following the rules that it sets for others, itself.
- Liam / Wittylama
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Pla... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe