I see Jon has gone through the 2013 plan cutting it back:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Activity_Plan&diff=29303&...
With a comment on the talk page saying: "adjusted to reflect board agreement to draw back on 2013 commitments".
I don't know if my suggestion to it cut it back played a part in the board's decision, but if it did than thank you for listening! However, I am concerned about the way the budget has been cut back. They've just gone through reducing each budget item, rather than actually removing anything (apart from two of the developer posts).
Without a breakdown of the budgets, it is difficult to know what they are actually planning, but if you want to reduce the budget you have to do it by planning to do less, not just planning to do it cheaper. For example, the GLAM conference budget has been cut from £25k to £15k. If £25k is what it costs to run the conference, then you need to either budget £25k for it or cancel it. Likewise, the VLE project has been cut from £10k to £5k - it's a set amount of work, so either you have to pay what it costs or not do it, you can't just do half of it (I suppose you could spread it over two years, but that means there would be very little gain in the first year, so why not just postpone it completely?).
If you just cut the budget like this, but still plan to do all the same things, you're just going to find you are going over budget on everything...
Hi Tom;
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I see Jon has gone through the 2013 plan cutting it back:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Activity_Plan&diff=29303&...
With a comment on the talk page saying: "adjusted to reflect board agreement to draw back on 2013 commitments".
I don't know if my suggestion to it cut it back played a part in the board's decision, but if it did than thank you for listening! However, I am concerned about the way the budget has been cut back. They've just gone through reducing each budget item, rather than actually removing anything (apart from two of the developer posts).
Yes, your suggestion has had an impact, and yes, we feel that on reflection we need to scale back our growth.
However, we are still working on the basis of hitting the 1 October deadline for the FDC bid.
Essentially we are paring back some estimates that were either cautious (in the sense of "what's the most we could spend on the GLAM conference?") or optimistic (in the sense of "What's the most we could spend on Wikimedians in Residence"?) while leaving the direction of travel unchanged. This will, indeed, result in somewhat less work overall - but just as importantly it will mean less risk of underspent budgets, which are in themselves a bit unhealthy.
Chris
On 27 September 2012 18:15, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tom;
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I see Jon has gone through the 2013 plan cutting it back:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Activity_Plan&diff=29303&...
With a comment on the talk page saying: "adjusted to reflect board agreement to draw back on 2013 commitments".
I don't know if my suggestion to it cut it back played a part in the board's decision, but if it did than thank you for listening! However, I am concerned about the way the budget has been cut back. They've just gone through reducing each budget item, rather than actually removing anything (apart from two of the developer posts).
Yes, your suggestion has had an impact, and yes, we feel that on reflection we need to scale back our growth.
However, we are still working on the basis of hitting the 1 October deadline for the FDC bid.
Essentially we are paring back some estimates that were either cautious (in the sense of "what's the most we could spend on the GLAM conference?") or optimistic (in the sense of "What's the most we could spend on Wikimedians in Residence"?) while leaving the direction of travel unchanged. This will, indeed, result in somewhat less work overall - but just as importantly it will mean less risk of underspent budgets, which are in themselves a bit unhealthy.
That's sounds very reminisent of politicians saying they are going to make budget cuts by cutting waste. I don't believe them either...
Well if you look at the costs of VLE, for example, there are hosting and development costs and then the costs of writing new modules. £4.5K would still buy quite a few new modules, just not as many as £9.5K would - and asyou say, there's always next year. Similarly I would expect that a one-day GLAM conference would cost a little more than half of a two-day conference. It wouldn't cover so much, but it still would be a conference.
Nevertheless, if there are particular activities that you think we ought not to be doing, please make a case. I can't guarantee that the Board will agree with you, but I do promise we'll give serious consideration to all the feedback we get from the community.
On Sep 27, 2012 10:29 PM, "rexx" rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Well if you look at the costs of VLE, for example, there are hosting and
development costs and then the costs of writing new modules. £4.5K would still buy quite a few new modules, just not as many as £9.5K would - and asyou say, there's always next year.
My understanding was that the modules were going to be volunteer written.
Similarly I would expect that a one-day GLAM conference would cost a
little more than half of a two-day conference. It wouldn't cover so much, but it still would be a conference.
Perhaps, but it will take almost as much work to organise. My argument was that you need to free up some time, not spend less.
Nevertheless, if there are particular activities that you think we ought
not to be doing, please make a case. I can't guarantee that the Board will agree with you, but I do promise we'll give serious consideration to all the feedback we get from the community.
You're really not getting it. I'm not saying there are specific things you shouldn't be doing. I'm saying you should be doing less. It really doesn't matter what you cancel, but it is time you showed a bit of leadership and made some difficult decisions.
On the contrary, I really do get it: you don't think it matters what gets cancelled; and I disagree. You don't think we can deliver the planned programme; and I disagree.
On 28 September 2012 01:04, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
On the contrary, I really do get it: you don't think it matters what gets cancelled; and I disagree. You don't think we can deliver the planned programme; and I disagree.
No, you don't get it. Of course it matters what gets cancelled, but what matters far more is the plan in aggregate. I think you probably can deliever the planned programme, but if you try to do so you will be too busy to sort out the mess that the chapter is currently in. When are you planning to sort out the 5 year plan, for instance? If that is going to be done properly, then it will take up at lot of board, staff and community time. That doesn't seem to be allowed for in your planning.
The board's standard response to pretty much any concerns raised recently has been "sorry, we've been too busy". That excuse wears very thin when you aren't trying to manage your time better so that you do have time to deal with the numerous problems.
On 28 September 2012 12:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 01:04, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
On the contrary, I really do get it: you don't think it matters what gets cancelled; and I disagree. You don't think we can deliver the planned programme; and I disagree.
No, you don't get it. Of course it matters what gets cancelled, but what matters far more is the plan in aggregate. I think you probably can deliever the planned programme, but if you try to do so you will be too busy to sort out the mess that the chapter is currently in.
What matters is that the "penny wise pound foolish" approach gets cancelled. All else follows.
Charles
On 27 September 2012 22:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying you should be doing less.
And yet a couple of days ago, you were arguing for the chapter to take on coordination of something in which there is no need for them to be involved.
On Sep 28, 2012 5:27 PM, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 27 September 2012 22:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying you should be doing less.
And yet a couple of days ago, you were arguing for the chapter to take on coordination of something in which there is no need for them to be involved.
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.
Actually, this is an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make. The way to reduce workload is to do fewer things, not to do thing less well. On Sep 28, 2012 6:40 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 5:27 PM, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 27 September 2012 22:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm saying you should be doing less.
And yet a couple of days ago, you were arguing for the chapter to take on coordination of something in which there is no need for them to be involved.
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.
On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 5:27 PM, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 27 September 2012 22:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying you should be doing less.
And yet a couple of days ago, you were arguing for the chapter to take on coordination of something in which there is no need for them to be involved.
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.
So now you want to prevent individuals from talking to each other?
Not that's relevant here, because the potential trainers were not asked to contact potential trainees directly.
WEOn 28 September 2012 18:46, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.
So now you want to prevent individuals from talking to each other?
Not that's relevant here, because the potential trainers were not asked to contact potential trainees directly.
Perhaps I misunderstood the situation. That really isn't relevant. Whatever the situation is with that training, the fact remains that the chapter needs to cancel whole projects, not do all the projects badly (which is what will happen if they try to do them on the cheap - unless the original budgets were inflated, as Chris implies, which would be equally irresponsible).
On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.
Without prejudice to the particular issue, and sorry if this comes across sharp. But not being able to tell the difference between things that are mission-critical, and things that are just people involved "having their druthers" (as they say across the Atlantic), is in my view a disqualification in this discussion. That's a principle with wide application across this debate. As in "don't get me started".
Charles
On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.
I don't think it's producing bad results, but perhaps I'm biased.
I've been spending the past six months doing *exactly this*; contacting organisations directly, usually through personal contacts, arranging training, and (with the invaluable help of volunteers) delivering it. I have kept the chapter informed, but the sessions are pretty much independent of the ongoing WMUK training events, though they provide support (laptops, printed sheets, etc). I do not believe the chapter are in any way unhappy with this arrangement; they've had plenty of opportunity to say if they are!
It's certainly more efficient than asking the chapter to do it - you yourself have argued on this very mailing list that they are overworked, and trying to do too much. To demand it be centralised is to give them yet more work to do, on top of the existing load. It also introduces extra inefficiencies - they won't be going through the same direct connections, which makes the offer of a workshop less likely to be accepted, and it's much easier to arrange a session when the person delivering it is also the person negotiating it.
Yes, random people emailing random contacts offering training is bad. But if we trust the person to deliver the training professionally, and we are willing to send them out there to represent the community in doing so, I can't imagine any reason we wouldn't trust them to reach out and organise the sessions as well.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I'll say again, the issue here is the plan in aggregate. Specific examples aren't really important - there is plenty of room for reasonable people to come to different conclusions on a specific budget item. What we should be able to agree on though, is that this plan, when considered as a whole, is problematic. On Sep 28, 2012 10:44 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.
I don't think it's producing bad results, but perhaps I'm biased.
I've been spending the past six months doing *exactly this*; contacting organisations directly, usually through personal contacts, arranging training, and (with the invaluable help of volunteers) delivering it. I have kept the chapter informed, but the sessions are pretty much independent of the ongoing WMUK training events, though they provide support (laptops, printed sheets, etc). I do not believe the chapter are in any way unhappy with this arrangement; they've had plenty of opportunity to say if they are!
It's certainly more efficient than asking the chapter to do it - you yourself have argued on this very mailing list that they are overworked, and trying to do too much. To demand it be centralised is to give them yet more work to do, on top of the existing load. It also introduces extra inefficiencies - they won't be going through the same direct connections, which makes the offer of a workshop less likely to be accepted, and it's much easier to arrange a session when the person delivering it is also the person negotiating it.
Yes, random people emailing random contacts offering training is bad. But if we trust the person to deliver the training professionally, and we are willing to send them out there to represent the community in doing so, I can't imagine any reason we wouldn't trust them to reach out and organise the sessions as well.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Training led and run by volunteers has very little to do with the objections to the plan, which is about allocation of Chapter resources, focus, and staff time. I don't see why we're running these two objections together.
- Andrew.
On Friday, 28 September 2012, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I'll say again, the issue here is the plan in aggregate. Specific examples aren't really important - there is plenty of room for reasonable people to come to different conclusions on a specific budget item. What we should be able to agree on though, is that this plan, when considered as a whole, is problematic. On Sep 28, 2012 10:44 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears
unprofessional
and leads to an inefficient and inconsistent response.
I don't think it's producing bad results, but perhaps I'm biased.
I've been spending the past six months doing *exactly this*; contacting organisations directly, usually through personal contacts, arranging training, and (with the invaluable help of volunteers) delivering it. I have kept the chapter informed, but the sessions are pretty much independent of the ongoing WMUK training events, though they provide support (laptops, printed sheets, etc). I do not believe the chapter are in any way unhappy with this arrangement; they've had plenty of opportunity to say if they are!
It's certainly more efficient than asking the chapter to do it - you yourself have argued on this very mailing list that they are overworked, and trying to do too much. To demand it be centralised is to give them yet more work to do, on top of the existing load. It also introduces extra inefficiencies - they won't be going through the same direct connections, which makes the offer of a workshop less likely to be accepted, and it's much easier to arrange a session when the person delivering it is also the person negotiating it.
Yes, random people emailing random contacts offering training is bad. But if we trust the person to deliver the training professionally, and we are willing to send them out there to represent the community in doing so, I can't imagine any reason we wouldn't trust them to reach out and organise the sessions as well.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 28 September 2012 23:29, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Training led and run by volunteers has very little to do with the objections to the plan, which is about allocation of Chapter resources, focus, and staff time. I don't see why we're running these two objections together.
Well, the muddle between "stakeholders" in WM stuff who happen to be in the UK. and what WMUK thinks it can take on, has been ongoing for a couple of years now. E.g. whether meetups are WMUK events, a "membership service", or autonomous (the answer is obvious, by the way).
We do need to clean house as far as getting the chapter's scope discussed is concerned, and that is not a planning or budgetary exercise. Personally, I'd start at the comms end. Loose talk is costly.
Charles
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org