I appreciate that recent events have overtaken things to an extent but I wondered what the status is with http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Five_Year_Plan? On the page ist says "This version will be discussed at a special board meeting to be held during Wikimania in Washington" - did that happen?
It seems in fairly good shape, although it could do with a section saying how progress towards achieving the plan will be reviewed. The best thing may be to adopt it as is until the next review.
We do five year plans at our work and they work in a rolling format - i.e. each year you do another five year plan based on the last and extending out another year. This works fairly well and I'd recommend it as an approach.
I disagree that it is in fairly good shape and would welcome an opportunity for further discussion. A bad long-term plan can be worse than no plan. On Sep 28, 2012 11:01 PM, "Andrew Turvey" andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
I appreciate that recent events have overtaken things to an extent but I wondered what the status is with http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Five_Year_Plan? On the page ist says "This version will be discussed at a special board meeting to be held during Wikimania in Washington" - did that happen?
It seems in fairly good shape, although it could do with a section saying how progress towards achieving the plan will be reviewed. The best thing may be to adopt it as is until the next review.
We do five year plans at our work and they work in a rolling format - i.e. each year you do another five year plan based on the last and extending out another year. This works fairly well and I'd recommend it as an approach.
-- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewTurvey http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
We did discuss it in Wahsington and decided to leave it aside while we worked on the plan for 2013.
I am going to speak honestly here. I wondered if we would ever get a plan, given how many different ideas and views there were about what should be in it, and what structure it should take.
My strategy given the delays was just to get on with delivering the 2012 plan to the best of our ability.
However in creating the bid to the FDC for 2013 I realised we really did need to show planning ahead and I revisited the three and five year plan. The application form asks us to look to the future and this is sensible.
I think the current three and five year plan is good enough to work from, whilst keeping it under review, and our FDC bid has been largely informed by it by necessity.
There is a terrible tendency in planning to 'never quite get there' , waiting for perfection. We have been a bit prone to that. This plan went through four re-writes over about the same number of months. It is common sense and achievable in my view.
Jon Davies.
On 28 September 2012 23:00, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
I appreciate that recent events have overtaken things to an extent but I wondered what the status is with http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Five_Year_Plan? On the page ist says "This version will be discussed at a special board meeting to be held during Wikimania in Washington" - did that happen?
It seems in fairly good shape, although it could do with a section saying how progress towards achieving the plan will be reviewed. The best thing may be to adopt it as is until the next review.
We do five year plans at our work and they work in a rolling format - i.e. each year you do another five year plan based on the last and extending out another year. This works fairly well and I'd recommend it as an approach.
-- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewTurvey http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Sep 30, 2012 11:25 AM, "Jon Davies" jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There is a terrible tendency in planning to 'never quite get there' ,
waiting for perfection. We have been a bit prone to that. This plan went through four re-writes over about the same number of months. It is common sense and achievable in my view.
It didn't go through any rewrites. You just made a few tweaks around the edges between your drafts. You didn't address any of the fundamental problems. Dismissing those problems as being attempts for "perfection" confirms what I suspected at the time - you just weren't listening.
I think that would depend on how you define re-writes Tom. They felt like re-writes and stuff changed. I Incorporated a lot of people's suggestions and tried to find consensus. I listened a lot and acted. You are being unfair. Jon
On 30 September 2012 12:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 30, 2012 11:25 AM, "Jon Davies" jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There is a terrible tendency in planning to 'never quite get there' ,
waiting for perfection. We have been a bit prone to that. This plan went through four re-writes over about the same number of months. It is common sense and achievable in my view.
It didn't go through any rewrites. You just made a few tweaks around the edges between your drafts. You didn't address any of the fundamental problems. Dismissing those problems as being attempts for "perfection" confirms what I suspected at the time - you just weren't listening.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail, which is all you made. On Sep 30, 2012 1:07 PM, "Jon Davies" jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I think that would depend on how you define re-writes Tom. They felt like re-writes and stuff changed. I Incorporated a lot of people's suggestions and tried to find consensus. I listened a lot and acted. You are being unfair. Jon
On 30 September 2012 12:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 30, 2012 11:25 AM, "Jon Davies" jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There is a terrible tendency in planning to 'never quite get there' ,
waiting for perfection. We have been a bit prone to that. This plan went through four re-writes over about the same number of months. It is common sense and achievable in my view.
It didn't go through any rewrites. You just made a few tweaks around the edges between your drafts. You didn't address any of the fundamental problems. Dismissing those problems as being attempts for "perfection" confirms what I suspected at the time - you just weren't listening.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail, which is all you made.
You're claiming to measure thought by text diffs. This has a certain surface plausibility, but insisting on it when you've been told "no, that's not a strong measure" suggests you need to back it up as a measure in general.
- d.
On Sep 30, 2012 3:26 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail,
which is
all you made.
You're claiming to measure thought by text diffs.
Please respond to what I say, not some random straw man.
On 30 September 2012 15:55, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 30, 2012 3:26 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail, which is all you made.
You're claiming to measure thought by text diffs.
Please respond to what I say, not some random straw man.
I am. You said "you didn't change much", Jon says "we actually put a hell of a lot of thought into it", you answer "no you didn't, 'cos you didn't change much".
- d.
Where did I mention thought? I neither know nor care how much Jon thought about it. He didn't fix the fundamental problems and just fiddled with the details. That is not a rewrite. On Sep 30, 2012 3:56 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2012 15:55, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 30, 2012 3:26 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail, which is all you made.
You're claiming to measure thought by text diffs.
Please respond to what I say, not some random straw man.
I am. You said "you didn't change much", Jon says "we actually put a hell of a lot of thought into it", you answer "no you didn't, 'cos you didn't change much".
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Oh FFS. Can everyone please talk about the issues, in this case the plan itself, rather than people? If you (still) have problems with the content of the plan, then list those issues and discuss it. We don't need a dozen emails back and forth arguing whether the existing changes constitute a "rewrite".
KTC
Katie's right. I really have no idea what the main issues are here about the plan. Doug
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Oh FFS. Can everyone please talk about the issues, in this case the plan itself, rather than people? If you (still) have problems with the content of the plan, then list those issues and discuss it. We don't need a dozen emails back and forth arguing whether the existing changes constitute a "rewrite".
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I have explained my views on the plan at length on this mailing list and the wiki. I have no intention of repeating myself now. On Sep 30, 2012 4:16 PM, "Doug Weller" dougweller@gmail.com wrote:
Katie's right. I really have no idea what the main issues are here about the plan. Doug
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Oh FFS. Can everyone please talk about the issues, in this case the plan itself, rather than people? If you (still) have problems with the
content of
the plan, then list those issues and discuss it. We don't need a dozen emails back and forth arguing whether the existing changes constitute a "rewrite".
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org