[Wikimedia-l] Lack of community involvement in WMF budget planning

[Steven Walling]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:

> Steven,
> I am actually disappointed to see you bring such an example to back up a
> thesis that — that's the impression I'm getting — the community cannot
> provide valuable feedback on budget-related matters.
>
> The experience that I have is quite opposite: as far as I am aware,
> community members have been providing fantastic feedback for all kinds of
> issues, including financial ones (with the GAC, which is a community
> committee, being the most prominent example).


I don't view GAC and other insular committees as a successful model
for open community feedback. They typically are formed from a relatively
tiny group of people who like being on such committees, are slow, and tend
to become inactive over time.

I already gave an example, FDC, of where community feedback failed to
provide insights in to the budget and planning of a top priority team when
invited to do so before it was accepted. Do you have other examples where
constructive community feedback prior to finalization led to substantive
changes in a WMF-related budget?

(I of course am talking solely about community feedback on financial
planning in this case, not about the dozens and dozens of ways the
community functions more smoothly and efficiently than the WMF.)


>  In this case I think the answer is that it would suck time and energy from
>> budget planning and would not add much real value to the budget other than
>> warm and fuzzy feelings. The amount of transparency would also not be
>> substantively increased, because we already publish the WMF budget and
>> annual plan, and respond to inquiries about it.
>>
>
> As I wrote in one of my previous e-mails, there is very little point in
> providing feedback/commenting on something that's already been adopted and
> put into motion. It would be much more inviting and empowering for
> community members if they could comment on an actual plan, with the feeling
> that their feedback might actually be put into consideration and make a
> difference.
>
> Commenting on a budget for a fiscal year that starts in on July 1 in
> August does not give that feeling—let us just take this year's annual plan
> as an example: <https://wikimediafoundation.**org/w/index.php?title=File:*
> *2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_**Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf<https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf>>
> was only published on July 28. That getting feedback on budget might suck
> time and energy from Foundation staff is probably of little concern for
> community members.
>
>         -- Tomasz
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>