keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much

group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting

,

We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we

to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from

This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working

dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives throughout the process.

the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,

collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best

of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,

they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their

Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity

the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in

Working Groups.

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(a)wikimedia.org&gt; Date: 6/18/18 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00) To: wikimedia-l(a)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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi Kaarel, > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla &lt;kvaidla(a)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/Wo… > >, > 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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>