Hi Steve,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:19 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Keep in mind that the "Wiki" way of doing things was never about putting responsibility on just one or few shoulders.
That's a good point.
I simply mean that if it's a matter of brainstorming, organizing, qualitative prioritizing, and executing ideas, the disembodied gentry of the Wikimedia community are always at your disposal.
We could all use more qualitative prioritizing -- -What of our many activities are best furthering our [capital] Goals? -Which of our side projects could really help our core 'project' work? -What are the major needs shared by all parts of the community? -What communities never learn how to contribute in the first place? -- of these, which ones should we welcome first into the fold?
I would personally love to see the subjective priority lists (say, a top-20 list) of What to Fix and what to do next, from many different Projects, WikiProjects, dev clusters and other community groups. Maybe we'll get to that in the Strategy Project -- but many people find that too abstract to contribute to at the moment.
It also occurs to me that it may also be quite relevant for others to know exactly what Jennifer thought about her job. She's no doubt intimately acquainted with each of her planned and proposed tasks,
I don't know if she's reading this list, but you can discuss with her more directly. Expressing personal interest is often a good way to learn what others think.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jennifer_Riggs http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jennifer_Riggs
SJ