I think this is a question for Patricio or Lila:
At the November 2015 Metrics & Activities meeting, Lila presented[1] a slide outlining the new Strategic Planning process.[2]
Amid general comments about how inclusive the process would be, that slide indicates that the draft briefly introduced at that meeting was to be finalized in December 2015, approved by the Board in January 2016, and presented publicly in May 2016.
Can you confirm if that is actually the process underway? Are you on schedule?
Can you address (in this venue) whether a plan that is developed in November and December by (at least some) staff, and presented publicly the following May, can truly be more inclusive than the 2010 plan -- which engaged 1,000 people, and took a year to complete, on an open wiki?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] At about 20 minutes in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Metrics_-_Novem... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WMF_Metrics_%26_Activit...
Hey, Pete-
We'll be announcing some next steps on strategy next week.
Brief preview: the schedule has changed somewhat, because we wanted to take some more steps to be inclusive of staff feedback (has been underway for a few weeks) and community feedback (starting next week). The timeline will be tight, because we're trying to tie this into the annual plan process and an FDC submission, but we hope this is the start of a healthier, young-term process of annual planning and strategy.
Hope that helps? Luis
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a question for Patricio or Lila:
At the November 2015 Metrics & Activities meeting, Lila presented[1] a slide outlining the new Strategic Planning process.[2]
Amid general comments about how inclusive the process would be, that slide indicates that the draft briefly introduced at that meeting was to be finalized in December 2015, approved by the Board in January 2016, and presented publicly in May 2016.
Can you confirm if that is actually the process underway? Are you on schedule?
Can you address (in this venue) whether a plan that is developed in November and December by (at least some) staff, and presented publicly the following May, can truly be more inclusive than the 2010 plan -- which engaged 1,000 people, and took a year to complete, on an open wiki?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] At about 20 minutes in:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Metrics_-_Novem... [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WMF_Metrics_%26_Activit... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Luis,
Many thanks for the swift update. I'll be looking forward to the announcements next week.
My final question above still stands, though, and I do feel that an answer from the ED or the Board is in order. In November, Lila claimed (inaccurately, IMO) that the 2010 process was "outsourced" and insufficiently transparent, and that this process would be more transparent. However, the WMF has repeatedly boasted of the 1,000 stakeholders were engaged, and as many of us recall, the central tool used to craft the plan was an open wiki that many of us collaborated to build.
In what respect is the current process, which was begun many months ago and has yet to produce any significant visible artifacts, more transparent, or more inclusive, or better aligned with any governance values, than the 2010 process?
The removal of Doc James from the board has brought many people's attention to the issue of transparency. I hope the WMF leadership can take this opportunity to discuss its approach to transparency in relation to strategic planning -- which is of course of central interest to anyone who cares about the organization's direction.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey, Pete-
We'll be announcing some next steps on strategy next week.
Brief preview: the schedule has changed somewhat, because we wanted to take some more steps to be inclusive of staff feedback (has been underway for a few weeks) and community feedback (starting next week). The timeline will be tight, because we're trying to tie this into the annual plan process and an FDC submission, but we hope this is the start of a healthier, young-term process of annual planning and strategy.
Hope that helps? Luis
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a question for Patricio or Lila:
At the November 2015 Metrics & Activities meeting, Lila presented[1] a slide outlining the new Strategic Planning process.[2]
Amid general comments about how inclusive the process would be, that
slide
indicates that the draft briefly introduced at that meeting was to be finalized in December 2015, approved by the Board in January 2016, and presented publicly in May 2016.
Can you confirm if that is actually the process underway? Are you on schedule?
Can you address (in this venue) whether a plan that is developed in November and December by (at least some) staff, and presented publicly
the
following May, can truly be more inclusive than the 2010 plan -- which engaged 1,000 people, and took a year to complete, on an open wiki?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] At about 20 minutes in:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Metrics_-_Novem...
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WMF_Metrics_%26_Activit...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:36, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
My final question above still stands, though, and I do feel that an answer from the ED or the Board is in order. In November, Lila claimed (inaccurately, IMO) that the 2010 process was "outsourced" and insufficiently transparent, and that this process would be more transparent.
{{citation needed}} please? Although I don't disagree with everything else you say, I'm puzzled by this remark, and I haven't seen that claim before.
Thanks, Mike
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:36, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
My final question above still stands, though, and I do feel that an
answer
from the ED or the Board is in order. In November, Lila claimed (inaccurately, IMO) that the 2010 process was "outsourced" and insufficiently transparent, and that this process would be more transparent.
{{citation needed}} please? Although I don't disagree with everything else you say, I'm puzzled by this remark, and I haven't seen that claim before.
Thanks for calling that out, Mike -- you're right, I should have been more specific. The only time I'm aware of where the Strategic Planning process has been discussed in any depth in public was the November 2015 Metrics & Activities meeting. (It was introduced starting at 20:00; and there was another excellent question at 57:50.)
My question as submitted:
In 2010, the WMF invested ~ $1 million in engaging 1,000 stakeholders to build a five year strategic plan. In 2015, it seems efforts toward a strategic plan is originating within the walls of WMF. Why the change? And -- since you stated that it's important that community members feel a sense of ownership over it -- how do you plan to achieve that without deep engagement? http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151105.txt
This question was relayed (using different wording) and answered by Lila here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePV-7nhO-z0#t=60m26s
Lila Tretikov's answer, transcribed:
No, actually -- it's an interesting question. We were trying to design a much more iterative process, actually the Board has asked me, in the beginning, to make the process more incremental, rather than have a five year plan, like they used to have in the Soviet Union..."5 years in 4 years...you have to deliver..."
We need to be able to adjust. The things that you saw today, this incredible work that the teams are doing -- they're learning, every day. And we need to give them flexibility to learn, to make changes to their thinking, and to adjust.
But what we do need, as a community -- "us the community," not "us the WMF" -- is to make sure that we're setting the right objectives in front of our teams. So what our goal was, is to run a very extensive program, including a community consultation that actually yielded more collaborators, than the one that we ran for $1 million by outsourcing the process -- we in-sourced it. Because we wanted to be the ones that are talking to our community members, talking to people outside the Foundation, and talking internally about it. We wanted the process to really be owned by all of us, not just "us the WMF," but "us as the wider community", and we wanted it to be adjustable, so that when somebody somewhere, including here at WMF, or a volunteer who is experimenting, somewhere across the world, figures out or finds out something new that works much better, we can change. The strategy can emerge based on that learning. We're a learning organization, we're a learning movement, we need a strategy that's flexible enough for us to be able to adjust."
----
Me, editorializing, very briefly for now:
This answer is very bizarre. Characterizing the 2010 process as having been "outsourced" or not involving staff is wildly inaccurate, as I'm sure anybody on staff (or on the Board -- such as the board member who was in attendance at that meeting) would know. And while it may be that more people answered specific questions used to inform the plan this time around, the kind of specific questions asked were worlds away from the kind of deep engagement encouraged in the 2010 process.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
[Pete] editorializing, very briefly for now:
This answer is very bizarre. Characterizing the 2010 process as having been "outsourced" or not involving staff is wildly inaccurate ....
Philippe,
Thank you for expanding on that:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
I can only suspect that Lila's language here was imprecise
That is of course a possiblity. I would be very open to a clarification of how the board and ED see the community's role in strategic planning; that's what I'm seeking here.
It's not my intent to analyze a few words in detail. But there is little else to go on, at the moment. * It was not merely the word "outsourced" that failed to capture what happened in 2010, but in my opinion the entirety of Lila's statement about it; * There has been very little public communication about strategic planning since this process started many months ago, in stark contrast to the year-plus of continual discussion that we had in 2009-2010.
If a clarification or correction needs to be made, I would love to hear it. I hope it will come with a more thorough statement than we have heard to date, as well.
In a slightly more ideal world, such a clarification would not have to be sought out; a prominent misstatement in November could have been corrected that same month, at the initiative of any of the board or staff present who (I hope) recognized the flaws in the statement. I suppose that ship has sailed, though.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Me, editorializing, very briefly for now:
This answer is very bizarre. Characterizing the 2010 process as having been "outsourced" or not involving staff is wildly inaccurate, as I'm sure anybody on staff (or on the Board -- such as the board member who was in attendance at that meeting) would know. And while it may be that more people answered specific questions used to inform the plan this time around, the kind of specific questions asked were worlds away from the kind of deep engagement encouraged in the 2010 process.
Perhaps, she means that the process was outsourced to the Bridgespan Group and Blue Oxen Associates (Eugene's firm). It is mentioned on Strategy Wiki under Process[1]. Eugene and Philippe were brought in to facilitate the project which eventually led to Philippe joining WMF. Bridgespan conducted interviews and developed a "guiding paper" that became the broad-strokes for the plan itself, and eventually led to Barry and Jessie joining WMF.
As someone intimately involved in that last process, I can attest to it being open but not necessarily community designed. The task force area and the larger direction was decided by other parties involved.I am not sure if the last plan was a resounding success either. Just see the deliverable and how much was achieved - we went through a lot of changes and outright failures.
Lastly, the concern about this new plan being designed in private is something I share with the rest. The current situation with the staff and the board, the high number of new employees, acrimony with the community, along with the less than stellar performance of the last few years, any new plan designed in private under those circumstances does not sound very promising.
Regards Theo
[1] https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process#Phase_I:_Level-setting
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brief preview: the schedule has changed somewhat, because we wanted to take some more steps to be inclusive of staff feedback (has been underway for a few weeks) and community feedback (starting next week). The timeline will be tight, because we're trying to tie this into the annual plan process and an FDC submission, but we hope this is the start of a healthier, young-term process of annual planning and strategy.
I apologize - I misspoke. Things will be ready for translation next week and published the week after.
Luis
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org