I commend Abbas for the impressive results albeit form a 'minority' (theres need to know what percentage of membership participated? Should we assume that the 'majority' who dint participate was due to a dissenting opinion?). All in all, this was actually needed for the improvement of the chapter and am sure those who refrained will see no reason to do so in future.
- new membership - expectations and need for some orientation which needs to be emphasized as the group grows. I would particularly take note of the response on question 1- (1 respondent said that the experience was "exciting yet inexperienced"). I wish that could be expounded further...
"exciting yet inexperienced" were the exact words of one of the respondents. I don't want to put words into this respondent's mouth, but I think it's self-explanatory -- my understanding of that statement is that WMKE is a worthwhile endeavor, yet it is still immature, and therefore there is still a lot of room for growth.
- general administration - majorities feeling theres a 'down- top' approach to issues and 'not a one-mans show' is a good sign though a significant group were of a contrary opinion. This need to be discussed further to enable the group to reduce the voices even further. Its the only way to run a group of this nature.
Actually, in my understanding, the respondents did not state that it was a "down-top" group. Rather, majority said that people can contribute from grass-root level and there is a lot of room for individual initiative. But yes, we should explore other means of voicing the shy members.
- WKE projects - There appears to be show of success and this should be maintained. There appears to be a general satisfaction with the facilitation of the participating members i.e. financial wise. (Maybe there should have been a question whether the budget was too much as well!!!). I believe there are other things that the group dint have direct control of e.g. accommodation, meals etc but the members seem to have exercised their discretion on that guided by their budgets and theres no much complaint. There a general willingness to connect further to the WIKIMEDIA family by the indication of future invitations to the international community.
This was an explanatory question, and I therefore expected respondents to give some exlpanation (if there were of a differing opinion). I disagree with the fact that the group "didn't have direct control". FYI -- The budgeting of both the Anniversary & the Pilot was open and collaborative. It was shared the link on the mailing list so that every member could contribute in the budgeting process.
- Improvements - To me this is the most important part since it gives us a chance to be better. Each of the participants had a reason as to why they submitted their responses.
This is why the survey was launched in the first place :)
Conclusion:
A face-face meeting should be set to discuss the findings of the survey and make concrete resolutions on leadership and administration structures among other key issues raised (the structures may not be so elaborate for now, but theres need to define who does what, makes decisions on behalf of the family). Control of communications need to be discussed as well e.g. who makes an official WMKE position in case of anything? Who is the face of WMKE?