Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much time being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting them than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we would like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to go to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from the Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa. This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working Group dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities, groups, collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best representatives of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups, the coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their contributions.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity around the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in the Working Groups.
Have a great continuation to the week! Kaarel
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org Date: 2018-06-13 14:57 GMT-07:00 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The number of hours (a minimum of 5 hours, each week) is indeed very significant - especially as a minimum per week (which means that the average will more likely end up around 8-12 hours?). I understand that a significant commitment is necessary (an average of 1 as suggested by Pine will unlikely produce anything more than a few mailing list discussions, I'm afraid).
Just to set expectations clearly: I read that the grants department is scaling back their community facing activities (and I guess also other activities) to free up time to work on the strategy. I read that the FDC is 'skipping' a round to do the same. Is this the general expectation for other volunteers as well?
This is probably all a conscious choice - but I'm afraid it will self-select for a certain type of participants that can make a 9 month commitment for such a time investment. I'm guessing you already considered having working groups with tiers - where you have some people with a large time commitment, and some people with a more reasonable commitment? That may have helped in diversification.
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nicole,
Generally I like how the groups are organized. I have a few questions and comments.
- The Product & Technology working group seems like it has a large scope
for a single group. Also, the people who are in that working group will probably want to sync with TechCom and with the "Platform Evolution" initiative. Have you considered dividing this group's responsibilities
into
two (or more) groups, and how to synchronize this group's work with
TechCom
and the Platform Evolution initiative?
- It appears that Working Groups page asks for members of the groups to
commit to a minimum of five hours per week for nine months. That seems to be a very high commitment to ask from volunteers, especially when people would be adding their WG activities on top of their existing responsibilities and/or de-prioritize other valuable Wikimedia activities in favor of WG activity. Also, if I estimate 10 members per group times 9 groups times 5 hours per week times 39 weeks, then that means that the WG activities would consume 17,550 volunteer hours, which seems excessive. I suggest that you reduce the commitment that you request to an average of one hour per week per person, which would likely result in more people being willing to volunteer and reduce the diversion of people's time from other valuable activities, and that you accordingly make any necessary adjustments to plans for paid staff to support the WGs.
- Has the budget for the 2nd phase of the strategy process been
published?
I am not asking for a promise that the process will cost a fixed amount, but I would hope to see detailed cost estimates and explanations of how estimates were made.
Thanks!
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Following up on Katherine’s email from last week[1], we are today opening the call for Working Group members for 9 Thematic Areas (yes, we added one more!).
== Working Group members == The Working Groups will map the present situation of their Thematic Area, the obstacles and opportunities, as well as needed changes to advance our movement in our strategic direction. They will identify possible strategies for making these changes and develop concrete recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement them.[2]
Working Group members will need to be able to invest a minimum of 5 hours per week, but that time might vary depending on the workflow that each group agrees upon. Members of the Working Groups are expected to act in the interest of the movement, not in the interest of their own organization or community.
== Selection of members == We are looking for a maximum of 15 members for each of the 9 groups. For best results we will need a diverse set of members from across the movement. We have developed a set of criteria, to ensure the necessary expertise, diversity, and representation.[3] We will assemble a Steering Committee to decide upon membership of the Working Groups in close coordination with the Core Strategy Team.[4]
== Apply to become a working group member == We encourage everyone with an interest in the strategic conversations to apply for becoming a Working Group member in their topic of expertise. We recommend that movement organizations and groups create internal processes for the selection of their candidates to avoid multiple, competing applications.
The call will be open until June 25, 2018. ***Please apply via this application form.[5]*** To prepare your application, you can consult the overview of the questions asked in the form on Meta.[6]
== Next steps == We expect to be able to announce the Working Group members in the second week of July, so that the working groups can be assembled, onboarded and ready to start working before Wikimania. The first step for the groups will be to agree upon their set-up and scope of work. At Wikimania, we plan to convene the attending Working Group members in the Strategy Space to discuss and refine their road to the recommendations and ensure exchange between the groups.[7]
We invite you all to familiarize yourselves with the existing documentation of the Working Group(s) of your interest,[8] add comments, additional input or share your concerns via talk pages Your comments will be then be taken into consideration by the respective Working Groups.
We are looking forward to working and having these long-awaited conversations with many of you!
In the name of the Strategy Core Team, Nicole
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018- June/090417.html [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2018-20/Working_Groups [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Who_should_join_the_Working_Groups? [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Steering_Committee [5] https://goo.gl/forms/zVElm0hLT9eZvqwF3 [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply/Form [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_is_the_timeline_for_Working_Groups?
[8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_are_the_key_thematic_areas?
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Wikimedia Movement Strategy Process Lead Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much time being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting them than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share, here or on the talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology, your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we would like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to go to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from the Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa. This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working Group dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities, groups, collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best representatives of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups, the coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity around the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in the Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
I don't like to steal Kaarel's thunder here, but he actually changed the number of hours from minimum 5 per week to average 5 per week (which is a significant improvement): https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/201...
Probably good to know. Thanks Kaarel & Nicole.
Best, Lodewijk
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share, here or on the talk page < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa. This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
While that's a good step to see, I think that an average of five hours per week for nine months is still a lot to ask, and is not something that I'm likely to recommend to most people.
However, I have the impression that WMF is trying to involve the community in this in a significant way, and I appreciate the good intentions.
In this case, the good intentions and the practical realities are difficult to reconcile. I doubt that there is a perfect solution. If I was in WMF's position I would be thinking carefully about what mix of staff time and volunteer time would be best.
If WMF was asking people to volunteer for an average of five hours per week for one month, I would view that differently than asking people for an average of five hours per week for nine months. For the latter, I doubt that there will be many volunteers, and I think that attrition would be a significant concern.
There aren't a lot of great options here, unfortunately. If requesting an average of five hours per week for nine months is necessary, then I think that compensating the participants for their time should be considered. I wouldn't apply myself, but I think that it's unreasonable to ask people to do so much work for free. I realize that a few selfless people on the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, Wikimania volunteers, and others put in this kind of commitment and are not paid, but I think that such a high level of sacrifice is unrealistic to ask of most people.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't like to steal Kaarel's thunder here, but he actually changed the number of hours from minimum 5 per week to average 5 per week (which is a significant improvement): https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/ Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups&curid=10598095& diff=18129628&oldid=18125168
Probably good to know. Thanks Kaarel & Nicole.
Best, Lodewijk
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
comment
on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly
to
keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
Product
group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both
areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
engineers
who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
and
could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share,
here
or on the talk page < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain
how
you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication
of
effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
talk
page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
good
to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research
and
preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
versa.
This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
that
they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
they
will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That
is
the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
strategic
planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
organization
or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
people
participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
good
intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
the
strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear Pine,
Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a product without technology and technology is developed according to our product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group conversations.
The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5 hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been forwarded to the relevant people.
Have a good continuation to your week! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share, here or on the talk page < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa. This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Kaarel, Thank you for following up. Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps on the talk page of the WG. I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts meeting next week. Thank you for your responsiveness to input. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org Date: 6/18/18 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00) To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members Dear Pine,
Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a product without technology and technology is developed according to our product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group conversations.
The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5 hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been forwarded to the relevant people.
Have a good continuation to your week! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share, here or on the talk page < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa. This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
*Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply[2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n*
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel, Thank you for following up. Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps on the talk page of the WG. I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts meeting next week. Thank you for your responsiveness to input. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla < kvaidla@wikimedia.org> Date: 6/18/18 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00) To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members Dear Pine,
Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a product without technology and technology is developed according to our product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group conversations.
The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5 hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been forwarded to the relevant people.
Have a good continuation to your week! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
comment
on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly
to
keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
Product
group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both
areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
engineers
who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
and
could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share,
here
or on the talk page <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain
how
you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication
of
effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
talk
page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
good
to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research
and
preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
versa.
This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
that
they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
they
will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That
is
the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
strategic
planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
organization
or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
people
participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
good
intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
the
strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
(reposting update for readability, as something went wrong with formatting last time)
Dear Wikimedians,
As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.
I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.
Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend! Kaarel
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... [2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply[2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n*
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel, Thank you for following up. Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps on the talk page of the WG. I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts meeting next week. Thank you for your responsiveness to input. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla < kvaidla@wikimedia.org> Date: 6/18/18 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00) To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members Dear Pine,
Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a product without technology and technology is developed according to our product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group conversations.
The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5 hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been forwarded to the relevant people.
Have a good continuation to your week! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
comment
on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way,
mainly to
keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
Product
group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both
areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
engineers
who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
and
could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share,
here
or on the talk page <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is
the
best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain
how
you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication
of
effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
talk
page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
good
to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research
and
preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time
to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
versa.
This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
that
they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
they
will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That
is
the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
strategic
planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
organization
or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide
what
they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
people
participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that
you
are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make
their
own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I
am
likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
good
intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that
you
would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
the
strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that WMF made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with other strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
Dear all,
Here is the link to the conference call for the Movement Strategy Process Q&A [1] starting in 2 hours. [1] https://meet.google.com/oig-trht-hnd
Looking forward to an interesting discussion and feedback! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
(reposting update for readability, as something went wrong with formatting last time)
Dear Wikimedians,
As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.
I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.
Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend! Kaarel
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... [2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply[2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n*
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel, Thank you for following up. Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps on the talk page of the WG. I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts meeting next week. Thank you for your responsiveness to input. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla < kvaidla@wikimedia.org> Date: 6/18/18 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00) To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members Dear Pine,
Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a product without technology and technology is developed according to our product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group conversations.
The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5 hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been forwarded to the relevant people.
Have a good continuation to your week! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
comment
on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way,
mainly to
keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too
much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
Product
group for example, we think that there are more benefits in
connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both
areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
engineers
who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say
that
the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
and
could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share,
here
or on the talk page <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is
the
best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please
explain how
you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and
the
Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and
duplication of
effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
talk
page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
good
to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating
in
discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials,
research and
preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time
to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations
from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
versa.
This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
that
they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
they
will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing.
That is
the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and
groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
strategic
planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
organization
or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide
what
they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
people
participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that
you
are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make
their
own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I
am
likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
good
intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that
you
would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation
in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of
the
strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that
WMF
made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with
other
strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
And a small clarification - Doodle was just used to map suitable times. Everyone can participate in the scheduled call, even if they didn't participate in Doodle poll.
Thank you for your kind attention!
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:00 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
Here is the link to the conference call for the Movement Strategy Process Q&A [1] starting in 2 hours. [1] https://meet.google.com/oig-trht-hnd
Looking forward to an interesting discussion and feedback! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
(reposting update for readability, as something went wrong with formatting last time)
Dear Wikimedians,
As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.
I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.
Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend! Kaarel
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... [2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply[2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n*
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel, Thank you for following up. Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps on the talk page of the WG. I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts meeting next week. Thank you for your responsiveness to input. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla < kvaidla@wikimedia.org> Date: 6/18/18 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00) To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members Dear Pine,
Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a product without technology and technology is developed according to our product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group conversations.
The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5 hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been forwarded to the relevant people.
Have a good continuation to your week! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <kvaidla@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
comment
on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way,
mainly to
keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too
much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
Product
group for example, we think that there are more benefits in
connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both
areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
engineers
who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say
that
the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks
ambitious and
could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share,
here
or on the talk page <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is
the
best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please
explain how
you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and
the
Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and
duplication of
effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
talk
page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
good
to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as
we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating
in
discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials,
research and
preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some
time to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations
from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
versa.
This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid
Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
that
they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think
that they
will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing.
That is
the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and
groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
strategic
planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
organization
or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide
what
they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
people
participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that
you
are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make
their
own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that
I am
likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
good
intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that
you
would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation
in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I
would
encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase
of the
strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that
WMF
made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with
other
strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
Dear all,
Here is the link to another (and this time the last) conference call for the Movement Strategy Process Q&A [1] starting in *1.5 hours*. We will discuss the call for applications [2] and the Working Group model in general. [1] https://meet.google.com/xac-ecsx-cuv [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I am really thankful for all the feedback I have already received and am happy to answer your further questions. Looking forward to seeing and discussing strategy with some of you soon!
Best regards,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:00 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
Here is the link to the conference call for the Movement Strategy Process Q&A [1] starting in 2 hours. [1] https://meet.google.com/oig-trht-hnd
Looking forward to an interesting discussion and feedback! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
(reposting update for readability, as something went wrong with formatting last time)
Dear Wikimedians,
As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.
I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.
Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend! Kaarel
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... [2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Dear Wikimedians,As I have learned that in some groups and communities there are ongoing discussions regarding participation in the Working Groups and we also need to make further efforts to ensure a more diverse pool of applicants, we are extending the call for Working Groups [1] by one week, new deadline being *July 2, 2018*.I am also taking the time to organize Q&A sessions about the Movement Strategy Process and the Working Group model. I am sharing a Doodle link with you, where you can sign up for any of the offered sessions next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [2}.Thanks to those of you who have already applied!Have a great weekend!Kaarel[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Apply[2] https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n https://doodle.com/poll/8fr7a7giw9n4cg5n*
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:22 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel, Thank you for following up. Regarding product and technology, I agree that they are closely interrelated, but I remain concerned about assigning such a broad scope of responsibilities to a single WG, and about the potential overlap of the WG with the existing TechCom and the Platform Evaluation Initiative. I would like to hear thoughts from Toby and/or Victoria about these issues, perhaps on the talk page of the WG. I am glad that further thought is being given to the time commitment to the WGs. I hope to discuss this further with you, perhaps in a Hangouts meeting next week. Thank you for your responsiveness to input. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: Kaarel Vaidla < kvaidla@wikimedia.org> Date: 6/18/18 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00) To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members Dear Pine,
Product & Technology are closely interrelated themes. We do not have a product without technology and technology is developed according to our product vision & design. The Working Group will not duplicate the discussions, but ensure that different existing processes feed into each other. In addition to that, we will work closely with Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology departments to ensure the value of Working Group conversations.
The question regarding time commitment is valid and we are happy to discuss it with people interested in participating in the Working Groups. We want everyone to be realistic about the extent of work ahead of us, but also need diversity of perspectives in the Working Groups to have meaningful conversations and a successful process. We have now specified the language to expectation of “*an average* of 5 hours per week” (as Lodewijk has already noted), which is more in line with what we have in mind.
It is also possible to state in the application form what is the working time that one can commit to the working groups and it can be less than 5 hours. We can then note the interest as well as background and decide with the Steering Committee about the options of including these people in the workstreams. Also Working Groups will be working in the open and there will be feedback cycles for including voices from the wider movement and perspectives that are not represented in the Working Groups.
Process budget is out of my scope of work, but your question has been forwarded to the relevant people.
Have a good continuation to your week! Kaarel
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kaarel,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <kvaidla@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
comment
on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way,
mainly to
keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too
much
time
being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
Product
group for example, we think that there are more benefits in
connecting
them
than separating people with expertise and connections within both
areas.
I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
engineers
who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say
that
the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks
ambitious and
could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that could coordinate their work when necessary. Perhaps you could share,
here
or on the talk page <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Wor...
,
your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is
the
best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please
explain how
you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and
the
Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and
duplication of
effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
talk
page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
good
to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as
we
would
like the participants to be well informed and effective in the conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating
in
discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials,
research and
preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some
time to
go
to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations
from
the
Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
versa.
This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid
Working
Group
dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.
I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
that
they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think
that they
will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing.
That is
the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
groups,
collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
representatives
of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and
groups,
the
coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for
strategic
planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the
organization
or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide
what
they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
contributions.
Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most
people
participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that
you
are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make
their
own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that
I am
likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your
good
intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that
you
would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
around
the process and some of the specific points regarding participation
in
the
Working Groups.
Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I
would
encourage you to revise them.
Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase
of the
strategy process that I made in my previous email. I would hope that
WMF
made a detailed budget for this phase of the strategy, and as with
other
strategy documents I would hope that it would be published.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org