Replying to Alex and Lisa (and Rogol) in one message:
Alex, thank you for linking the 32 page public version of the grant to the Sloan Foundation. It is indeed an impressive quantity of information, and I'm glad that this kind of transparency was built into the process -- having written grant proposals on behalf of WMF, I'm keenly aware of how much of an additional challenge that creates, and applaud the team. That said, it's a lot of info to look over, so if I have any more substantive comments, it will take a little time.
Lisa, I also appreciate your timely response about restricted grants. It's good to have a little insight into your thinking, which resonates. I do hope for more, in time. In the past, I felt all of us associated with Wikimedia could take legitimate pride in our connection to an organization that took a leadership role in the thinking on philanthropic giving. (As you may recall, I wrote up an overview about it last year: https://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/ ) It was especially distressing to see this issue play a central role in last year's crises, in the sense that the Knowledge Engine was rooted in a strategy of restricted grant opacity. I am still hoping the organization will take decisive steps toward reclaiming its position as a significant thought leader on the topic.
Perhaps the strategic planning process will offer an opportunity to do so?
In general, my questions are strongly aligned with those Rogol Domedonfors is asking, both in this thread and in the one about historical documents. Restricted grants can be one of the more visible artifacts that reflect the large-scale thinking of the organization; it's broadly important to the movement that the large-scale thinking be visible.
It has not been very long since a broadcast video led by Lila Tretikov and Jimmy Wales ended with a bit of open mockery of the value of long-term strategic planning. That was in jest, I understand, but in the absence of a more serious followup, not a great thing for Wikimedia stakeholders to hear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-12-22/News_a... We have a new executive director, new faces on the board, many things are running very smoothly, and many good things are happening. But we still lack a foundation for insight into how the rapidly expanding organization is thinking. Billions of people have a stake in those questions.
If there are no readily-available answers that can be shared, I hope at least that the strategic planning process will begin to flesh out some of what has been driving the WMF, and what will drive it in the years to come.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wes
Thank you for yet another prompt response. It seems almost churlish to say that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so many different mistaken impressions of my request. To me a product roadmap would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans. The roadmap would have the level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one. It is also known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current year. Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of transparency not only as an abstract objective but in order to maximise the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
Yours "Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
Thanks for the question. The Annual Plan we follow and share with the community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
We
update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
or
connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
[3].
Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
have
specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
Thanks, Wes
Wes Moran Vice President of Product Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume
that
the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by
the
phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but
whatever
it
is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further
discussions
over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes
the
Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
high-level
roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
Structured
Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development
roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred
to
in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
vrandecic@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Overview
including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
> Lisa > > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
roadmap,
so
> this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply
enables
us
to > accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you
publish,
or > point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the community's > participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia
Movement
> Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes. > > Thanks in advance > "Rogol" > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
lgruwell@wikimedia.org>
> wrote: > > > Hi Pete and Gerard- > > > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like
most
things, > > there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be
bad
if a
> funder > > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls
the
> organization > > in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even
worse,
when
a
> > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has
ongoing
> > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant. > > > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per
our
gift
> policy > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those
are
the
types > > of > > dynamics that the board considers when they review a
restricted
grant.
> > > > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
this
grant
is
> not > > diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to
accelerate
the
> > work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we
have
to
follow > > through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what
we
said
we
> are > > going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing.
And
the
Sloan > > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something
changes
as
> the > > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
conversation
> with > > them about adjusting the plan. > > > > Best, > > Lisa > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we
want
anyway. > > > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set
in
stone
and > > > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever.
With
more
> money > > > it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it
more
> > manageable. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area
--
for
one
> > thing, > > > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more
smoothly
if > > > there > > > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF
and
Sloan
> for > > > the > > > > focus on this issue! > > > > > > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant
restricted
> > grant > > > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton
Foundation's
> usability > > > > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative
grant
($1.2
> > million > > > > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the
past,
WMF
> board > > > > members have expressed great skepticism about --
specifically
--
the > > > Sloan > > > > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an
observer
in
WMF
> > board > > > > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at
length
about > > the > > > > dangers of restricted grants. > > > > > > > > It appears there is a new theory in play around
restricted
grants.
> Will > > > > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past
practice
of
> > publishing > > > > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3] > > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > -- > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > > > in-our-future/ > > > > [2] > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ > > > > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ > > > > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information > > > > [3] > > > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ > > > > Initiative_project_details > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <
wmoran@wikimedia.org
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Wikimedia community, > > > > > > > > > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a
US$3,015,000
> grant > > > from > > > > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_
Foundation>
[1]
to > > > > expedite > > > > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant
will
be
given > > over > > > > the > > > > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a
team,
in
> > > > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia
Deutschland,
that > > can > > > > > focus on integrating the structured data features of
Wikidata
into > > > > > describing the media files on Commons. > > > > > > > > > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on
the
Wikidata
> > > > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by
the
> Wikimedia > > > > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure
that
movement > > > > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki
program
> > leaders, > > > > and > > > > > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons,
such
as
GLAMs, > > can > > > > be > > > > > involved in the development. > > > > > > > > > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and
its
scope,
> > > > available > > > > > on Commons > > > > > <https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
> > > data/Sloan_Grant> > > > > > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on
the
Wikimedia > > > blog > > > > > <https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> > > structured-data> > > > > > [3]. > > > > > > > > > > We are currently in the process of identifying the
technical
lead
> for > > > the > > > > > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the
Foundation’s
> > > GLAM-Wiki > > > > > strategist, will be leading the community engagement
and
> > communications > > > > for > > > > > the project until we hire a community liaison as part
of
the
grant. > > > Stay > > > > > tuned for more details about the project in the coming
months.
> > > > > > > > > > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and
look
forward > to > > > > your > > > > > participation in its development. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis > > > > > > > > > > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* > > > > > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * > > > > > *Wikimedia Foundation* > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> > > > > [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> > > > Sloan_Grant > > > > > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> > > > structured-data > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe