[Wikimedia-l] WMF core and non core expenses

[Samuel Klein]

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:12 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Hopefully this can be refactored on the wiki as comments on the annual plan.
>
> I feel it is too late to comment on the wiki about the annual plan.

There are many reasons to comment on past plans.  To get better at
mutual peer review, we need to simply do more peer review.

A public drafting period with open commentary, as you hint at, is
important.  The FDC process is helping systematize that, and we may
hope for a similarly open drafting process for the WMF's core plan
next year.

But that's neither the only nor the most important time to comment.
Review of plans and budgets should be steady throughout the year,
should look more than a year into the future and past, and can be more
specific once a plan is underway.

Before a plan is finalized, feedback helps make it better.  After it
is finalized, it can be compared to similar or related plans and work
across the movement.  While it is being carried out, its work can be
measured and visualized.  Before the next planning cycle begins,
feedback helps frame the following period's plan.

In the case of the WMF, annual plans are developed from roughly Jan to
May.  So the next few months are a good time to inform the start of
that process.  The best place I know to organize feedback is
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget

> It is also helpful to get
>> feedback on what seems 'high priority, extended core'
>
> Improving definitions for next time is all well and good. . . however,
> there is a definition of core v non-core in the FAQ. Do you believe that
> definition is appropriate for 2012-13?

Yes, that seems fine for this year.  It is an improvement on the
previous year, when we did not make any such distinctions.  Next year
should have a more nuanced definition. (In particular, we should start
distinguishing barebones operating needs from other work, as has been
discussed on and off since the strategic plan work.)

> The only info in
> these minutes is that it was discussed and there are no minutes from the 11
> July board meeting yet.

They have been reviewed and are waiting for the approval vote to
finish in ~a week; they should be published soon.

SJ