[Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for community engagement

[Anders Wennersten]

With many, many years of experience from delivering software to internal 
users,  I have a reflection on this issue, without getting into the case 
of Visual Editor.

Compared with what I am used to, the designers at WMF are both competent 
and good in their responsiveness from users (that still could be 
improved though).  But what I am missing compared with likewise 
enterprises is a reference group/steering committee.  It is customary 
that such exist and it is they who follow up plans, progress, delivery 
and support. Now when the software development is being organized in a 
dedicated department, would it also be appropriate at the same time to 
set up such a group?

Anders


Nathan skrev 2013-07-23 15:32:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>