Regarding https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-01-31#Strategy_discussion
"The Board discussed how they will develop the process for the next strategic plan. The Board would like the strategic planning process to involve input from the community, but the exact process should be flexible. Sue advised that the Board should design the process with the next Executive Director. The Board reflected on the process for designing the previous strategic plan, and questions, such as movement roles, which should be addressed in the next plan. The Board agreed that the next strategic plan need not be a five-year plan in the model of the previous strategic plan, but agreed to settle on the plan's form with the next Executive Director."
1. Does anyone contend that the general strategic goals created when the volunteer corps was apparently growing exponentially are no longer appropriate?
2. Is it appropriate to augment current strategic goals which would allow including more content with goals designed to result in more volunteer time for existing and potential volunteers?
3. Do the proposed policy additions listed at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000395.... cover a sufficient extent of such potential goals for additional volunteer time?
4. Is the fact that I proposed such a list the reason that I am now unable to post to the advocacy_advisors list? If not, what is that reason?
5. Is there a more appropriate way to involve the community in making decisions about the Foundation's general strategic goals than offering pairwise comparisons between random selections from a combined list to active community members to produce a ranking for the ED and Board to work from?
6. When creating such a ranking, should the preferences of volunteers with many contributions be weighted more than those with fewer contributions? Can this question be resolved by producing both unweighted and weighted rankings for the ED and Board to discuss?
Sincerely, James Salsman
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-01-31#Strategy_discussion
"The Board discussed how they will develop the process for the next strategic plan. The Board would like the strategic planning process to involve input from the community, but the exact process should be flexible. Sue advised that the Board should design the process with the next Executive Director. The Board reflected on the process for designing the previous strategic plan, and questions, such as movement roles, which should be addressed in the next plan. The Board agreed that the next strategic plan need not be a five-year plan in the model of the previous strategic plan, but agreed to settle on the plan's form with the next Executive Director."
- Does anyone contend that the general strategic goals created when
the volunteer corps was apparently growing exponentially are no longer appropriate?
- Is it appropriate to augment current strategic goals which would
allow including more content with goals designed to result in more volunteer time for existing and potential volunteers?
- Do the proposed policy additions listed at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000395.... cover a sufficient extent of such potential goals for additional volunteer time?
- Is the fact that I proposed such a list the reason that I am now
unable to post to the advocacy_advisors list? If not, what is that reason?
- Is there a more appropriate way to involve the community in making
decisions about the Foundation's general strategic goals than offering pairwise comparisons between random selections from a combined list to active community members to produce a ranking for the ED and Board to work from?
- When creating such a ranking, should the preferences of volunteers
with many contributions be weighted more than those with fewer contributions? Can this question be resolved by producing both unweighted and weighted rankings for the ED and Board to discuss?
Sincerely, James Salsman
Not being the moderator I can't know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say the reason you are moderated on the advocacy list is because you repeatedly (and I mean *repeatedly*) suggest the same actions on multiple lists. There is only so long people will tolerate you grinding the same ax before switching you off, and judging by the replies (and lack thereof) to your posts... there is very little, if any, support for most of your demands.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org