[Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

[Haitham Shammaa]

> Also, did Grants have a review recently?

Minutes of the Grantmaking quarterly review are avaliable at :

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking,_2013-05-15


*--*
*Haitham Shammaa*
*Wikimedia Foundation*

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. *
*Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a reality!*


From: Tilman Bayer <tbayer at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF
> initiatives
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Minutes and slides from the second quarterly review meeting of the
> Wikipedia Zero team are now available at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/June_2013
> .
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
> > corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
> > and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
> > starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
> > to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
> > Board [1]:
> >
> > - Visual Editor
> > - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
> > - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
> > - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity
> >
> > I'm proposing the following initial schedule:
> >
> > January:
> > - Editor Engagement Experiments
> >
> > February:
> > - Visual Editor
> > - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)
> >
> > March:
> > - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
> > - Funds Dissemination Committee
> >
> > We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
> > metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
> > their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
> > otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
> > also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.
> >
> > My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
> > review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
> > meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
> > discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
> > which we can use to discuss the concept further:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
> >
> > The internal review will, at minimum, include:
> >
> > Sue Gardner
> > myself
> > Howie Fung
> > Team members and relevant director(s)
> > Designated minute-taker
> >
> > So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
> > Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.
> >
> > I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
> > duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:
> >
> > - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
> > compared with goals
> > - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
> > - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
> > - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
> > action items
> > - Buffer time, debriefing
> >
> > Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
> > structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
> > where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.
> >
> > In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
> > to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
> > a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
> > may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
> > to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
> > engineering.
> >
> > As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
> > help inform and support reviews across the organization.
> >
> > Feedback and questions are appreciated.
> >
> > All best,
> > Erik
> >
> > [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>