Hi all,
The Movement Roles Project (which you've probably heard about but are not really sure what it is about [1]) continues to go forward. After an in-person meeting two or so weeks ago, which produced a whole lot of (interesting) notes [2], we're breaking down the main outcomes of the meeting for you (yes, you, and you, and you over there) to comment, twist, change, add to, substract from, develop and {{insert new collaboration-related word here}}.
The first part of those notes put up for scrutiny is known as "the roles matrix." To make a long story short, this matrix was put together after a brainstorming session at our last meeting to try and define what roles and responsibilities exist on the organisational level in Wikimedia, and who fulfills those roles. It sounds daunting, but really, it is a lot more fun that one may think.
So. The roles matrix is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix for your perusal.
If you're interested in some background about the matrix, read the whole page. It's not too long. If you're not, please just hack away in the matrix here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix#The_Roles... or share your ideas on the talk page here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix
Bottom line is: we need you. Really, we do. We need you to bring new perspectives, fresh ideas, insight and hindsight, crazy and thoughtful proposals, and most of all, constructive criticism.
So please, follow the links and tell us a piece of your mind.
Thanks,
Best,
Delphine
[1] If I had to summarize it, I'd probably start by calling it "the organisational development project". The next level of summarizing would be "Trying to put together a comprehensive charter which captures the roles and responsibilities of different people and organisations in the Wikimedia movement, as well as defines a frame for their interactions". For the next level, you might want to read the meta page about it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Proposal
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/2011-01-29
Apologies for my unusual denseness here, but this matrix makes no sense to me, and lacks any information needed for constructive improvement.
What I'd be looking for is a description of what the role and responsibility is, in each box. Knowing that Business partnerships/Foundation is "Globally", or that Advocacy+lobbying/Groups is "Support groups", tells me precisely zero of any value about any organizational matter, roles, work needed, and so on.
Can someone expand this considerably? Thanks.
FT2
2011/2/18 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com
Hi all,
The Movement Roles Project (which you've probably heard about but are not really sure what it is about [1]) continues to go forward. After an in-person meeting two or so weeks ago, which produced a whole lot of (interesting) notes [2], we're breaking down the main outcomes of the meeting for you (yes, you, and you, and you over there) to comment, twist, change, add to, substract from, develop and {{insert new collaboration-related word here}}.
The first part of those notes put up for scrutiny is known as "the roles matrix." To make a long story short, this matrix was put together after a brainstorming session at our last meeting to try and define what roles and responsibilities exist on the organisational level in Wikimedia, and who fulfills those roles. It sounds daunting, but really, it is a lot more fun that one may think.
So. The roles matrix is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix for your perusal.
If you're interested in some background about the matrix, read the whole page. It's not too long. If you're not, please just hack away in the matrix here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix#The_Roles... or share your ideas on the talk page here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix
Bottom line is: we need you. Really, we do. We need you to bring new perspectives, fresh ideas, insight and hindsight, crazy and thoughtful proposals, and most of all, constructive criticism.
So please, follow the links and tell us a piece of your mind.
Thanks,
Best,
Delphine
[1] If I had to summarize it, I'd probably start by calling it "the organisational development project". The next level of summarizing would be "Trying to put together a comprehensive charter which captures the roles and responsibilities of different people and organisations in the Wikimedia movement, as well as defines a frame for their interactions". For the next level, you might want to read the meta page about it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Proposal
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/2011-01-29
@notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for my unusual denseness here, but this matrix makes no sense to me, and lacks any information needed for constructive improvement.
What I'd be looking for is a description of what the role and responsibility is, in each box. Knowing that Business partnerships/Foundation is "Globally", or that Advocacy+lobbying/Groups is "Support groups", tells me precisely zero of any value about any organizational matter, roles, work needed, and so on.
Well, that's sort of the point.
It's the start of something that we hope to have extensive community input on—it's the first step, not the last. Thirteen people brainstormed over the course of a few hours two weeks ago, and we wanted to throw what we had out there so everyone has a chance to participate.
The definition of "groups" is particularly vague, as noted in the description. It's not something that I expect to resolve this week or next, but with some help we might have it mostly clarified within a few months.
If you have specific questions, let's discuss! There's plenty of space on the wiki, and I'm happy to address stuff on this list and make sure it's integrated into the main body of work.
Austin
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for my unusual denseness here, but this matrix makes no sense
to
me, and lacks any information needed for constructive improvement.
What I'd be looking for is a description of what the role and
responsibility
is, in each box. Knowing that Business partnerships/Foundation is "Globally", or that Advocacy+lobbying/Groups is "Support groups", tells
me
precisely zero of any value about any organizational matter, roles, work needed, and so on.
Well, that's sort of the point.
It's the start of something that we hope to have extensive community input on—it's the first step, not the last. Thirteen people brainstormed over the course of a few hours two weeks ago, and we wanted to throw what we had out there so everyone has a chance to participate.
The definition of "groups" is particularly vague, as noted in the description. It's not something that I expect to resolve this week or next, but with some help we might have it mostly clarified within a few months.
If you have specific questions, let's discuss! There's plenty of space on the wiki, and I'm happy to address stuff on this list and make sure it's integrated into the main body of work.
Hey Austin
I left a message on the talk page about the definition of "groups" in the context of Movement Roles Project last week. I also brought this up in the IRC hour a week ago. I know the intention here is to be as inclusive as possible, but can we start to classify what "groups" are expected to be included in the project.
A little more clarification about these "groups" would be greatly helpful either on wiki or the mailing list.
I would assume that chapters are one such groups that are definitely going to be included in the classification, if so, can we at least include them somewhere so people have a general idea here about the context or what's expected.
Theo
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I left a message on the talk page about the definition of "groups" in the context of Movement Roles Project last week. I also brought this up in the IRC hour a week ago. I know the intention here is to be as inclusive as possible, but can we start to classify what "groups" are expected to be included in the project.
A little more clarification about these "groups" would be greatly helpful either on wiki or the mailing list.
I would assume that chapters are one such groups that are definitely going to be included in the classification, if so, can we at least include them somewhere so people have a general idea here about the context or what's expected.
"Groups" is definitely the vaguest part of the roles matrix. Figuring out what that means is what we're doing now, and it will surely be refined as the project goes on.
As used in the working session that produced the matrix, "groups" was "anything between one person and a Wikimedia chapter." How that's defined is something that's dogged everyone who's worked with Wikimedia organizations (and non-organizations, and un-organizations, &c.) since Wikimedians started organizing. Nobody has that definition, so far—it's this project's goal to find one.
There's clearly a gray area between one random dude and Wikimedia Deutschland or WMF Inc.—one of the great things about what we do is having random people get together and do stuff, with varying levels of organization. The idea is to clarify who does what, and how that entity works with related entities.
There's currently a copy of the matrix[0] that anyone can edit. If you think that it needs more discussion, there's also a talk page[1], which is anxiously looking for contributors.
If I can clarify anything else about the process, please ask.
Austin
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix#The_Roles... [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix
The thing is, I don't understand what it's saying, or that it is providing any framework or useful information on the point of ""what roles exist and who's covering them how", to the point I actually can't contribute. It appears to say nothing.
I'm sure that isn't the case, but it is incredibly rare something is posted as a community notice and I literally cannot make anything of it.
If a bare empty frame was created and users asked to fill it in, that would be one thing. But the existing frame suggests some thought has gone into it already. I just don't understand even the slightest, what thought that was or what tentative results it reached.
By way of example, looking at the bare text of that page for "advocacy", what conclusions were reached on who is covering what aspects of advocacy, and to what extent, and what that area of operations involves? If some kinds of advocacy will be handled by the office and others by chapters what distinctions are important in that decision? Is advocacy (but not lobbying) a major chapter activity or a minor one? Saying that WMF does do "advocacy" and chapters "can but some might not wish to" is almost self-evident, so it doesn't add anything knowledge-wise.
Ditto fundraising, what kinds of "support" is it initially anticipated might be provided by "individuals"? And ditto what on earth does "business partnerships" - "foundation" - "globally" mean and what does it say about how business partnerships will be selected, created or managed, decisions made about them, and choices about resources used on them?
Without that kind of level of data it's not possible to say whether the conceptual structure being created is excellent, poor, has loopholes, can be improved, or misses the point. It becomes a set of truisms or jargon.
FT2
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for my unusual denseness here, but this matrix makes no sense
to
me, and lacks any information needed for constructive improvement.
What I'd be looking for is a description of what the role and
responsibility
is, in each box. Knowing that Business partnerships/Foundation is "Globally", or that Advocacy+lobbying/Groups is "Support groups", tells
me
precisely zero of any value about any organizational matter, roles, work needed, and so on.
Well, that's sort of the point.
It's the start of something that we hope to have extensive community input on—it's the first step, not the last. Thirteen people brainstormed over the course of a few hours two weeks ago, and we wanted to throw what we had out there so everyone has a chance to participate.
The definition of "groups" is particularly vague, as noted in the description. It's not something that I expect to resolve this week or next, but with some help we might have it mostly clarified within a few months.
If you have specific questions, let's discuss! There's plenty of space on the wiki, and I'm happy to address stuff on this list and make sure it's integrated into the main body of work.
Austin
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org