[Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Sue Gardner <susanpgardner at gmail.com> wrote:

> * I was speaking with Lennart face-to-face, in Berlin -- although I think he and
> I have been having a version of the quality/participation conversation for about a
> year now. This conversation about the strategy project on foundation-l is the
> only one happening at the moment. (I posted one of my messages here to the
> internal list, but asked people to reply here to keep the conversation together
> and public.)

Thank you.  I wasn't sure quite what I wanted the answer to be when I
asked -- since a set of wiki pages would be valuable as well - but
this is good to know.  Sometimes it's easier for others to drop in and
edit a page or conversation when there are obvious gaps or unfinished
bits <or where you can see the process of others making and fixing
mistakes>, which is why I like edit histories.

<on Participation>
< 1) we need a minimum critical mass to keep the projects alive,
< 2) we need to actively recruit knowledgeable contributors, to
maintain/increase quality,
< 3) a lack of diversity = groupthink and a distorted worldview.
< 4) There are also probably good arguments about engagement and empowerment.

This is a good set of facets.  If 3) doesn't include starting new
Projects, then it's important to include another facet for needing a
diversity of *types* of viewpoints to get ideas for classes of
knowledge explicitly outside the scope of current projects.


> I'm using foundation-l to solicit some early thinking from people
> who happen to be here. Once there's a project manager on-board,
> that person will construct a proper working space for the entire project --
> likely, a special wiki, a new mailing list, etc.

It's a fine place to start (though we lack a proper multilingual
list).  A meta page would be a useful addition.  I'll try to put
something brief together tomorrow, for translation purposes if nothing
else.

Either a new wiki or a new list would drive me mad, actually, and
neither would improve access to the discussion or representation of
others.  This is the sort of discussion that meta has been used for in
the past; and it might do the trick here as well.  My concern is that
meta and f-l, while the best wiki and list for foundation-wide
discussions, haven't recently been subject to conscious outreach or an
active effort to improve and balance participation.

SJ