[Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for community engagement

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Craig Franklin
<cfranklin at halonetwork.net> wrote:

>
> As is usually the case, I'm not saying this to have a go at the developers
> or anyone else involved (who are obviously doing their best), but I think
> that some of the communication on this topic has been a bit clumsy and has
> caused a lot of unnecessary angst that could probably have been avoided if
> it had been planned for in advance.  Does the Foundation have formal
> communication plans for things like this that focus on gaining community
> buy-in?  If not, then you probably should.  Obviously more testing and
> specifically more user acceptance testing would have been helpful in this
> case, although I understand the political pressures in getting the product
> shipped on time.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin


I alluded to this same issue in my earlier reply and thought this
deserved its own thread. We all know that it has happened many times -
a change, policy or other initiative emanates from the Foundation or a
member of its staff, and various community groups respond negatively.
The response is ignored or not properly addressed in a timely manner,
and it snowballs into something much larger.

The WMF staff often seem to be caught flat-footed when this happens,
and only after an unnecessary degree of escalation within the
community do they engage fully (in what I think of as "crisis mode"
communications, usually from Erik, Sue or another WMF senior leader).

So if it hasn't already, perhaps the WMF should consider making a
robust plan for active communications a part of every significant
initiative and rollout process. This should mean regular and
coordinated posts to mailing lists, blog posts, and community centers
on affected products - and a special effort should be made to discover
complaints and provide specific, regular and detailed feedback in
response. And I don't mean only product development; this ought to
apply equally to the full spectrum of WMF interaction with the
movement, from MediaWiki development to adjustments to the FDC process
to Board resolutions and so on. All teams, from engineering to product
to fundraising to community liaisons, should be evaluated and held
responsible for the quality of their movement communications.

Perhaps that is unusual for a software house, and thus not the normal
mental go-to or skillset for WMF staff used to working with a
different type of customer. But I think it is acutely evident that
this type of rapid, serious engagement would pay major dividends for
the WMF in terms of its relationship with the various editing
communities and the Wikimedia movement.