Thanks Thomas; we're sorry about it too.
The real problem won't be so much "who will take over the work" -- Jennifer had only been on the job about five months, so she was mostly in building/thinking/planning mode rather than executing mode. So the real problem will be a hit to our ability to plan and think deeply about program work in general. (What I mean by that is our thinking will be stalled, and won't advance as quickly as it would have with a CPO in place. And some long-wanted, hoped-for work will be on hold, or will proceed more slowly than it otherwise would have.)
Here's an example: As you know, we have long wanted to create a program making grants to volunteers -- both to chapters and individual Wikimedians. Erik and I launched the chapters grantmaking process prior to Jennifer's arrival, but by ourselves we didn't have capacity to put much time into it. When she arrived, Jennifer picked it up and successfully made grants to 21 chapters. We had wanted to expand the program to include grants to individuals, which Jennifer would have done. With her leaving, three things will happen. 1) The existing chapters grants still need to be managed. 2) The launch of individual grants will be delayed. And 3) Our longer-term, big-picture thinking about grantmaking will be slower to evolve, because it won't benefit from having a person whose primary job is thinking about that kind of work.
So --in my example above-- there's an immediate problem, which is who will manage existing grants. (The answer to that isn't determined, but it will probably be Erik. He has lots of other work to do, but happily he also has enormous capacity for throughput.) But the bigger problem is that our overall capacity to get smarter and more thoughtful about grantmaking in general, and to expand the existing program, will happen more slowly than it would have with a CPO in place.
I don't mean to dismiss your question: it's a good one, and the answer is essentially that different people will pick up different bits of work -- essentially, we revert to the world before we had a CPO, in which some combination of me, Erik, Frank, Jay and Cary handle it.
If anyone needs a particular contact for work they'd been doing with Jennifer, please let me know, offlist or on, and I'll find or create an answer for you.
Thanks, Sue
------Original Message------ From: Thomas Dalton Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org ReplyTo: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Jennifer Riggs leaves Wikimedia Sent: 17 Sep 2009 8:44 AM
2009/9/17 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
However, Jennifer and I have agreed that despite those contributions, she ultimately will not be a good fit for the Chief Program Officer role. That doesn't mean her path will never cross ours again, and it's not a decision intended to reflect badly on her skills or abilities. Obviously we both wish things had played out differently.
I'm sorry to hear that. I wish Jennifer the best of luck with her future career and you the best of luck finding a replacement.
It sounds like there will be several months between CPOs - who will take over Jennifer's duties in the interim?
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks Sue. You mention a sort of re-envisioning process for the Chief Program Officer role - can you give us an idea of the challenges that you and Jennifer encountered with the current concept of a CPO, and what types of changes you might consider making?
Nathan
Thank you for this announcement, though I am sorry to hear it.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Sue Gardner susanpgardner@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an example: As you know, we have long wanted to create a program making grants to volunteers -- both to chapters and individual Wikimedians. Erik and I launched the chapters grantmaking process prior to Jennifer's arrival, but by ourselves we didn't have capacity to put much time into it. When she arrived, Jennifer picked it up and successfully made grants to 21 chapters. We had wanted to expand the program to include grants to individuals, which Jennifer would have done. With her leaving, three things will happen. 1) The existing chapters grants still need to be managed. 2) The launch of individual grants will be delayed. And 3) Our longer-term, big-picture thinking about grantmaking will be slower to evolve, because it won't benefit from having a person whose primary job is thinking about that kind of work.
To this example: are there other ways for long-term big-picture thinking to evolve? Not only does this seem like one of many topics suitable for brainstorming during the strategy planning of the coming 9 months, but Jennifer has recently been discussing on Meta ways to tap into community interest in being part of grant-finding and grantmaking. There is a certain tradition of the latter -- the community organized the first technology grant for essential technical work six years ago.
I expect there are community members with their own ideas and background in thinking and writing about such work - given the good example of the early chapters grants model, those interested could propose a variation suitable for individual grants, for example.
SJ
Sue Gardner susanpgardner@gmail.com wrote:
The real problem won't be so much "who will take over the work" -- Jennifer had only been on the job about five months, so she was mostly in building/thinking /planning mode rather than executing mode.
Keep in mind that the "Wiki" way of doing things was never about putting responsibility on just one or few shoulders. 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.
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, and thus has a certain point of view and insight that others might regard as relevant how they conceptualize and understand these particular objectives and how to achieve them. If she would she be interested in commenting on such matters, Wikimedians may find these useful.
Regards, -Stevertigo
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
Hi Sam,
Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Among the major points I think we need to remember here is that we can try to do and be too much. I know very well that you are the ambitious type, just as you know very well that I am not. The issue thus seems a lot about finding synergy or tensegrity between virtual people and real people. With regard to economies and economic influence, there is a variance between what
For example there is a variance between Wikimedia's spending power, and the the average Wikipedian's spending power. Likewise there is variance between Wikipedia's worth and Wikimedia's.
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.
This goes to the "more light than heat" issue, and the fact that we are all here largely due to how "wiki technology" to some degree has helped this ratio. Naturally, we are discussing the matter with regards to our meta discussion forums, such as this list, and how to solve these issues via increasingly more scrutinous means, if the technological means continue to be inadequate.
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.
Looks like she was quite busy before she left. I emailed her about this thread, so I imagine she might chime in if she feels up to it.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
With regard to economies and economic influence, there is a variance between what
The line "different people have and thus can do." should have been in my previous post.
-Stevertigo
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:19 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
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, and thus has a certain point of view and insight that others might regard as relevant how they conceptualize and understand these particular objectives and how to achieve them. If she would she be interested in commenting on such matters, Wikimedians may find these useful.
Jennifer posted one proposal on the strategy wiki, and she's drafting some other stuff as well:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Management_practices_t...
You can probably interact with her directly on her user page as well as possibly this list.
=Eugene
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org