Regarding
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-01-31#Strategy_discussion
"The Board discussed how they will develop the process for the next
strategic plan. The Board would like the strategic planning process to
involve input from the community, but the exact process should be
flexible. Sue advised that the Board should design the process with
the next Executive Director. The Board reflected on the process for
designing the previous strategic plan, and questions, such as movement
roles, which should be addressed in the next plan. The Board agreed
that the next strategic plan need not be a five-year plan in the model
of the previous strategic plan, but agreed to settle on the plan's
form with the next Executive Director."
1. Does anyone contend that the general strategic goals created when
the volunteer corps was apparently growing exponentially are no longer
appropriate?
2. Is it appropriate to augment current strategic goals which would
allow including more content with goals designed to result in more
volunteer time for existing and potential volunteers?
3. Do the proposed policy additions listed at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000395…
cover a sufficient extent of such potential goals for additional volunteer time?
4. Is the fact that I proposed such a list the reason that I am now
unable to post to the advocacy_advisors list? If not, what is that
reason?
5. Is there a more appropriate way to involve the community in making
decisions about the Foundation's general strategic goals than offering
pairwise comparisons between random selections from a combined list to
active community members to produce a ranking for the ED and Board to
work from?
6. When creating such a ranking, should the preferences of volunteers
with many contributions be weighted more than those with fewer
contributions? Can this question be resolved by producing both
unweighted and weighted rankings for the ED and Board to discuss?
Sincerely,
James Salsman