Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p ).
It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested!
Thanks!
=Eugene
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Eugene Eric Kimeekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p ).
May you confirm that "tomorrow" is July 21st or July 22nd :)
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Eugene Eric Kimeekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p ).
May you confirm that "tomorrow" is July 21st or July 22nd :)
Sorry, everybody. "Tomorrow" (or rather, "today" for me right now) is July 21. See many of you soon.
=Eugene
Hi Eugene, very nice, thank you (and welcome!)
* Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
* I see you are using a non-editable Chandler calendar to track tasks. Can you set up an editable one for the whole community to use? It also seems to me that more of the 'later' tasks, even at this early stage, should be milestones from / facilitated through / presented to the community, whereas they are currently designed around bridgespan and board meetings.
* I have the impression that bridgespan would like to be brought up to speed on what the community's key issues, motivations, and priorities are. You probably know better than anyone; how can community members best help get outsiders (like BS) get up to speed on past discussions about WM and WP future planning? How have you been getting up to speed?
This might be a good discussion to continue on-wiki -- I expect most of the community editing about this will take place on Meta, and its pages are watched by many people who don't read f-l.
Warmly, SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p ).
It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested!
Thanks!
=Eugene
--
Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/ ======================================================================
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain, " strategy.wikimedia.org"
What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder after distracting people with setting up basic infrastructure (userpages, handy community gathering points) and tend to segment the community in a way that discourages broad participation.
Meta has been used for strategic planning since the beginning, and has attracted a pool of editors sympathetic to this sort of vision creation and consensus building.
SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Eugene, very nice, thank you (and welcome!)
- Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
- I see you are using a non-editable Chandler calendar to track tasks. Can
you set up an editable one for the whole community to use? It also seems to me that more of the 'later' tasks, even at this early stage, should be milestones from / facilitated through / presented to the community, whereas they are currently designed around bridgespan and board meetings.
- I have the impression that bridgespan would like to be brought up to
speed on what the community's key issues, motivations, and priorities are. You probably know better than anyone; how can community members best help get outsiders (like BS) get up to speed on past discussions about WM and WP future planning? How have you been getting up to speed?
This might be a good discussion to continue on-wiki -- I expect most of the community editing about this will take place on Meta, and its pages are watched by many people who don't read f-l.
Warmly, SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.comwrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p ).
It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested!
Thanks!
=Eugene
--
Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/ ======================================================================
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain, " strategy.wikimedia.org"
What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder after distracting people with setting up basic infrastructure (userpages, handy community gathering points) and tend to segment the community in a way that discourages broad participation.
That's a good point. It reminded me of the advisory board wiki, which I just checked and found full of junk and spam with no useful edits in a long time. Any activity there was drowned out by the creation of accounts, user pages, templates (not sure it needed AfD...), and off-topic pages. I've moved the content to meta and I'm guessing that the strategy content would be better off there as well.
Angela
Is it time to close the advisory board wiki like we just closed quality.wikimedia.org? Considering the state you describe, I rather think so (even qualitywiki wasn't so bad). Content could be moved to foundationwiki or Meta (or both) depending on what it is.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:08 +1000, Angela wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain, " strategy.wikimedia.org"
What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder after distracting people with setting up basic infrastructure (userpages, handy community gathering points) and tend to segment the community in a way that discourages broad participation.
That's a good point. It reminded me of the advisory board wiki, which I just checked and found full of junk and spam with no useful edits in a long time. Any activity there was drowned out by the creation of accounts, user pages, templates (not sure it needed AfD...), and off-topic pages. I've moved the content to meta and I'm guessing that the strategy content would be better off there as well.
Angela
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Mike.lifeguardmikelifeguard@fastmail.fm wrote:
Is it time to close the advisory board wiki like we just closed quality.wikimedia.org?
Yes. The content has been exported to meta. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19855
Angela
Good eyes, Sj. I have to agree - opening a new wiki for every single project is a terrible idea, as we've learned from quality.wikimedia.org. Please try to use Meta for this purpose.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 02:19 -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain, " strategy.wikimedia.org"
What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder after distracting people with setting up basic infrastructure (userpages, handy community gathering points) and tend to segment the community in a way that discourages broad participation.
Meta has been used for strategic planning since the beginning, and has attracted a pool of editors sympathetic to this sort of vision creation and consensus building.
SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Eugene, very nice, thank you (and welcome!)
- Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
- I see you are using a non-editable Chandler calendar to track tasks. Can
you set up an editable one for the whole community to use? It also seems to me that more of the 'later' tasks, even at this early stage, should be milestones from / facilitated through / presented to the community, whereas they are currently designed around bridgespan and board meetings.
- I have the impression that bridgespan would like to be brought up to
speed on what the community's key issues, motivations, and priorities are. You probably know better than anyone; how can community members best help get outsiders (like BS) get up to speed on past discussions about WM and WP future planning? How have you been getting up to speed?
This might be a good discussion to continue on-wiki -- I expect most of the community editing about this will take place on Meta, and its pages are watched by many people who don't read f-l.
Warmly, SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.comwrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p ).
It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested!
Thanks!
=Eugene
--
Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/ ======================================================================
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We should leave quality.wikimedia.org in place as an object lesson to future wikifounders. "When 20 interested editors isn't enough"...
And don't forget the grants wiki. It was used briefly, and despite being private contains very little private info. It should also be moved to meta and archived. (speaking of which, engaging public grants discussions is a good idea to bring up during planning -- since some of the most active community work in support of grants happened when community members found out about, and were excited by, a potential NEH proposal back in '04... before a barrier to participation was thrown up.)
SJ
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fmwrote:
Good eyes, Sj. I have to agree - opening a new wiki for every single project is a terrible idea, as we've learned from quality.wikimedia.org. Please try to use Meta for this purpose.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 02:19 -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain, " strategy.wikimedia.org"
What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder after distracting people with setting up basic infrastructure (userpages, handy community gathering points) and tend to segment the community in a
way
that discourages broad participation.
Meta has been used for strategic planning since the beginning, and has attracted a pool of editors sympathetic to this sort of vision creation
and
consensus building.
SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Eugene, very nice, thank you (and welcome!)
- Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your
current
rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
- I see you are using a non-editable Chandler calendar to track tasks.
Can
you set up an editable one for the whole community to use? It also
seems to
me that more of the 'later' tasks, even at this early stage, should be milestones from / facilitated through / presented to the community,
whereas
they are currently designed around bridgespan and board meetings.
- I have the impression that bridgespan would like to be brought up to
speed on what the community's key issues, motivations, and priorities
are.
You probably know better than anyone; how can community members best
help
get outsiders (like BS) get up to speed on past discussions about WM
and WP
future planning? How have you been getting up to speed?
This might be a good discussion to continue on-wiki -- I expect most of
the
community editing about this will take place on Meta, and its pages are watched by many people who don't read f-l.
Warmly, SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Eugene Eric Kim <eekim@blueoxen.com
wrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p).
It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested!
Thanks!
=Eugene
--
Eugene Eric Kim ................................
Blue Oxen Associates ........................
======================================================================
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/7/21 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
We should leave quality.wikimedia.org in place as an object lesson to future wikifounders. "When 20 interested editors isn't enough"...
:-)
I don't think it's comparable. The Quality Portal was an attempt to drive attention towards some existing technologies and initiatives - the FlaggedRevs extension, the trust coloring demo, etc. To some extent I think it succeeded at driving constructive conversation and awareness about these possibilities. There wasn't an active push to utilize the portal on an ongoing basis, and I think it's completely fine for it to have existed as a subdomain for a while and to then be merged back into Meta.
The strategy process is a year-long, facilitated process with lots of planned outputs and deliverables. Importantly, it's also intended for people outside the existing community to give input on our five-year plan and beyond. Meta is a lovely wiki, but it's very easy to get lost, and even wading through recent changes can become pretty nightmarish if you're trying to pay attention to something specific.
The idea of a strategy wiki is more comparable, if anything, to <usability.wikimedia.org>, which seems to be working quite well to focus attention and discussion. And again, I don't think merging information back into Meta, if that turns out to be desirable, is a sign of failure; it may well be part of the natural lifecycle of such an effort. Nor do I think that there's any a priori answer to when a new wiki is or isn't appropriate.
A blank slate can help to ensure that participatory structures are understandable. I know you personally have no problems navigating the complexity of even our wildest wikis, but I don't think that the same can be said for anyone who may want to participate in this process. A purpose-built wiki with no other focus than this process can help to make things more understandable, accessible, searchable, and ultimately useful, and perhaps can also help to escape groupthink by making purposes and structures more immediately understandable to people who aren't part of the club.
Another reason to consider a new wiki is that it makes it easier to roll-out specific extensions that we want to consider using for this process. Philippe has been looking at various talk page extensions, for example, and we may consider using one of them to make the discussion process more accessible to wiki-newbies. Again, that's easy to experiment with if you're using a new wiki, but much harder with all the existing structures and content of a site like Meta in place.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't think it's comparable. The Quality Portal was an attempt to drive attention towards some existing technologies and initiatives -
We have a simple and popular mechanism for creating portals. Why not ask the target audience how best to drive our collective attention?
The strategy process is a year-long, facilitated process with lots of planned outputs and deliverables. Importantly, it's also intended for people outside the existing community to give input on our five-year
What are the planned outputs and deliverables? It's nice to hear you say five years :)
The idea of a strategy wiki is more comparable, if anything, to <usability.wikimedia.org>, which seems to be working quite well to focus attention and discussion. And again, I don't think merging
I thought the reason to have a separate usability wiki was as a showcase for the new and developing design. It's only had 100 editors in the past month.
Creating new portals whenever a new project is conceived keeps us from fixing the real problem I hear you describing : better portal support within mediawiki, with optoins for focused recentchanges, separate sidebar links, &c.
A blank slate can help to ensure that participatory structures are understandable.
I'm not sure what you have in mind. Can we use a specific structure as an example?
ultimately useful, and perhaps can also help to escape groupthink by
You replace one vested group (people already regularly editing the host wiki) with another (people who split off to found the new wiki). both run the risk of 'groupthink' and founder effects.
Another reason to consider a new wiki is that it makes it easier toroll-out
specific extensions that we want to consider using for thisprocess. Philippe has been looking at various talk page extensions,
A great topic for public discussion - what's the problem newbies face that's being solved? Is this also part of the general usability discussion? which extensions?
I think that any change designed to make brainstorming and planning more effective and inclusive would be welcomed by many Meta editors. (So even if you do start a new wiki, please offer to implement those tests on meta as well!)
SJ
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
You replace one vested group (people already regularly editing the host wiki) with another (people who split off to found the new wiki). both run the risk of 'groupthink' and founder effects.
The plan is not to replace one group with another.
I recognize the challenges in starting new Wikis, and I appreciate the specific issues that people have surfaced in this discussion. I am constantly pushing people to think about collaborative tools as physical spaces, which means that introducing new tools is akin to creating new rooms. It can be laborious to go from room to room, and if people don't find those new rooms compelling, they won't bother going.
I think the stated goals will be reason enough for people to participate. Moreover, I think the barrier to bringing existing Wikimedians to a new Wiki is much lower than the barrier of bringing other folks to Meta. If Meta was what Wikimedians pointed to as the model for how a great Wiki community works, I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now. I don't think that's the case.
I'm in favor of making Meta better as part of this process. That can come in many different forms, as you suggest, including taking lessons from a new Wiki back to Meta.
=Eugene
=Eugene
2009/7/21 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
(speaking of which, engaging public grants discussions is a good idea to bring up during planning -- since some of the most active community work in support of grants happened when community members found out about, and were excited by, a potential NEH proposal back in '04... before a barrier to participation was thrown up.)
An interesting framing. ;-) I agree that a discussion about when grants make sense, and how to effectively apply for them and execute them, is important. I don't think there are any easy answers. The NEH grant, as you may recall, was unsuccessful, and WMF has been successful at actually obtaining significant grant support only recently. And obtaining a grant is only a small part of the work; you actually have to be able to meet your obligations and report on your progress according to the grant-givers' requirements, which vary. For restricted support, you have to make sure that the grants you apply for are things that make sense as organizational priorities.
We used community input in developing the Ford multimedia upload proposal - specifically, I created http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Case_for_Commons and invited public feedback in a number of places, which was helpful for the core section of the proposal. In general, I think community participation is great for the "meaty" pieces of a proposal, about the substance of the work or the justifications for it, while externalizing the knowledge about the procedural requirements of various foundations seems potentially wasteful. If you can point to successful relevant collaborations inside and outside WMF, that would be a good start in further developing our knowledge base.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
- Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
We'll start seeding Meta with what we know (and probably quite a bit of what we don't) today, and I'll look forward to reading other people's thoughts.
On creating a new Wiki: I hear you. I'm constantly fighting Wiki-creep with some of my other communities and clients. Creating new Wikis is often knee-jerk, and knee-jerk is usually not the best thing.
There's a tradeoff between starting with a blank slate and the need to re-establish a community and a set of norms. My gut tells me that a blank slate is better for this project, but I'm open to other feedback.
- I see you are using a non-editable Chandler calendar to track tasks. Can
you set up an editable one for the whole community to use? It also seems to me that more of the 'later' tasks, even at this early stage, should be milestones from / facilitated through / presented to the community, whereas they are currently designed around bridgespan and board meetings.
Please take my Chandler calendar with a grain of salt. We're just getting started, and it's incomplete. My main task right now is listening, and that hasn't necessarily been articulated on my calendar.
We can make some sort of publicly editable task list available, whether that's on a Wiki, Bugzilla, or some other tool. It's not likely to be Chandler, because Chandler does not support versioning or rollback. Regardless, I plan on keeping my Chandler calendar world-readable, so that folks can watch me heroically attempt to keep my meeting list manageable. :-)
- I have the impression that bridgespan would like to be brought up to speed
on what the community's key issues, motivations, and priorities are. You probably know better than anyone; how can community members best help get outsiders (like BS) get up to speed on past discussions about WM and WP future planning? How have you been getting up to speed?
I'm still getting up to speed. :-) I've read a lot of Meta, I've been following various lists, I'm talking to a bunch of people, and I hope to talk to many more.
The best way existing community members can help with this process is to engage, be patient, and be open. It's a bit easier for me, because I'm not a complete outsider, and I've been part of the Wiki community for a long time. For others, wrapping their heads around transparency and large-scale engagement might be a bit of a shock to their system. Understand that this is a learning process for _all_ of us, and embrace this as a learning process for yourselves as well.
=Eugene
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim eekim@blueoxen.comwrote:
We'll start seeding Meta with what we know (and probably quite a bit of what we don't) today, and I'll look forward to reading other people's thoughts.
That will be great.
There's a tradeoff between starting with a blank slate and the need to re-establish a community and a set of norms. My gut tells me that a blank slate is better for this project, but I'm open to other feedback.
Can you say more about your gut feelings here? What is the tradeoff specifically, and the purpose of the blank slate? (how would the first hundred pages be populated, for instance?) I am particularly concerned that the planning discussions not be launched only in english, or expected to be in english with sporadic other communication... and Meta is likely the best place to get hundreds of translators watching new pages and updates.
Please take my Chandler calendar with a grain of salt. We're just getting started, and it's incomplete. My main task right now is listening, and that hasn't necessarily been articulated on my calendar.
Cool, and many thanks for sharing your calendar! We should all do that. I was wondering about versioning - a pity it's not supported. A wiki list and bugzilla project should work as well. Someone just needs to write the eek-chand-to-wiki script :)
The best way existing community members can help with this process is to engage, be patient, and be open. It's a bit easier for me, because I'm not a complete outsider, and I've been part of the Wiki community for a long time.
Our community isn't limited to editors. Everyone involved in the strategic planning process, including the BS team, are community members -- presumably that's part of why they got involved with such a non-traditional effort. But if people don't see themselves as part of the community - don't communicate the way the community does with one another b/c they feel like outsiders - it's harder to collaborate.
For others, wrapping their heads around transparency and large-scale engagement might be a bit of a shock to their system.
Understand that this is a learning process for _all_ of us,
Absolutely.
and embrace this as a learning process for yourselves as well.
It's not 'us' and 'you'... we're all trying to get a grip on an interesting and wholly unsolved problem, with lots of information, processes, and ideas to internalize.
I would like to learn a great many things - about what BS does as an organization, what strategic planning processes are like (in variety, scope, and detail), what the Foundation (with the institutional experience in its staff) thinks makes for a good roadmap and timeline for different phases of dicsussion and planning, how to differentiate between short, medium and long-term planning within a fixed timeframe, what organizations BS or others consider similar enough that one should take lessons from their own historical strategic planning processes.
The editing community has one advantage over the rest of the community : the scalability of their work, knowledge, and ideas. They collaborate with one another in their daily work and debate in a way that allows others to engage them instantly and simply, without waiting for specific meeting times, polished drafts, or sporadic private interactions. I hope this is one of the first lessons shared.
SJ
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Cool, and many thanks for sharing your calendar! We should all do that. I was wondering about versioning - a pity it's not supported. A wiki list and bugzilla project should work as well. Someone just needs to write the eek-chand-to-wiki script :)
I'd love that! Chandler Hub has great standards support, so writing import/output scripts should be fairly easy.
Our community isn't limited to editors. Everyone involved in the strategic planning process, including the BS team, are community members -- presumably that's part of why they got involved with such a non-traditional effort. But if people don't see themselves as part of the community - don't communicate the way the community does with one another b/c they feel like outsiders - it's harder to collaborate.
Yup, totally agree.
That said, it takes time for folks to feel like they're part of a community and vice-versa. Let's be conscious of that time and that process, and let's find the best ways for all of us to come together.
=Eugene
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kimeekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
- Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
We'll start seeding Meta with what we know (and probably quite a bit of what we don't) today, and I'll look forward to reading other people's thoughts.
On creating a new Wiki: I hear you. I'm constantly fighting Wiki-creep with some of my other communities and clients. Creating new Wikis is often knee-jerk, and knee-jerk is usually not the best thing.
There's a tradeoff between starting with a blank slate and the need to re-establish a community and a set of norms. My gut tells me that a blank slate is better for this project, but I'm open to other feedback.
Re: creating a new wiki -- I talked to Eugene about this briefly last week and agreed at the time that a new wiki would be useful (for starting the project fresh with a blank slate) -- but the more I think about it, and reading Angela's and Mike's posts, sticking to meta for now seems like the best route. It's practical, as there is already a community of spam fighters, translators and template builders ready to go, and many of the people who will be interested in strategic planning are already there (and in many cases are already active meta editors); and it's fitting with the role of meta, which is meant to be a multi-lingual place to discuss the Foundation ... which sounds like strategic planning to me. And I suspect many of the ideas that will be brought up in the planning process will have already been discussed somewhere on meta at some point, and can be linked to and integrated in easily from there.
Anyway, an open to-do list for things that need doing -- whether it's building out meta or anything else -- would be great too, to help give guidance to people who want to help out but don't quite know what's going on.
-- Phoebe
Small wikis need a lot more administrative work per articles than larger wikis. If there isn't any clear real reason then simply don't make a new wiki.
John
phoebe ayers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kimeekim@blueoxen.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
- Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
We'll start seeding Meta with what we know (and probably quite a bit of what we don't) today, and I'll look forward to reading other people's thoughts.
On creating a new Wiki: I hear you. I'm constantly fighting Wiki-creep with some of my other communities and clients. Creating new Wikis is often knee-jerk, and knee-jerk is usually not the best thing.
There's a tradeoff between starting with a blank slate and the need to re-establish a community and a set of norms. My gut tells me that a blank slate is better for this project, but I'm open to other feedback.
Re: creating a new wiki -- I talked to Eugene about this briefly last week and agreed at the time that a new wiki would be useful (for starting the project fresh with a blank slate) -- but the more I think about it, and reading Angela's and Mike's posts, sticking to meta for now seems like the best route. It's practical, as there is already a community of spam fighters, translators and template builders ready to go, and many of the people who will be interested in strategic planning are already there (and in many cases are already active meta editors); and it's fitting with the role of meta, which is meant to be a multi-lingual place to discuss the Foundation ... which sounds like strategic planning to me. And I suspect many of the ideas that will be brought up in the planning process will have already been discussed somewhere on meta at some point, and can be linked to and integrated in easily from there.
Anyway, an open to-do list for things that need doing -- whether it's building out meta or anything else -- would be great too, to help give guidance to people who want to help out but don't quite know what's going on.
-- Phoebe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p ).
It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested!
Thanks!
=Eugene
Hello Kim,
With hope that tomorrow is the 22nd, I'll try to be around :-)
Happy to meet you.
Ant
The website link states 21st July - so I assume this evening...
Mike
On 21 Jul 2009, at 10:37, Florence Devouard wrote:
Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/ 1aCw9p ).
It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested!
Thanks!
=Eugene
Hello Kim,
With hope that tomorrow is the 22nd, I'll try to be around :-)
Happy to meet you.
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org