MZMcBride -- We are a little bit in the tricky situation because our
strategy has not been updated yet. Allocation should follow strategic
priorities and it is the strategy that helps answer this question. On a
more operational scale, resources tend go to where the users are or where
the opportunity is. When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
hypothesis that it would yield results.
I am thinking through this now and will post more thoughts as we begin
planning for the strategy update.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Lila Tretikov wrote:
I wanted to give you an update on my first three
weeks of Wikimedia
immersion -- this will also go on the blog. As you probably noticed, my
leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
know a little more about who I am.
Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-)
Your recommendations on areas you see as
priorities for development
(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at
I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources are
scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest Wikimedia
Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think we
need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources.
As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia Foundation
developers and other staff specifically focused on the English Wikipedia
and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such as
Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no direct
attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects" has
become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the red-headed
stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a goal
to do better in this area.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: