I share the time concerns that Pine and Todd addressed. But my larger concern is about the purpose of this next community conversation. You say that the core team will summarize the community input, and then the community will have a week to "suggest changes to the posted summary so that it accurately reflects their viewpoints". So it seems that while WMF wants to know how the community feels about the upcoming strategy document, it is not giving the community any say, at this point in the process, of the content of that document. So then why bother having another community conversation at this juncture? Why take up so much community time to develop responses to a document that will a priori not change based on those responses? That seems to be a textbook case of how to get dissatisfaction and disillusionment. Although I would prefer for the community to still have a say in things, if the sense is that the document really is done, maybe it should just be sent to the BOD now, saving 8 or more weeks of time. If the community conversation does go ahead, I think it is very important to make it very clear what will be and won't be done with the responses, allowing community members to make informed decisions about how much time and effort to devote to the conversation. It took a couple of read-throughs for me to realize that there will be a response summary and suggestions to that document, but no further round of revision.
Thanks, Paul
At 2020-01-13 11:46 p, you wrote:
I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now, and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals. Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can be allowed for discussion of such a critical item. Todd On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:25 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Nicole, > > After reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that > happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in
problems. > In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback and giving > the community one week to review the core team's summary seem risky at > best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking into > account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an > impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy
process. > > I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe
for the core > team to review feedback including translations of comments, and at least > three more weeks for conversations with the community regarding the core > team's summary. > > I am concerned that this process may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic > finish. > > Pine > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 <wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org%3Fsubject=unsubscribe>> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 <wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org%3Fsubject=unsubscribe>>
The people who has written the forthcoming recommendations, have been engaged for around two years, and they have spend manmonths of dedicated work.
It is not realistic to believe that an outsider (as we others now are) can substantially change any of the recommendations. We can though give comments based on our different backgrounds. And one or two aspect perhaps have such strong weight that it will be of interest for the Board to take in when deciding the strategy
Perhaps it is the word "conversation" that is confusing, it is more about "asking for comments" as I see it.
And one week to summarise the comment and one week to get feedback to this summary could be enough, as an actually discussion of the recommendation content as such is not a feasible considering the total process
Anders
Den 2020-01-14 kl. 11:03, skrev Paul J. Weiss:
I share the time concerns that Pine and Todd addressed. But my larger concern is about the purpose of this next community conversation. You say that the core team will summarize the community input, and then the community will have a week to "suggest changes to the posted summary so that it accurately reflects their viewpoints". So it seems that while WMF wants to know how the community feels about the upcoming strategy document, it is not giving the community any say, at this point in the process, of the content of that document. So then why bother having another community conversation at this juncture? Why take up so much community time to develop responses to a document that will a priori not change based on those responses? That seems to be a textbook case of how to get dissatisfaction and disillusionment. Although I would prefer for the community to still have a say in things, if the sense is that the document really is done, maybe it should just be sent to the BOD now, saving 8 or more weeks of time. If the community conversation does go ahead, I think it is very important to make it very clear what will be and won't be done with the responses, allowing community members to make informed decisions about how much time and effort to devote to the conversation. It took a couple of read-throughs for me to realize that there will be a response summary and suggestions to that document, but no further round of revision.
Thanks, Paul
At 2020-01-13 11:46 p, you wrote:
I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now, and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals. Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can be allowed for discussion of such a critical item. Todd On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:25 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Nicole, > > After reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that > happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in
problems. > In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback and giving > the community one week to review the core team's summary seem risky at > best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking into > account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an > impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy
process. > > I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe
for the core > team to review feedback including translations of comments, and at least > three more weeks for conversations with the community regarding the core > team's summary. > > I am concerned that this process may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic > finish. > > Pine > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 <wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org%3Fsubject=unsubscribe>> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 <wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org%3Fsubject=unsubscribe>> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 Anders,
I think that the original hope was that there would be community consensus around the recommendations from the strategy process. However, what I have heard so far leads me to think that the reception to the recommendations has been mixed.
Neither the WMF Board nor the community are required to accept recommendations from the strategy organizers. I'm not trying to say this in a combative or demoralizing way. As much as anyone, I had hoped that there would be consensus around the recommendations, but so far I do not get the sense that there widespread optimism about this process or the recommendations from it.
Hi everyone,
Thank you for your feedback regarding the community conversations process and your care for doing it in the right way! It is truly appreciated.
I am happy to share a couple of points from the design perspective:
- The movement strategy recommendations are, as some of you have noted, the product of lengthy consultation and consideration. - The goal of *this* round of conversations is to share the recommendations that came out of working group discussions and consultations with a wide range of communities. We ask for input on the recommendations to help the Board identify which may present challenges or create opportunities - in general, how people think they and their community would be affected by the prescribed changes. We hope that a transparent and honest conversation will happen so that this information is well understood. - The main discussions about the recommendations would need to happen in the first 4 weeks of conversations, which should be enough to convey essential viewpoints and provide context to create a good understanding around them. - We will start pulling together and structuring feedback as soon as the conversations start. This includes translations and summaries. This means that the 1 week break will be used for finalizing the community input report and not for creation of that report in its entirety. - The final week of conversations is planned for the review of that report so that we can make sure it accurately reflects the conversation. - The recommendations are meant to give an overall direction for moving forward. Implementation of these recommendations will need to happen in context, and so more specific discussions will be continued in the framework of implementation discussions.
I hope it makes sense, but am happy to hear any further thoughts and ideas for improving the quality of the conversations ahead of us.
Best regards, Kaarel
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 9:47 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anders,
I think that the original hope was that there would be community consensus around the recommendations from the strategy process. However, what I have heard so far leads me to think that the reception to the recommendations has been mixed.
Neither the WMF Board nor the community are required to accept recommendations from the strategy organizers. I'm not trying to say this in a combative or demoralizing way. As much as anyone, I had hoped that there would be consensus around the recommendations, but so far I do not get the sense that there widespread optimism about this process or the recommendations from it.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org