==Report from Frankfurt – October 2006==
<center>''Imagine a giant with a golden head, a brass chest, iron legs and feet of clay; to develop this into a sustainably developing living organization while preserving the essence of its life, such is our mission.''
(paraphrase and wink by the author of these lines are both released under GNU/FDL)
How to get all the people invited to the retreat in Frankfurt from October 20-22 2006 together, 21 wikimedians, comsisting of the full current Wikimedia Foundation board, the Foundation officers, representatives from the Chapters, plus one external invitee, how to get them to debate constructively all the major challenges currently faced by Wikimedia in the daytime, conversations which inevitably continue in the evening at and after dinner and as usual deep into the night, and yet also how to have them all awake and sharp again at 9am more or less punctually every next day – and all that for three consecutive days? It was done. It happened. And I was personally very happy with the shared enthusiasm and devotion I encountered as well as with our excellent facilitator, without whom things would have certainly run far less smoothly and efficiently as they in fact did ("we should seriously consider appointing facilitators on-wiki for fundamental debates" i thought).
well, we were supposed to do some real hard work, and we managed to do it together.
At the closing day, when it was discussed that some kind of report ("comprehensive, yet not too long") should be made to inform the community about what the ''cabal had been doing this time'', my partner elise was of course not around to prevent me from volunteering (she did of course complain just now when i started to write these lines), so it's me who happens to be the one to have written these lines ;-)
==Expectations and Vision==
On the very first day a list of expectations and desired outcomes was sketched together, which comprised:
*Build trust
*Stronger organization (giant with clay feet)
*Directions for organizations and chapters
*Practical outcomes
*Clear understanding governance as supports mission and fundraising support
*Help the group moving towards sustainability
*Role of Wikimedia Foundation, support projects
*Know each other better
*Shared understanding and agreement
*Honesty that leads to peace
*Have some fun
I daresay, all of these were effected in some way or another; if there were some difficult moments as well, we also had a lot of fun working together.
Nevertheless, even when working hard, much time was consumed by getting attuned to the topics and sometimes to each other as well, so let me here express the often heard plea for a next follow-up meeting: a next step, building on this first one. In my humble opinion a crucial next step as well, because apart from bringing more detail in a practical sense, it will also allow for much more in-depth discussions on many topics and concepts we work with, yet often seem to lack the time for real investigation together all too often.
==Strategies and Objectives==
In search of defining clearer strategies and objectives, among the important themes we immediately agreed to focus upon were:
*Sustainable organizational structure for Wikimedia, Foundation and Chapters (make a disctinction between Wikimedia as a movement and the Wikimedia Foundation)
*Leadership in spreading free culture
*Global perspective, international involvement
*New standard-setting
*Legal clarity
*Multi-projects
Other themes were decided to be discussed at a later stage, "first things first" was mandatory, we couldn't do-it-all in one weekend.. Among these topics was a "Knowledge" versus "Content" discussion, which though very important is just not as urgent as many other topics.
Pretty soon it became clear there was an essential agreement about a great many things, some of which soon led to the new wordings of our vision and mission statements, that the board is currently working out in detail.
Many organizational models were drawn and discussed, finally their number was brought back to a handful, containing all essential bodies present and desired. In all models there appeared an "advisory board" as well as at least one ''blob'' named "council", one model even had three such ''blobs'', in other words: ''to be continued''...
==Priorities==
With the help of a ''SWOT'' analysis model (analysis through assesment of Strengths versus Weaknesses, and Opportunities versus Threats, and combining the four pairs of these), strategic objectives were defined in all areas concerning "our business", we came up with 7 categories: ''organizational, operations, finances and fundraising, program development, public relations and messaging, technology, and legal''.
::::<small>Did you ever try a complex voting system with wikimedians IRL? I can tell you this is fun, not just the voting, but also, just like on-wiki, observing people voting. IRL there is more to see however, because each person bodily participates. In our case, there were the seven categories mentioned above, each with two or more topics attached below: there were 33 of such topics in total. Each person was given 3x3=9 votes to prioritize these topics as tasks-to-do, either within 3, 12 or 24 months. "Having a longer coffee-break" because you voted soon was not appreciated to be an incentive ;-)</small>
I will spare you all the details and instead give a summarized list of the urgent to-do topics agreed upon (mind you, since they imply ''action'', all these begin with a ''verb''), in alphabetical order:
*Clarify and redefine each committees' scope, role, authority and obligations
*Clarify requirements for chapters
*Clarify role and function of each of the private mailing lists
*Create events committee
*Create relationships with educational partners
*Design a road-map for Wikimedia technology
*Develop regional conferences and programs
*Expand the board
*Improve analyses of projects and users
*Lobby governmental educational groups
*Manage customer/donor communication and relations
*Start (re-)organization and where necessary staffing
*Structure and organize PR
*Update Bylaws
==Implementation==
Since the meeting clearly agreed upon the strategic objectives and their priorities, but had as such no authority to implement them officially, all of these were at the end of the meeting "given into the hands of the board", and I can tell you the people present are as anxious as you to see stuff starting to be implemented one by one.
==Conclusion==
Anxious for the further implementation of the hard work we did together, as well as for the follow-up so many hope will take place, I am confident that the first step of solidifying the "giant's feet of clay" into some more sustainable substance was in fact taken properly. Yet it is a first step and many more must follow on the same path, which will step by step involve many more people than the 21 at Frankfurt last weekend. Our main goals remain unchallenged, although the exact wording may vary slightly, so we need your help as well throughout the next stages of reorganization and expansion.
May I challenge you to envision boldly what we can accomplish together, just as we were asked to do at the offset of the retreat? Can you imagine, within 12 months: "30 Chapters founded" - "500 Servers operational" - "An office per continent" - "100,000 Articles reached in 10 European-language projects" - "Wikimedia becoming the new standard for knowledge" - etcetera etcetera etcetera... Can you imagine...[[edit]]...?
Let's make it happen.
oscar
i forgot to put the links in, but here is the article: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Report_from_Frankfurt_-_October_2006 (it has a discussion page ;-)
grtz, oscar
On 10/26/06, oscar oscar.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
==Report from Frankfurt – October 2006==
<center>''Imagine a giant with a golden head, a brass chest, iron legs and feet of clay; to develop this into a sustainably developing living organization while preserving the essence of its life, such is our mission.''
(paraphrase and wink by the author of these lines are both released under GNU/FDL)
How to get all the people invited to the retreat in Frankfurt from October 20-22 2006 together, 21 wikimedians, comsisting of the full current Wikimedia Foundation board, the Foundation officers, representatives from the Chapters, plus one external invitee, how to get them to debate constructively all the major challenges currently faced by Wikimedia in the daytime, conversations which inevitably continue in the evening at and after dinner and as usual deep into the night, and yet also how to have them all awake and sharp again at 9am more or less punctually every next day – and all that for three consecutive days? It was done. It happened. And I was personally very happy with the shared enthusiasm and devotion I encountered as well as with our excellent facilitator, without whom things would have certainly run far less smoothly and efficiently as they in fact did ("we should seriously consider appointing facilitators on-wiki for fundamental debates" i thought).
well, we were supposed to do some real hard work, and we managed to do it together.
At the closing day, when it was discussed that some kind of report ("comprehensive, yet not too long") should be made to inform the community about what the ''cabal had been doing this time'', my partner elise was of course not around to prevent me from volunteering (she did of course complain just now when i started to write these lines), so it's me who happens to be the one to have written these lines ;-)
==Expectations and Vision==
On the very first day a list of expectations and desired outcomes was sketched together, which comprised:
*Build trust
*Stronger organization (giant with clay feet)
*Directions for organizations and chapters
*Practical outcomes
*Clear understanding governance as supports mission and fundraising support
*Help the group moving towards sustainability
*Role of Wikimedia Foundation, support projects
*Know each other better
*Shared understanding and agreement
*Honesty that leads to peace
*Have some fun
I daresay, all of these were effected in some way or another; if there were some difficult moments as well, we also had a lot of fun working together.
Nevertheless, even when working hard, much time was consumed by getting attuned to the topics and sometimes to each other as well, so let me here express the often heard plea for a next follow-up meeting: a next step, building on this first one. In my humble opinion a crucial next step as well, because apart from bringing more detail in a practical sense, it will also allow for much more in-depth discussions on many topics and concepts we work with, yet often seem to lack the time for real investigation together all too often.
==Strategies and Objectives==
In search of defining clearer strategies and objectives, among the important themes we immediately agreed to focus upon were:
*Sustainable organizational structure for Wikimedia, Foundation and Chapters (make a disctinction between Wikimedia as a movement and the Wikimedia Foundation)
*Leadership in spreading free culture
*Global perspective, international involvement
*New standard-setting
*Legal clarity
*Multi-projects
Other themes were decided to be discussed at a later stage, "first things first" was mandatory, we couldn't do-it-all in one weekend.. Among these topics was a "Knowledge" versus "Content" discussion, which though very important is just not as urgent as many other topics.
Pretty soon it became clear there was an essential agreement about a great many things, some of which soon led to the new wordings of our vision and mission statements, that the board is currently working out in detail.
Many organizational models were drawn and discussed, finally their number was brought back to a handful, containing all essential bodies present and desired. In all models there appeared an "advisory board" as well as at least one ''blob'' named "council", one model even had three such ''blobs'', in other words: ''to be continued''...
==Priorities==
With the help of a ''SWOT'' analysis model (analysis through assesment of Strengths versus Weaknesses, and Opportunities versus Threats, and combining the four pairs of these), strategic objectives were defined in all areas concerning "our business", we came up with 7 categories: ''organizational, operations, finances and fundraising, program development, public relations and messaging, technology, and legal''.
::::<small>Did you ever try a complex voting system with wikimedians IRL? I can tell you this is fun, not just the voting, but also, just like on-wiki, observing people voting. IRL there is more to see however, because each person bodily participates. In our case, there were the seven categories mentioned above, each with two or more topics attached below: there were 33 of such topics in total. Each person was given 3x3=9 votes to prioritize these topics as tasks-to-do, either within 3, 12 or 24 months. "Having a longer coffee-break" because you voted soon was not appreciated to be an incentive ;-)</small>
I will spare you all the details and instead give a summarized list of the urgent to-do topics agreed upon (mind you, since they imply ''action'', all these begin with a ''verb''), in alphabetical order:
*Clarify and redefine each committees' scope, role, authority and obligations
*Clarify requirements for chapters
*Clarify role and function of each of the private mailing lists
*Create events committee
*Create relationships with educational partners
*Design a road-map for Wikimedia technology
*Develop regional conferences and programs
*Expand the board
*Improve analyses of projects and users
*Lobby governmental educational groups
*Manage customer/donor communication and relations
*Start (re-)organization and where necessary staffing
*Structure and organize PR
*Update Bylaws
==Implementation==
Since the meeting clearly agreed upon the strategic objectives and their priorities, but had as such no authority to implement them officially, all of these were at the end of the meeting "given into the hands of the board", and I can tell you the people present are as anxious as you to see stuff starting to be implemented one by one.
==Conclusion==
Anxious for the further implementation of the hard work we did together, as well as for the follow-up so many hope will take place, I am confident that the first step of solidifying the "giant's feet of clay" into some more sustainable substance was in fact taken properly. Yet it is a first step and many more must follow on the same path, which will step by step involve many more people than the 21 at Frankfurt last weekend. Our main goals remain unchallenged, although the exact wording may vary slightly, so we need your help as well throughout the next stages of reorganization and expansion.
May I challenge you to envision boldly what we can accomplish together, just as we were asked to do at the offset of the retreat? Can you imagine, within 12 months: "30 Chapters founded" - "500 Servers operational" - "An office per continent" - "100,000 Articles reached in 10 European-language projects" - "Wikimedia becoming the new standard for knowledge" - etcetera etcetera etcetera... Can you imagine...[[edit]]...?
Let's make it happen.
oscar
At 02:13 +0200 26/10/06, oscar wrote:
i forgot to put the links in, but here is the article: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Report_from_Frankfurt_-_October_2006 (it has a discussion page ;-)
grtz, oscar
A picture worth a thousand words...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fuzheado/277257859/
Gordo
On 10/26/06, oscar oscar.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
==Report from Frankfurt – October 2006==
<center>''Imagine a giant with a golden head, a brass chest, iron legs and feet of clay; to develop this into a sustainably developing living organization while preserving the essence of its life, such is our mission.''
(paraphrase and wink by the author of these lines are both released under GNU/FDL)
Careful you will have the conspiracy theorists onto you ( see [[Bohemian_Grove#Cremation_of_Care]])
("we should seriously consider appointing facilitators on-wiki for fundamental debates" i thought).
I think you may have found a job worse than arbcom member
At the closing day, when it was discussed that some kind of report ("comprehensive, yet not too long") should be made to inform the community about what the ''cabal had been doing this time'',
A good idea although less exciting than then the normal manner.
==Strategies and Objectives==
In search of defining clearer strategies and objectives, among the important themes we immediately agreed to focus upon were:
*Sustainable organizational structure for Wikimedia, Foundation and Chapters (make a disctinction between Wikimedia as a movement and the Wikimedia Foundation)
I find the idea of Wikimedia as a movement to be deeply disturbing. As a facilitator of for various movements yes. As a movement in of itself ah I normally see that kind of thinking being promoted by pyramid sceams
May I challenge you to envision boldly what we can accomplish together, just as we were asked to do at the offset of the retreat? Can you imagine, within 12 months: "30 Chapters founded" - "500 Servers operational" -
Yes.
"An office per continent"
No (a. antartica and b sounds a like a particlarly gastly form of outsourceing).
- "100,000 Articles reached in 10 European-language projects"
Swedish, English, German, Polish, French, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Italian, spanish, russian.
So yes
<snip>
- "100,000 Articles reached in 10 European-language projects"
Swedish, English, German, Polish, French, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Italian, spanish, russian.
So yes
</snip>
wow, twice Italian. You're not Italian, right? ;-)
oscar wrote:
I will spare you all the details and instead give a summarized list
of the
urgent to-do topics agreed upon (mind you, since they imply
''action'', all
these begin with a ''verb''), in alphabetical order:
But the problem is that indeed these details are the things which you seem to really discussed. For example if there was a discussion about organizational structure of the Foundation, what kind a structure do you recommend? If you were discussing about expanding the Board, what was your recommendation about it?
Did you ever try a complex voting system with wikimedians IRL? I can tell you this is fun, not just the voting, but also, just like
on-wiki... {etc.)
If you were voting on something what was the results of these votings? What do you exactly voted?
Anxious for the further implementation of the hard work we did together, as well as for the follow-up so many hope will take place, I am confident that the first step of solidifying the "giant's feet of clay" into some more sustainable substance was in fact taken properly. Yet it is a first step and many more must follow on the same path, which will step by step involve many more people than the 21 at Frankfurt last weekend. Our main goals remain unchallenged, although the exact wording may vary slightly, so we need your help as well throughout the next stages of reorganization and expansion.
Well.. good to hear you still need other people help, but how we can help if we don't know what have you exactly decided during this meeting...
...all of these were at the end of the meeting "given into the hands
of >the board",
Does it mean you have produced some sort of document with your recommendations to the Board? If yes, I think, this document, even if very long, would be much more interesting to read, than all the above general, abstract statements wich in fact says nothing...
Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
Does it mean you have produced some sort of document with your recommendations to the Board? If yes, I think, this document, even if very long, would be much more interesting to read, than all the above general, abstract statements wich in fact says nothing...
Oscar thank you for what you did, but in my view you did not earn your right to complain yet. I also would have expected a more in depth coverage of such a crucial meeting. To name one thing specifically: what was the outcome of the SWOT analysis? I'm sure you all did not do that hard work without taking notes? You might include the SWOT outcome unedited, that saves time.
I will spare you all the details
Who are you sparing here? Might that not be yourself in the first place ;) I'm sure many readers of this list would not mind an extra page or two. If you can't spare the time maybe split up the work after all. It is not our fault that the organiser of this event forgot to rent the Big Brother house for 3*24 hrs multichannel coverage ;)
Also I find it rather odd to present a list of priorities, where again as you say you all put so much effort in, in alphabetical order. It does not help to give us a sense of what was going on.
In August the board decided they needed a retreat among other things to build better relations. Expensive but hey we need a board to be on good terms which each other. Now this retreat grew into Wikimania 2006 part II, it seems.
so let me here express the often heard plea for a next follow-up meeting:
a next step, building on this first one.
Several times in past years the topic of a wikicouncil was raised (originally by Jimbo). Ironically it seems to me that we now almost got an impromptu wikicouncil, without difficult discussions about size, roles and representativity. Like with the board itself I fear this 'retreat' might transform into something noone had foretold. Of course wikis are all about being bold, yet I learned how this principle can backfire and I reserve the right to express my doubts.
Erik Zachte
you may not be aware of this, but my report is designed to be the first in a series of updates, designed for quick delivery and some comprehensive information about the retreat, details will of course follow, but not just by me. this takes time, people!!
whatever may have happened to the "assume good faith": a critical look is always appreciated, but i feel like maybe next time i shouldn't sacrifice yet another night's sleep again, there seem to be implicit expectations in view of the reactions? there are however no solutions "out of a box"; it is a step by step process, please bear with it.
best, oscar
On 10/26/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
Does it mean you have produced some sort of document with your recommendations to the Board? If yes, I think, this document, even if very long, would be much more interesting to read, than all the above general, abstract statements wich in fact says nothing...
Oscar thank you for what you did, but in my view you did not earn your right to complain yet. I also would have expected a more in depth coverage of such a crucial meeting. To name one thing specifically: what was the outcome of the SWOT analysis? I'm sure you all did not do that hard work without taking notes? You might include the SWOT outcome unedited, that saves time.
I will spare you all the details
Who are you sparing here? Might that not be yourself in the first place ;) I'm sure many readers of this list would not mind an extra page or two. If you can't spare the time maybe split up the work after all. It is not our fault that the organiser of this event forgot to rent the Big Brother house for 3*24 hrs multichannel coverage ;)
Also I find it rather odd to present a list of priorities, where again as you say you all put so much effort in, in alphabetical order. It does not help to give us a sense of what was going on.
In August the board decided they needed a retreat among other things to build better relations. Expensive but hey we need a board to be on good terms which each other. Now this retreat grew into Wikimania 2006 part II,
it seems.
so let me here express the often heard plea for a next follow-up
meeting: a next step, building on this first one.
Several times in past years the topic of a wikicouncil was raised (originally by Jimbo). Ironically it seems to me that we now almost got an impromptu wikicouncil, without difficult discussions about size, roles and representativity. Like with the board itself I fear this 'retreat' might transform into something noone had foretold. Of course wikis are all about being bold, yet I learned how this principle can backfire and I reserve the right to express my doubts.
Erik Zachte
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yeah. I second oscar words. Next time, take the time to sleep more Oscar.
As for me, I was till yesterday evening out of my home. 8 days away. No internet access but some "spots" in hotels. My return means saying hi to family, cleaning up home, filling up fridge and other delicacies of the sort :-)
There is something else Oscar does not mention. Yes, we could have provided you with the SWOT outcome (it will be done), as well as with the brainstorming results of the actions outlined (it will be done as well, but for some confidential considerations).
However, several of these actions proposed during the retreat should actually be approved by the board. Most of them are pretty clearly agreed upon by all board members. But for some propositions, questions were raised, not so much for the action itself, but rather on who is the lead of it, or what the timeline proposed is. The final decision on what the board should do is not under the authority of the participants, it is under the authority of the board itself. It would make no sense to announce you an action the board will take care of, if the board actually does not agree in doing it.
Right ?
So, we are listing (we is brad and I) the various actions points proposed, according to categories, and I will ask the board to clarify if it is a "yup" or a "nope". Except for confidential issues (in particular legal considerations), I think most will be transparent.
It would be cool to be given a little bit of trust and time. Please.
Ant
oscar wrote:
you may not be aware of this, but my report is designed to be the first in a series of updates, designed for quick delivery and some comprehensive information about the retreat, details will of course follow, but not just by me. this takes time, people!!
whatever may have happened to the "assume good faith": a critical look is always appreciated, but i feel like maybe next time i shouldn't sacrifice yet another night's sleep again, there seem to be implicit expectations in view of the reactions? there are however no solutions "out of a box"; it is a step by step process, please bear with it.
best, oscar
On 10/26/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
Does it mean you have produced some sort of document with your recommendations to the Board? If yes, I think, this document, even if very long, would be much more interesting to read, than all the above general, abstract statements wich in fact says nothing...
Oscar thank you for what you did, but in my view you did not earn your right to complain yet. I also would have expected a more in depth coverage of such a crucial meeting. To name one thing specifically: what was the outcome of the SWOT analysis? I'm sure you all did not do that hard work without taking notes? You might include the SWOT outcome unedited, that saves time.
I will spare you all the details
Who are you sparing here? Might that not be yourself in the first place ;) I'm sure many readers of this list would not mind an extra page or two. If you can't spare the time maybe split up the work after all. It is not our fault that the organiser of this event forgot to rent the Big Brother house for 3*24 hrs multichannel coverage ;)
Also I find it rather odd to present a list of priorities, where again as you say you all put so much effort in, in alphabetical order. It does not help to give us a sense of what was going on.
In August the board decided they needed a retreat among other things to build better relations. Expensive but hey we need a board to be on good terms which each other. Now this retreat grew into Wikimania 2006 part II,
it seems.
so let me here express the often heard plea for a next follow-up
meeting: a next step, building on this first one.
Several times in past years the topic of a wikicouncil was raised (originally by Jimbo). Ironically it seems to me that we now almost got an impromptu wikicouncil, without difficult discussions about size, roles and representativity. Like with the board itself I fear this 'retreat' might transform into something noone had foretold. Of course wikis are all about being bold, yet I learned how this principle can backfire and I reserve the right to express my doubts.
Erik Zachte
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Oscar:
you may not be aware of this, but my report is designed to be the first in a series of updates, designed for quick delivery and some comprehensive information about the retreat, details will of course follow, but not just by me. this takes time, people!!
Oscar, I can understand you feel offended. Yet I hope you understand that I can't sense the above without you giving any hint in your original post that this was an initial and incomplete report only.
You were asked to act as official messenger. You delivered the message, or so it seemed. I asked for more. Would you have added something like 'More to come..' I would have reacted differently or quite possibly not at all yet.
Cheers, Erik Zachte
On 10/28/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
You were asked to act as official messenger. You delivered the message, or so it seemed. I asked for more. Would you have added something like 'More to come..' I would have reacted differently or quite possibly not at all yet.
Oscar is not to blame. We (Board) should have responded earlier to clarify this. My personal apologies as Board member for not doing so. At least one follow-up report will indeed come, clarifying the specific work that is to be done (what, by whom, by what date).
I've already assured -> I've already been assured
Erik Zachte
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org