Hi everybody,
For those of you who don't know me, I'm leading the Wikimedia strategic planning process. Our goal is to develop a five-year strategic plan through an open community process that is going on right now and that will go on through July 2010. We're trying to answer three questions:
* Where do we want to see the Wikimedia movement in five years? * Where is it now? * How should we get from here to there?
The hub for this conversation has naturally been a wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/. It's been up for about two months now, and we've already gotten an incredible amount of engagement there. We've also been holding regular IRC office hours (as most followers of this list know), and Philippe Beaudette, the facilitator of this project, has been tirelessly talking with many people and evangelizing the project.
We're now moving into a phase where we're going to be encouraging even greater participation. This Wednesday, we'll be putting out a broad Call for Participation, advertised through the Central Notice, which means that anyone accessing any of the Wikimedia project sites will see it.
I wanted to make sure that all of you were aware that this is happening, and I wanted to point you to a few links that explain this in more detail.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_forces
In the meantime, if you have any questions or thoughts, please share them, either on the strategy wiki, here on this mailing list, or with me or Philippe directly. Thank you!
=Eugene
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
For those of you who don't know me, I'm leading the Wikimedia strategic planning process. Our goal is to develop a five-year strategic plan through an open community process that is going on right now and that will go on through July 2010. We're trying to answer three questions:
- Where do we want to see the Wikimedia movement in five years?
- Where is it now?
- How should we get from here to there?
The hub for this conversation has naturally been a wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/. It's been up for about two months now, and we've already gotten an incredible amount of engagement there. We've also been holding regular IRC office hours (as most followers of this list know), and Philippe Beaudette, the facilitator of this project, has been tirelessly talking with many people and evangelizing the project.
We're now moving into a phase where we're going to be encouraging even greater participation. This Wednesday, we'll be putting out a broad Call for Participation, advertised through the Central Notice, which means that anyone accessing any of the Wikimedia project sites will see it.
I wanted to make sure that all of you were aware that this is happening, and I wanted to point you to a few links that explain this in more detail.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_forces
In the meantime, if you have any questions or thoughts, please share them, either on the strategy wiki, here on this mailing list, or with me or Philippe directly. Thank you!
=Eugene
--
Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/ ======================================================================
This is great to hear and I am very curious to see how it turns out. It's too bad Special:Statistics can't show you basic information over time. To facilitate before/after comparisons, as of now: 372 content pages; 4,118 pages; 30,382 edits; 1,870 registered users; 682 active users.
This is of course a quantitative vs. qualitative assessment, and more interesting will be the strategy that emerges from thoughtful interaction between the community and the foundation.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is great to hear and I am very curious to see how it turns out.
Me too. :-)
It's too bad Special:Statistics can't show you basic information over time. To facilitate before/after comparisons, as of now: 372 content pages; 4,118 pages; 30,382 edits; 1,870 registered users; 682 active users.
Joe Blaylock has been writing tools to help us understand this information. They're available under the GPL and are at:
http://github.com/jrbl/CollabStats
Not sure if Joe's on this list, but if he isn't, I can point him to relevant conversations. The tools are still rough, and there's stuff that can and should be done. Would definitely love it if folks would be willing to volunteer their time to help us evolve these tools. Contact me off-list.
Once we have this information more easily available, we'll post it regularly somewhere.
This is of course a quantitative vs. qualitative assessment, and more interesting will be the strategy that emerges from thoughtful interaction between the community and the foundation.
Not sure what your definition of "the community" is. There are lots of parties that need to be involved: project contributors and other independent Wikimedians, the foundation, the chapters, developers, readers, and so forth. But I agree with your overall point about assessing this process.
And of course, there's a space to discuss this on the Wiki. :-)
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process/Evaluation
Thanks for the feedback, Brian!
=Eugene
Hello Eugene,
Thanks for heads up (two days before the D-day),
... I wanted to point you to a few links that explain this in more detail. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process
As to me, as to the best of my belief the nutshell is on the page
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process/Decision-Making
(obviously "Process" refers to it).
I mean that despite first, very promising clause
"Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?"
this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)?
At the very bottom of that page one can read "stakeholders need to be transparent in their decision-making process". It's exactly my point.
--Pavlo Shevelo [SUL]
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
For those of you who don't know me, I'm leading the Wikimedia strategic planning process. Our goal is to develop a five-year strategic plan through an open community process that is going on
<snip>
=Eugene
the strategy that emerges from thoughtful interaction between the community and the foundation.
Not sure what your definition of "the community" is. There are lots of...
It's misfit, isn't it? ... are Brian and Eugene speaking in different languages?
-- Pavlo Shevelo [SUL]
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is great to hear and I am very curious to see how it turns out.
Me too. :-)
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
It's too bad Special:Statistics can't show you basic information over time.
Thankfully, Philippe has been saving these statistics so you can see the "over time" effect: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Planning:Statistics
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
It's too bad Special:Statistics can't show you basic information over
time.
Thankfully, Philippe has been saving these statistics so you can see the "over time" effect: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Planning:Statistics
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Gr8, thanks for pointing this out.
I knew it would come in handy for something... :-)
On Sep 14, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Brian wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
It's too bad Special:Statistics can't show you basic information over
time.
Thankfully, Philippe has been saving these statistics so you can see the "over time" effect: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Planning:Statistics
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Gr8, thanks for pointing this out. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Philippe Beaudette < pbeaudette@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I knew it would come in handy for something... :-)
Tx. Do you know what counts as a user account given SUL? Someone who is logged on at another wiki merely visits, and now they are a new user account?
I have wondered that, and do not know the answer.
My GUESS - uneducated and probably wrong - would be that it's not an account until they write something on SUL or create the account locally.
On Sep 14, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Brian wrote:
Tx. Do you know what counts as a user account given SUL? Someone who is logged on at another wiki merely visits, and now they are a new user account?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Philippe Beaudette < pbeaudette@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I have wondered that, and do not know the answer.
My GUESS - uneducated and probably wrong - would be that it's not an account until they write something on SUL or create the account locally.
On Sep 14, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Brian wrote:
Tx. Do you know what counts as a user account given SUL? Someone who is logged on at another wiki merely visits, and now they are a new user account?
I poked around a bit, and I think they have to actually sign in with the new account before its in the table, which makes sense, and means the #s are reasonable.
2009/9/15 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
I poked around a bit, and I think they have to actually sign in with the new account before its in the table, which makes sense, and means the #s are reasonable.
This is certainly my understanding - the account is created as-and-when you log in at the new wiki, or visit it whilst remaining logged in.
(This latter part, especially with people looking at article interwikis, will probably account for quite an upsurge in account creation post-SUL...)
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
"Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?"
this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)?
Sorry for taking so long to respond, Pavlo. I'm not sure I'm the right person to respond to this. I'll do my best, you can tell me if you think it's clear, and hopefully other folks from the Foundation will jump in.
The simple answer is: At the end of this process, there will be a community-developed plan with a set of recommendations. The Foundation board will vote on that plan at its board meeting in November 2010.
Assuming we pull off what we're trying to pull off, I expect that to be a rubber stamp. In other words, if this is a good process, if we put lots of thought into it, if a large, diverse group of stakeholders are engaged, I think the board will go with the plan. That is my opinion, not an official statement of fact. :-)
I expect people from the Foundation to actively engage in the process with everyone else. I hope that holds true for other stakeholders, such as the Chapters, and I would very much love to see all of our stakeholders both engage in the process and then go through some official approval process. I'm optimistic that this will happen. I know that several Chapters are already engaged in their own strategic planning processes, and I expect those will align nicely with this movement-wide process. I hope that individual projects get more actively engaged as well, as I think this is a wonderful opportunity to reflect together and to take advantage of common resources for this effort.
=Eugene
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
"Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?"
this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)?
Sorry for taking so long to respond, Pavlo. I'm not sure I'm the right person to respond to this. I'll do my best, you can tell me if you think it's clear, and hopefully other folks from the Foundation will jump in.
The simple answer is: At the end of this process, there will be a community-developed plan with a set of recommendations. The Foundation board will vote on that plan at its board meeting in November 2010.
Assuming we pull off what we're trying to pull off, I expect that to be a rubber stamp. In other words, if this is a good process, if we put lots of thought into it, if a large, diverse group of stakeholders are engaged, I think the board will go with the plan. That is my opinion, not an official statement of fact. :-)
I expect people from the Foundation to actively engage in the process with everyone else. I hope that holds true for other stakeholders, such as the Chapters, and I would very much love to see all of our stakeholders both engage in the process and then go through some official approval process. I'm optimistic that this will happen. I know that several Chapters are already engaged in their own strategic planning processes, and I expect those will align nicely with this movement-wide process. I hope that individual projects get more actively engaged as well, as I think this is a wonderful opportunity to reflect together and to take advantage of common resources for this effort.
I think it is worth keeping in mind that not all of the proposals are the same either. Though the planning horizon is nominally five years, some of the suggestions include things that could be done relatively easily right now.
For example, some issues could be accomplished by a single interested programmer and/or a team of engaged editors, without needing either the Foundation's stamp of approval or funding. I suspect that many such things, if they are truly worth doing and well supported by the larger community, would actually get implemented long before the Foundation gets around to endorsing a long-term plan.
It would probably be a good idea for someone to start sorting proposals be their perceived difficulty and/or need for external resources (if no one has been already), so that the easy issues could be separated from the hard ones.
-Robert Rohde
On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
It would probably be a good idea for someone to start sorting proposals be their perceived difficulty and/or need for external resources (if no one has been already), so that the easy issues could be separated from the hard ones.
There's a handy little "Reader Feedback" tool at the bottom of each proposal to assist with just that type of sorting. (The "Feasibility" field, in particular).
We strongly encourage people who can accomplish these things to build the support base and do them.... this is a process about empowerment.
Philippe
____________________ Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Planning Wikimedia Foundation
philippe@wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
"Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?"
this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)?
Sorry for taking so long to respond, Pavlo. I'm not sure I'm the right person to respond to this. I'll do my best, you can tell me if you think it's clear, and hopefully other folks from the Foundation will jump in.
I just saw this thread; I'm happy to jump in.
What Eugene says is all accurate -- let me expand a little.
Essentially, the purpose of the project is to develop a strategy for the Wikimedia movement, not just for the Wikimedia Foundation. What that means is that no single entity will be able to approve and drive forward the whole thing: individual players will drive forward the pieces that compel and engage and inspire them.
So for example:
* If it looks like it makes sense to stage a lot of events aimed at broadening participation in developed countries, the chapters would logically take the lead on that.
* If it looks like it would make sense to conduct a massive awareness campaign in India, that would probably be moved forward in partnership between the Wikimedia Foundation and what might be -by then- an approved, new Indian chapter.
* If it looks like a very strong focus on mobile makes sense, I expect that would be something driven forward by the tech staff at Wikimedia, in partnership with individual volunteer devs, and possibly supported by relationships with for-profit firms such as Orange.
* If there is a simple thing that looks sensible, and one person wants to, and is able to, achieve it by him or herself, they would just do that. They wouldn't need to wait for anyone's goahead.
You see what I mean? Essentially, the goal is that each player will make its own decisions based on its own context -- its own capacity, its skills and abilities and interests, its own goals and priorities. People will be able to do that however they want, in whatever process works for them.
With regards to the Wikimedia Foundation, as Eugene said, if the process works well, it (the process) will deliver to the Board a set of high-level recommendations in key areas. By that time work will have been done, especially in the later stages of the task force work, to try to ensure the recommendations are synched up with each other and make sense together as much as possible --- but there will probably be a few areas in which incompatible (mutually exclusive) recommendations are submitted. The Board of Trustees will then work to resolve whatever contradictions are present, and to prioritize the work it wants to get done. And then, if all has gone well, it will approve the strategy plan.
Hope that helps. And -- Board members should please speak up here also, especially if there are nuances to their understanding that differ from mine or Eugene's.
Thanks, Sue
Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
"Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?"
this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)?
The simple answer is: At the end of this process, there will be a community-developed plan with a set of recommendations. The Foundation board will vote on that plan at its board meeting in November 2010.
Assuming we pull off what we're trying to pull off, I expect that to be a rubber stamp. In other words, if this is a good process, if we put lots of thought into it, if a large, diverse group of stakeholders are engaged, I think the board will go with the plan. That is my opinion, not an official statement of fact. :-)
I expect people from the Foundation to actively engage in the process with everyone else. I hope that holds true for other stakeholders, such as the Chapters, and I would very much love to see all of our stakeholders both engage in the process and then go through some official approval process. I'm optimistic that this will happen. I know that several Chapters are already engaged in their own strategic planning processes, and I expect those will align nicely with this movement-wide process. I hope that individual projects get more actively engaged as well, as I think this is a wonderful opportunity to reflect together and to take advantage of common resources for this effort.
The question, "Who will decide ...?" touches upon the fundamental paradox of empowerment. In democratic institutions the ideal is to bring decision making power to those who are ruled by those decisions, yet this conflicts with the institutionalized deference implicit in Pavlo's question.
An end-game where the legal entity applies a rubber stamp is fine, but a prerequisite for that is that a decision has already been made in some manner.
I believe that we live in an era when there is an essential mistrust of institutions ... beginning with governments. The current health care debate in the United States more than amply gives us examples on both sides of that issue. The internet has provided tools for questioning institutions. Claims and promises that could heretofore be made as marketing ploys are no longer believed when they are inconsistent with facts that are easily discovered by a broad range of people who previously lacked the resouces for such discoveries.
If this rampant cynicism were limited to opinions about governments the situation could be tolerable, but it rubs off on all sorts of institutional settings. It may be comforting to know that someone else will make the decisions; that relieves one of having to give serious thought about often very complex issues. If, however, those decisions are not trusted they will never be completely successful.
Ec
Sue Gardner wrote:
<Some awesomely relevant stuff>
. . .
Let me just say as a board election candidate who in the final tally didn't get the nod from the voters, that I personally think your grasp of what is relevant and vital to the eventual full expression of our missions potential is nothing short of phenomenal.
Even decisively sharpest in focus in my mind is the fact that you can see so clearly even though you are a person who wasn't brought up "in house". I hope you will excuse my mention of the fact in the context of my noting my high approval of your vision.
Honestly, I personally had a few doubts when your appointment was initially announced; they quickly receded towards a "wait and see" attitude. Now I am quite willing to state for the record, that I for one think the Foundation awesomely got its ducks in a row when it chose you to lead the foundation. Make of that what you will.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hello Sue,
Thank you very much for your explanation which is very informative and clear. So for your question
You see what I mean?
my answer is "Yes, I do":)
Let me presume that (in some reasonably short time) these explanation will be placed to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process/Decision-Making as (to the best of my belief) I'm not the only one who will look for such things there (as page title promises explanation).
-- Board members should please speak up here also, especially if there are nuances to their understanding that differ from mine or Eugene's.
Yes, it would be great!
And again
Hope that helps.
Yes it does. A lot.
-- Pavlo Shevelo <<[SUL & real name]
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Eugene With kind help from Sue :) you managed to make it much clearer.
Please either avoid or be much more explicit & clearer with concepts like
... I expect that to be a rubber stamp.
I mean well made comment from Ray Saintonge (in his own letter from Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM)
An end-game where the legal entity applies a rubber stamp is fine, but a prerequisite for that is that a decision has already been made in some manner.
I decide to copy his comment to here in order to stress what was said by Ray.
-- Pavlo Shevelo <<[SUL & real name]
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
"Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?"
Hello Ray,
... conflicts with the institutionalized deference implicit in Pavlo's question.
You understood my point perfectly well ;) I have no personal reasons/causes to be ... 'suspicious' about WMF but I'm from that part of the Earth where
... an essential mistrust of institutions ... beginning with governments.
is in blood of everybody. So if some institution did not explain (publicly and in sufficient details) some important future steps it is the sign (for me and alike) that it's time to start asking questions ;) using
The internet has provided tools for questioning institutions
Thank you very much for all your thoughtful letter. I do believe that further discussion about... 'relationships' (being non-native speaker I'm in lack of better wording) between community/'movement' and WMF (as main institution) should be essential part of strategic planning process.
-- Pavlo Shevelo <<[SUL & real name]
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
2009/9/23 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Sue Gardner wrote:
<Some awesomely relevant stuff>
. Let me just say as a board election candidate who in the final tally didn't get the nod from the voters, that I personally think your grasp of what is relevant and vital to the eventual full expression of our missions potential is nothing short of phenomenal.
Even decisively sharpest in focus in my mind is the fact that you can see so clearly even though you are a person who wasn't brought up "in house". I hope you will excuse my mention of the fact in the context of my noting my high approval of your vision.
Honestly, I personally had a few doubts when your appointment was initially announced; they quickly receded towards a "wait and see" attitude. Now I am quite willing to state for the record, that I for one think the Foundation awesomely got its ducks in a row when it chose you to lead the foundation. Make of that what you will.
Wow, Jussi-Ville; I like it, thank you :-)
Wikimedia is not always a tremendously warm culture, and I am sometimes guilty of feeling a little under-appreciated. This mail made me happy. I don't even care if you've already changed your mind: it was super-kind, and I thank you for it :-)
Wow, Jussi-Ville; I like it, thank you :-)
Wikimedia is not always a tremendously warm culture, and I am sometimes guilty of feeling a little under-appreciated. This mail made me happy. I don't even care if you've already changed your mind: it was super-kind, and I thank you for it :-)
If it helps, many of us, includng myself, are happy with your (long-time-ago) appointment and activity.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
Hi there, Thanks for the chance to submit some ideas. I have started a review process and have been reading the proposals and backgrounders on youtube. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Read_the_Proposals_as_Videos_on_...
the quality of the videos is lacking, it will get better. Also I have scripts to have the computer read the articles, but I fear that they will have less quality.
please join me in this process and it will reach more people. thanks, mike
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
"Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?"
this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about
Sue put this well. There is more than one 'main' stakeholder here, depending on your perspective.
Essentially, the purpose of the project is to develop a strategy for the Wikimedia movement, not just for the Wikimedia Foundation. What that means is that no single entity will be able to approve and drive forward the whole thing: individual players will drive forward the pieces that compel and engage and inspire them.
I will add two comments.
One difficult piece will be suggestions that aren't at the right timescale or level of granularity. And each major stakeholder will have to choose their short-term efforts aligned with that longer-term strategy.
For instance, the Foundation's Annual Plan is essentially a one-year strategy plan. The 2010 plan will have to be finalized before the final report of the strategy process, but will pay attention to its intermediate results.
And when there are mutually incompatible suggestions which have to be reconciled *for each party*, it will often be possible for different parts of the community and movement to pursue each idea. I think of projects such as Omegawiki that way - it is incompatible with what is currently implemented as Wiktionary, and is supported outside of WMF, but clearly pursuing the goals of the movement.
Mike writes:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Read_the_Proposals_as_Videos_on_...
Now that is simply delightful.
SJ
timescale or level of granularity. And each major stakeholder will have to choose their short-term efforts aligned with that longer-term strategy.
Oh, that's sounds a bit different for me: The result of worldwide wiki-ish brainstorming will be sorta menu given to each and every of said stakeholders and they will pick up the ... granules from it combining them into own strategy of that stakeholder - like piking up 'meal' fitting their needs & preferences. Did I get the idea in a right (metaphor) way?
And when there are mutually incompatible suggestions which have to be reconciled *for each party*, it will often be possible for different parts of the community and movement to pursue each idea. I think of projects such as Omegawiki that way - it is incompatible with what is currently implemented as Wiktionary, and is supported outside of WMF, but clearly pursuing the goals of the movement.
It sounds like one more confirmation that process and it result will be open, so any 'body' (either institution or person, as well as group) will have a right to spin off some ideas getting them out/outside of WMF. Right?
Thinking along that way: I presume that after WMF will 'make it mind' about 5-year strategy (ant apply the mentioned rubber stamp) the only way to get some ideas (incompatible or not fully compatible with WMF plan) implemented will be to take them outside the WMF.
Oh
... community and movement ...
I thought those are synonyms? No? Perhaps Movement=WMF+community Any comments, please? :)
-- Pavlo Shevelo
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Samuel J Klein sj@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
"Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?"
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org