Sry, apparently this message gout bounced :-)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Terry Chay tchay@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure Date: November 7, 2012 11:47:56 AM PST To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Quim,
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Quim Gil quimgil@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, am I the only one having difficulties understanding the proposal and what it implies?
You aren't the only one. It turns out we use a lot of industry terminology, without realizing that we are poorly communicating what that means to most people. For instance, I once introduced our Director of "Product" to someone and Howie got inundated with a request for help in getting them a Wikimedia T-shirt. :-D
On 11/05/2012 07:03 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
we need to split the current department into an engineering dept and a product dept in about 6-8 months.
It is strange to see "engineering" and "product" side by side, since (as i understand them) these words belong to different categories. :)
First of all, this will help greatly to the others (you already read it): http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors.
In this case, the current structure has three separate concepts under the banner of "Product": they are product design (i.e. new software features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_design), project management (getting those features out on a schedule), and user-interface/user experience/design (in this case, the pixels as the actual coding of the UX/UI is in "Features").
On the "Engineering" side, there exists an amalgam of specific focused groups with their own directors. The focused groups are: Language (formerly "i18n and Experimentation", internationalization/localization/globalization is a cross-cutting concern), and Mobile (formerly, "Mobile and Special Projects: the mobile web, the mobile app, also including Wikipedia Zero). The "area" focused ones are: Operations (keeping the lights on), Platform (keeping the code working) and Features (ostensibly new features).
(In reality, taking my division, Features, as an example, I have teams working on the Visual Editor (actually three challenges: the visual editor, the parser, and integrating the two), FR-tech (engineering support for the Fundraiser), Editor Engagement (this year: Notifications and Messaging), and Editor Engagement Experimentation (i.e. post-edit feedback, account creation, new user flows, and analytics to support it), and normally Multimedia (Commons, video, UploadWizard). Plus there is stuff I haven't counted but take resources here and there: maintenance of existing stuff, being available for UI/UX for platform, ResourceLoader/ResourceLoader2, the Agora project for standardized UI/UX, previous and current Editor engagement projects (ArticleFeedbackTool, PageCuration, MoodBar), and MicroDesign.)
Do you mean a "platform" team and "product" team, both filled with engineers and other profiles but each one focusing on different things? The MediaWiki (platform) team and the Wikimedia (product) teams, so to say?
Or are you indeed referring to the classical separation between "product managers + designers" and "developers + testers"? The first ones defining requirements and the second ones implementing them?
I believe what is being talked about is more the latter, less the former: a separation of "Product" into distinct teams. Initially that will probably be splitting the product and project managers from the UI/UX piece. Already, Product works closely with Features (projects), Mobile, and Language providing the product management support and design. On doing this, it elevates Product Development as a whole to a higher level (along with Global Dev, Fundraising, Legal and Community, Finanace and Administration and HR, and distinct from Engineering). This does not mean that they are separate. For example, currently, Mobile (in engineering) works closely with mobile partnerships in Global Development on Wikipedia Zero, FR-tech in Features works closely with Fundraising (obviously), and none of us can do anything without Finance and Administration, HR, and Legal counsel.
Right now, Erik wears three hats: deputy director, VP of engineering, VP of product development. As you have noticed from the staff and contractors page, "Engineering and Product Development" is an umbrella that encompasses nearly half the WMF. While groups like Mobile and Language are focused, Features, Platform, and Ops have become "catch-all" areas and lack focus. As the groups have grown, fragmentation has increased. I showed what Features really looks like above, but I'm sure Rob and CT can share similar examples of that in Platform and Ops.
I think it is believed that splitting off a dedicated VPE distinct from the demands of new feature release will create someone with the wherewithal to focus these groups into a more effective engineering staff as a whole. Right now, deducation where directors have more focused responsibilities like Mobile and Language, and less fragmented isn't possible because Erik has competing things demanding his attention. Hence, following a "narrowing focus" mandate. :-)
I hope this explains the decision (or at least, my interpretation of the decision :-D).
What is clear from your email is that the current Engineering team is underrepresented at a high level and you Erik have too much in your bucket. A split and flattening getting more people in the high decision levels makes total sense.
What also seems to be clear is that such reorganization should solve the slightly schizophrenic tension of priorities between Wikimedia/product and MediaWiki/platform, right?
Whatever the result, I hope we end up with teams where software developers, sysadmins, product managers, designers etc are well mixed in focused teams going after clear common goals.
You nailed it on the head. :-)
Take care,
terryterry chay 최태리 Director of Features Engineering Wikimedia Foundation “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.”
p: +1 (415) 839-6885 x6832 m: +1 (408) 480-8902 e: tchay@wikimedia.org i: http://terrychay.com/ w: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tychay aim: terrychay
One thing that I really like here: Terry specifically calls out past projects (ArticleFeedbackTool, PageCuration, MoodBar), as things that his team continues to support, though in a less structured/rigid/team-based method (my own interpretation of what he said). I want to say that this has been a massive help to me - it's nice to know that features aren't abandoned when deployed, and that - for the time they're out there - we still support them.
pb
___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Terry Chay tchay@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sry, apparently this message gout bounced :-)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Terry Chay tchay@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org
structure
Date: November 7, 2012 11:47:56 AM PST To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Quim,
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Quim Gil quimgil@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, am I the only one having difficulties understanding the proposal
and what it implies?
You aren't the only one. It turns out we use a lot of industryterminology, without realizing that we are poorly communicating what that means to most people. For instance, I once introduced our Director of "Product" to someone and Howie got inundated with a request for help in getting them a Wikimedia T-shirt. :-D
On 11/05/2012 07:03 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
we need to split the current department into an engineering dept and a product dept in about 6-8 months.
It is strange to see "engineering" and "product" side by side, since
(as i understand them) these words belong to different categories. :)
First of all, this will help greatly to the others (you alreadyread it): http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors.
In this case, the current structure has three separate conceptsunder the banner of "Product": they are product design (i.e. new software features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_design), project management (getting those features out on a schedule), and user-interface/user experience/design (in this case, the pixels as the actual coding of the UX/UI is in "Features").
On the "Engineering" side, there exists an amalgam of specificfocused groups with their own directors. The focused groups are: Language (formerly "i18n and Experimentation", internationalization/localization/globalization is a cross-cutting concern), and Mobile (formerly, "Mobile and Special Projects: the mobile web, the mobile app, also including Wikipedia Zero). The "area" focused ones are: Operations (keeping the lights on), Platform (keeping the code working) and Features (ostensibly new features).
(In reality, taking my division, Features, as an example, I haveteams working on the Visual Editor (actually three challenges: the visual editor, the parser, and integrating the two), FR-tech (engineering support for the Fundraiser), Editor Engagement (this year: Notifications and Messaging), and Editor Engagement Experimentation (i.e. post-edit feedback, account creation, new user flows, and analytics to support it), and normally Multimedia (Commons, video, UploadWizard). Plus there is stuff I haven't counted but take resources here and there: maintenance of existing stuff, being available for UI/UX for platform, ResourceLoader/ResourceLoader2, the Agora project for standardized UI/UX, previous and current Editor engagement projects (ArticleFeedbackTool, PageCuration, MoodBar), and MicroDesign.)
Do you mean a "platform" team and "product" team, both filled with
engineers and other profiles but each one focusing on different things? The MediaWiki (platform) team and the Wikimedia (product) teams, so to say?
Or are you indeed referring to the classical separation between
"product managers + designers" and "developers + testers"? The first ones defining requirements and the second ones implementing them?
I believe what is being talked about is more the latter, less theformer: a separation of "Product" into distinct teams. Initially that will probably be splitting the product and project managers from the UI/UX piece. Already, Product works closely with Features (projects), Mobile, and Language providing the product management support and design. On doing this, it elevates Product Development as a whole to a higher level (along with Global Dev, Fundraising, Legal and Community, Finanace and Administration and HR, and distinct from Engineering). This does not mean that they are separate. For example, currently, Mobile (in engineering) works closely with mobile partnerships in Global Development on Wikipedia Zero, FR-tech in Features works closely with Fundraising (obviously), and none of us can do anything without Finance and Administration, HR, and Legal counsel.
Right now, Erik wears three hats: deputy director, VP ofengineering, VP of product development. As you have noticed from the staff and contractors page, "Engineering and Product Development" is an umbrella that encompasses nearly half the WMF. While groups like Mobile and Language are focused, Features, Platform, and Ops have become "catch-all" areas and lack focus. As the groups have grown, fragmentation has increased. I showed what Features really looks like above, but I'm sure Rob and CT can share similar examples of that in Platform and Ops.
I think it is believed that splitting off a dedicated VPE distinctfrom the demands of new feature release will create someone with the wherewithal to focus these groups into a more effective engineering staff as a whole. Right now, deducation where directors have more focused responsibilities like Mobile and Language, and less fragmented isn't possible because Erik has competing things demanding his attention. Hence, following a "narrowing focus" mandate. :-)
I hope this explains the decision (or at least, my interpretationof the decision :-D).
What is clear from your email is that the current Engineering team is
underrepresented at a high level and you Erik have too much in your bucket. A split and flattening getting more people in the high decision levels makes total sense.
What also seems to be clear is that such reorganization should solve
the slightly schizophrenic tension of priorities between Wikimedia/product and MediaWiki/platform, right?
Whatever the result, I hope we end up with teams where software
developers, sysadmins, product managers, designers etc are well mixed in focused teams going after clear common goals.
You nailed it on the head. :-) Take care, terryterry chay 최태리 Director of Features Engineering Wikimedia Foundation “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.”
p: +1 (415) 839-6885 x6832 m: +1 (408) 480-8902 e: tchay@wikimedia.org i: http://terrychay.com/ w: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tychay aim: terrychay
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Thank you, Erik. Before (or rather than) commenting, I have a single question below; the rest of the email is just a premise+addendum to it. ;-)
Terry Chay, 07/11/2012 21:04:
You aren't the only one. It turns out we use a lot of industry terminology, without realizing that we are poorly communicating what that means to most people. [...] First of all, this will help greatly to the others (you already read it): http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors.
Thanks for your explanation but personally I'm more confused than before about the difference between Engineering and Product, also because the terminology didn't appear internally consistent. :-) So, to keep it simple, that page has:
2 Engineering and Product Development 2.1 Platform 2.2 Features 2.3 Technical Operations 2.4 Mobile and Special Projects 2.5 Language 2.6 Product
and as first approximation "Product" would be something like 2.2+2.6 and "Engineering" something like 2.1+2.3, with 2.4 and 2.5 aside?
[...] On the "Engineering" side, there exists an amalgam of specific focused groups with their own directors. The focused groups are: Language (formerly "i18n and Experimentation", internationalization/localization/globalization is a cross-cutting concern), and Mobile (formerly, "Mobile and Special Projects: the mobile web, the mobile app, also including Wikipedia Zero). The "area" focused ones are: Operations (keeping the lights on), Platform (keeping the code working) and Features (ostensibly new features). [...]
What you call the Engineering side here, at a first glance, could seem product development, and in fact those two "focused groups" currently have some members which are under 2.6 (Product). Surely the same happens for the other areas you mentioned. Which brings me to my question.
Erik Moeller, 06/11/2012 04:03:
A split dept structure wouldn’t affect the way we assemble teams -- we’d still pull from required functions (devs, product, UI/UX, etc.), and teams would continue to pursue their objectives fairly autonomously.
Could you please elaborate on this?
"The [current] way we assemble teams" is very obscure to me. Will members of each team become more or less scattered among different responsibles than they currently are? For instance, if I understand correctly, what Terry called the Engineering side is distinguished by being "used" by teams in other areas/department for "cross-cutting concerns" in addition to having some product-development-like tasks? Will the mixed functions which individual persons/teams have become more or less clear by the split in two departments? Thanks, Nemo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org