On 22 November 2016 at 11:38, Guillaume Lederrey <glederrey(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I really like the last slide ("The Team"). I
usually hate organigrams,
but this one looks good, captures a lot of our multi-team / cross
functional / slightly crazy organisation, and stays simple enough to
be read easily. Good job!
Wes deserves all the praise for that! I lifted it from an old presentation
he put together, and just updated it. :-)
* It seems that search is more represented than other
projects, and
from a different level of details. It is probably because the mission
/ roadmap of search is much more concrete / understood than for
example maps, which is more experimental at this point. While this
probably represent the different current realities of our projects, we
might want to work a bit on clarifying this to present a more
structured communication.
That's a good point. I'll have a think about a way to clarify this.
Search does have more people working on it, so it's natural that this
happened. I also don't think maps is really such an experimental project
anymore given that we're moving forwards with deployments. I'll think about
the best way to communicate that.
* We sometimes talk about graphs, but they don't
seem to have the same
visibility as the other projects. Probably because graphs are mainly
the glue between maps, search, wdqs, ... Do we want to talk about
graphs a bit more? (Honest question, I really have no idea).
The role of graphs in content discovery is somewhat unclear to me, as well
as what's planned for improvements. I'd welcome some clarification on that.
Thanks,
Dan
--
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation