[Wikimedia-l] Attribution of specific Wikipedia articles as sources of a LLM's output (Was: Bing-ChatGPT)

[Tilman Bayer]

*TL;DR: It was previously claimed on this list that it's generally
technically possible to attribute information in the output of a LLM-based
chatbot (such as ChatGPT) to specific parts of the LLM's training data
(such as a Wikipedia article). These claims are dubious and we shouldn't
rely on them as we continue to navigate the relations between Wikimedia
projects and LLMs.*

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:12 PM Lauren Worden 
wrote:
[...]

>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 1:20 AM Kimmo Virtanen
>  wrote:
> >
> >> Or, maybe just require an open disclosure of where the bot pulled from
> and how much, instead of having it be a black box? "Text in this response
> derived from: 17% Wikipedia article 'Example', 12% Wikipedia article
> 'SomeOtherThing', 10%...".
> >
> > Current (ie. ChatGPT) systems doesn't work that way, as the source of
> information is lost in the process when the information is encoded into the
> model
>
> In fact, they do work that way, but it takes some effort to elucidate
> the source of any given output. Anyone discussing these issues needs
> to become familiar with ROME:
> https://twitter.com/mengk20/status/1588581237345595394 Please see also
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMQyOu2HTo
>
> I sense some confusion here. That paper (ROME, http://rome.baulab.info/ )
is about attributing a model's factual claims to specific parts (weights,
neurons) of its neural network (and then changing them). It is **not**
about attribution to specific parts of its training data (such as Wikipedia
articles or other web pages), which is what Wikimedians have been
expressing concerns about.
In other words, it's entirely unclear why this should contradict what Kimmo
had said (and, separately in this thread, Galder

).

(Trying to understand LLMs with analogies can be treacherous
. But for
people who automatically assume that neural networks "do work that way" -
i.e. preserve this kind of provenance information - and that chatbots can
be required to disclose "where [they] pulled from and how much" for a
particular answer: Imagine someone accosting you in the street and asking
you where you had originally learned that Paris is the capital of
France, say. How many of us would be able to come up with a truthful answer
like "our geography teacher told us in third grade" or "I read this in
Encyclopaedia Britannica when I was 10 years old"?)

With luck we will all have the chance to discuss these issues in
> detail on the March 23 Zoom discussion of large language models for
> Wikimedia projects:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024/Draft/External_Trends#Open_call:_Artificial_Intelligence_in_Wikimedia
>
> The notes from that meeting (now at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024/Draft/External_Trends/Community_call_notes
) contain the following statements:


*"In an ideal world, the Foundation would start internal projects to
replicate ROME and RARR."*
*"The Foundation should make a public statement in support of increasing
the accuracy of attribution and verification systems such as RARR [
https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.08726  ]"*


These proposals do not seem to have made it into the WMF's actual annual
plan in the end. And I realize that this thread is already a couple of
months old. However, it still seems worth resolving misconceptions in this
regard, e.g. because there have been references to such claims more
recently in other community discussion spaces.

Regarding RARR (the second project proposed in that meeting and here on
this list, as something that WMF should replicate or embrace):
RARR is indeed designed to find **a** text document supporting a given
statement produced by an LLM. But importantly, it makes no claims that the
source it finds was "the" original source used by the LLM. The first "R" in
"RARR" stands for "Retrofit[ting]" attribution - not for "restoring",
"retrieving" or such. (In fact, RARR doesn't even try to find a source in
the model's training corpus. It simply does a Google search of the entire
internet, see section 3.1 in the paper.) In other words, it too won't
"elucidate **the** source of any given output" as claimed above (my
bolding).
This is particularly relevant in light of the fact that e.g. on English
Wikipedia we generally require information to be attributable to reliable
external sources. So even if a chatbot's statement was indeed based on a
Wikipedia article, but that Wikipedia article cited the New York Times for
this information, RARR might very well pick the NYT article as source
instead of Wikipedia.

A larger issue here is that individual facts are not owned by any company
or community. Specifically, they are not copyrightable (as Wikipedians are
well aware f

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Google not indexing Wikisource for last few years now.

[Tilman Bayer]

Apropos Google Search Console:

This might also be an opportunity to make public at least some of the data
that Search Console provides to site owners. That should enable community
members (especially from smaller projects) to detect such issues earlier
and in a more systematic fashion - compared to the kind of experimentation
on individual URLs that gave rise to
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325607 in this case. And also, to take a
broader view, to think more systematically about content aspects of SEO.
(Some of the smaller projects have been quite interested in this, see e.g.
https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Search_engine_optimization .) If
you are an editor of a non-Wikimedia website, Search Console is a standard
tool to help understand where your readers are coming from, how they may be
accessing your work and where your site may have issues that prevent them
from doing so. There is no reason to assume it couldn't be quite useful for
editors on Wikimedia wikis too.

Publishing some of the Search Console data was already considered a couple
of years ago as part of the conversations about
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T172581 . Back then, there was a sense
that while there might be some privacy considerations regarding the more
granular data, other parts could be made available with relatively little
effort.

Regards, Tilman

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 9:41 PM Sohom Datta  wrote:

> Has anyone tried telling the Google Search Console to index all the
>> Wikisource language domains? Presumably a Foundation sysadmin would
>> need to add the ownership verification tokens to do so:
>> https://search.google.com/search-console/welcome
>
>
> This has already been done for a while.
>
>
>> for what I've read, it suffices to generate a sitemap file with MediaWiki
>> and how to submit it to Google. There is a script for
>> that: generateSitemap.php.
>>
> Once done, the sitemap has to be updated regularly in order to include the
>> new pages.
>
>
> I did look into this, but it seems like we do not generate sitemaps for
> any sites right now ? The closest I got was
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198965 which mentions that we did
> generate them around 2018 and hosted them on sitemaps.wikimedia.org,
> however they were recently (in Jun 2023) deleted due to the sitemaps being
> out of date and not helping our SEO rankings for Wikipedia.
>
> Also while digging this up right now, I came across
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T332101#8898869 which assumes that
> Google uses a RCFeed/EventStreams API provided by the Wikimedia Foundation
> to index pages. Is this true in the case of Wikisource, could it be
> possible that they (Google) might not be using this for Wikisource and/or
> Wikisource pages are getting filtered out (on Wikimedia Foundation's end)
> due to some configuration error ?
>
> Regards,
> Sohom Datta
> ---
> Open-source contributor @Wikimedia, @Chromium
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 8:59 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
>> See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325607#8846296 and onwards
>>
>> Am Di., 1. Aug. 2023 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Lauren Worden <
>> laurenworde...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Has anyone tried telling the Google Search Console to index all the
>>> Wikisource language domains? Presumably a Foundation sysadmin would
>>> need to add the ownership verification tokens to do so:
>>> https://search.google.com/search-console/welcome
>>>
>>> -LW
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 7:53 AM Dušan Kreheľ 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hm.
>>> >
>>> > Page: La akonca (1888) (be.wikisource.org)
>>> > Created day with the last modification: 17:26, 7 July 2023‎ CEST
>>> > Indexed by Google: 7. júl 2023 18:21:14 UTC
>>> >
>>> > Not indexed: https://be.wikisource.org/wiki/Alkahol_(1913)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2023-08-01 8:47 GMT+02:00, Bodhisattwa :
>>> > > Hello all,
>>> > >
>>> > > Apologies for cross-posting.
>>> > >
>>> > > For those who have not noticed till now, Google is not indexing any
>>> > > Wikisource language editions for the last couple of years which
>>> practically
>>> > > means that any Wikisource contents in any languages, which are being
>>> > > created in these years, are not searchable on Google and hence
>>> largely
>>> > > remain invisible on the web.
>>> > >
>>> > > This is an extremely demotivating and frustrating situation for the
>>> > > existing Wikisource volunteers to witness, draining away all of our
>>> past
>>> > > and current efforts to bring and retain viewers, readers, GLAM
>>> partners and
>>> > > any potential new editors. We already have a very low awareness and
>>> > > visibility about Wikisource among general internet users due to lack
>>> of
>>> > > organized support in these years but the invisibility on Google
>>> search
>>> > > engine could become the last nail in our coffin, unless it is fixed
>>> soon.
>>> > >
>>> > > There is a phabricator ticket raised by Darwinius back in December
>>> 2022 -
>>> > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325607.
>>> > >
>>> > > Can't

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!

[Tilman Bayer]

Hallo Gerard,

der Signpost ist schon seit langer Zeit nicht mehr thematisch auf die
englischsprachige Wikipedia beschränkt, wie du zum Bespiel auf
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Signpost nachlesen kannst ("Temas:
Movimiento Wikimedia, Wikipedia, comunidad de Wikipedia y Fundación
Wikimedia"). Er wurde deswegen bereits vor über einem Jahrzehnt von "The
Wikipedia Signpost" in "The Signpost" umbenannt. Ich empfehle Dir einen
genaueren Blick auf die Inhalte der aktuellen Ausgabe, wo sich etwa drei
der Artikel hauptsächlich um Wikimedia Commons drehen, und mehrere andere
um Themen, die das gesamte Wikimedia-Movement betreffen (die
WMF-Boardwahlen, WMF-Aktivitäten wie Sound Logo und Organizer Lab,
Wikimedia Deutschlands Argumentation, warum Chapter wie Wikimedia
Deutschland mehr Kontrolle über Geldflüsse erhalten sollten, etc.).

Grüße, HaeB


On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 7:36 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> De Signpost is een publicatie van de Engelse Wikipedia. Waarom wordt de
> Wikimedia mailing list daarmee lastig gevallen?
> Vriendelijke groet,
>GerardM
>
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 14:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> The Signpost – Volume 18, Issue 9 – 30 September 2022
>> --
>>
>> News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new
>> mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/News_and_notes
>> 
>>
>> In focus: NPP: Still heaven or hell for new users – and for the reviewers
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/In_focus
>> 
>>
>> In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/In_the_media
>> 
>>
>> Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Special_report
>> 
>>
>> Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Discussion_report
>> 
>>
>> Interview: ScottishFinnishRadish's Request for Adminship
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Interview
>> 
>>
>> Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Opinion
>> 
>>
>> Serendipity: Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from
>> photos
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Serendipity
>> 
>>
>> Recent research: How readers assess Wikipedia's trustworthiness, and how
>> they could in the future
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Recent_research
>> 
>>
>> Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Traffic_report
>> 
>>
>> Featured content: Farm-fresh content
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Featured_content
>> 
>>
>> Gallery: A Festival Descends on the City: The Edinburgh Fringe, Pt. 2
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Gallery
>> 
>>
>> CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/CommonsComix
>> 
>>
>> From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/From_the_archives
>> 
>>
>>
>> Single-page view
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
>>
>>
>>
>> https://facebook.com/wikisignpost
>>
>> https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https:/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Remember Wikipedia Zero.. Where is the research about the effects of its demise?

[Tilman Bayer]

It's a reasonable question, for which the Wiki-research-l mailing list
(CCed) might be a better venue.

There is some data at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Audiences_Metrics_%26_Insights_Q1_2018-19.pdf
(not
a full analysis, highlighting just two example countries)

Regards, HaeB

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 11:19 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The BBC shows how dramatically expensive internet is in Africa.. For in my
> opinion local political reasons Wikipedia Zero has terminated. That is ok
> up to a point; the point being that we understand the consequences from
> this action.
>
> Given that our data is NOT local, people have to pay a premium. What are we
> going to do to compensate for expensive Wikipedia that replaced Wikipedia
> Zero? Did we study the effects or are we not interested in the consequences
> of our actions?
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-50516888
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia site and system outages

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi Benjamin and RhinosF1,

in the meantime, you could also check out the coverage in the September
edition of the Signpost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/In_the_media


(I'm sure however that the Foundation's incident report
 will be more
detailed and informative, in particular regarding any significant changes
made to the traffic setup of Wikimedia sites and support obtained from
third-party companies.)

Regards, HaeB

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 8:20 PM Heather Walls  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We hope to have something for you in the next few weeks.
>
> Regards,
> Heather
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 2:13 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I am also curious about this.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:55 PM, RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> > >
> > > Any idea of when an incident report may come out?
> > >
> > > RhinosF1
> > > Wikimedia User & Incident Reporter
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 00:29, Heather Walls 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello again,
> > >>
> > >> As a follow-up to my last note on the September 6th DDoS attack, we
> > wanted
> > >> to provide you with an update. There have been no further attacks in
> the
> > >> last week and our sites are now running normally. Our SRE team is
> > >> continuing to monitor the situation.
> > >>
> > >> Based on what we learned in this attack, our security and engineering
> > teams
> > >> are researching and putting together plans for more protection of our
> > >> infrastructure to address any potential attacks in the future.
> > >>
> > >> We appreciate everyone’s support, particularly the folks on the SRE
> > team,
> > >> in helping to restore access.
> > >>
> > >> Yours,
> > >> Heather
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 4:25 PM Heather Walls 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello everyone,
> > >>>
> > >>> By now you are likely aware that the Wikimedia sites suffered from a
> > >>> relatively significant botnet driven DDOS attack on September 6th,
> > taking
> > >>> them offline in several countries throughout the day. This primarily
> > >>> affected Wikipedia access in Europe and the Middle East. We posted a
> > >> short
> > >>> update of the event on our website.[1]
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to thank everyone who stepped up to support the
> > restoration
> > >>> of our projects, including the fast reporting of community members
> > >>> throughout the world and our security and engineering teams who
> worked
> > >> long
> > >>> hours to address many complex issues surrounding the attack and our
> > >>> response—the Site Reliability Engineering team in particular.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Wikimedia Foundation leadership team is proud to work with such
> > >>> talented and dedicated staff and supporters.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yours,
> > >>> Heather
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 1.
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/07/malicious-attack-on-wikipedia-what-we-know-and-what-were-doing/
> > >>>
> > >>> "Today, Wikipedia was hit with a malicious attack that has taken it
> > >>> offline in several countries for intermittent periods. The attack is
> > >>> ongoing and our Site Reliability Engineering team is working hard to
> > stop
> > >>> it and restore access to the site.
> > >>>
> > >>> As one of the world’s most popular sites, Wikipedia sometimes
> attracts
> > >>> “bad faith” actors. Along with the rest of the web, we operate in an
> > >>> increasingly sophisticated and complex environment where threats are
> > >>> continuously evolving. Because of this, the Wikimedia communities and
> > >>> Wikimedia Foundation have created dedicated systems and staff to
> > >> regularly
> > >>> monitor and address risks. If a problem occurs, we learn, we improve,
> > and
> > >>> we prepare to be better for next time.
> > >>>
> > >>> We condemn these sorts of attacks. They’re not just about taking
> > >> Wikipedia
> > >>> offline. Takedown attacks threaten everyone’s fundamental rights to
> > >> freely
> > >>> access and share information. We in the Wikimedia movement and
> > Foundation
> > >>> are committed to protecting these rights for everyone.
> > >>>
> > >>> Right now, we’re continuing to work to restore access wherever you
> > might
> > >>> be reading Wikipedia in the world. We’ll keep you posted."
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Heather Walls (she/her)
> > >>>
> > >>> Chief Creative Officer
> > >>> Wikimedia Foundation
> > >>> https://wikimediafoundation.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Heather Walls (she/her)
> > >>
> > >> Chief Creative Officer
> > >>
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Page views of male/female biographies?

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi Micru,

in general, there may be better venues to ask this kind of question, e.g.
the Wiki-research-l and Gendergap mailing lists (both CCed). But for a
partial answer, the paper by Marit Hinnosaar reviewed here looks at these
stats (if not their long-term trend):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/December#Does_advertising_the_gender_gap_help_or_hurt_Wikipedia?

E.g. "On a typical (median) day in September 2014, no one read 26 percent
of the biographies of men versus only 16 percent of the biographies of
women."

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:35 AM David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of
> male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias?
>
> Regards,
> Micru
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] "State of Wikimedia Research" presentation at Wikimania 2018

[Tilman Bayer]

Thanks, Pine! The slide deck (with notes) for this presentation is at
https://mako.cc/talks/201807-wikimania_research.pdf .
And a general reminder that for monthly and daily (instead of yearly)
research updates, you are welcome to subscribe to our newsletter and
Twitter feed:  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter /
https://twitter.com/WikiResearch

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> In case people are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2UQu3r6vE
>
>
> The topics covered include:
> * Media and images
> * Talk page debates
> * Comparisons of Wikipedia language editions
> * Who is not participating?
> * Wikipedia as a source of data
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lower page views

[Tilman Bayer]

edia.org/T175870

[8] Cf. last quarter's edition:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Readers_metrics_Q1_2017-18_(Jul-Sep_2017).pdf


On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:55 AM, Anders Wennersten
 wrote:
>
> We are seeing a steady decrease of page views to our projects (Wikipedia). 
> Nov-Dec-Jan it is decreasing in a rate of 5-10% (year-year), and for big 
> languages like Japanese,  Spanish close to 10%, or some months even more  [1]
>
> Is there any insights of why this is so? Could it be that Google take over 
> accesses with their ever better way of showing results direct  (but then also 
> with showing extracts of Wikipedia articles) .
>
> Or that our interface on mobiles is inferior so we miss accesses from mobiles 
> (now being 54% of total). Or horror of horror that users look for facts on 
> all new sites with fake news instead of Wikipedia?
>
> Anders
>
> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Experimental onion service for all Wikimedia projects set up by Alec Muffett

[Tilman Bayer]

rganization
><http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf>
> *Journal
>of Organizational Change Management *29:  3.  361-378.
>- Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between
>Wikipedia and Academia
><http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf> *Journal of the
>Association for Information Science and Technology* 67:  7.  1773-1776.
>- Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipedia
><http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/glass-ceiling.pdf> *Feminist
>Review *113:  1.  103-108.
>- Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)
> Inequalities
>in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits
> in
>Apache Software Foundation Projects
><http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%
> 2Fjournal.pone.0152976.PDF>
>, *PLoS ONE* 11:  4.  e0152976.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Termodynamics and social capital

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi John,

the Wiki-research-l mailing list (CCed) is usually a better place to
ask such questions than Wikimedia-l.

Without having taken a look at the book you mention, here are two
pointers to research that might be related:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/April#cite_ref-27
("Wikipedia as a thermodynamic system - becoming more efficient over
time")
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/September#More_newbies_mean_more_conflict.2C_but_extreme_tolerance_can_still_achieve_eternal_peace

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:29 AM, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> Has anyone tried to use termodynamics on social capital within Wikipedia?
> Over investment in social capital and negative specific heat might create
> unstable systems, that is people will leave the community.
>
> There is a book on the topic; A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and
> Sustainable Community Development
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Tilman Bayer]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
> a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
> stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
> knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
> of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
> would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from
December 2015
<https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Product&oldid=2399861#Reading_Audience>).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact
the last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews
dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Maithili Wikipedia surpasses 10k articles

[Tilman Bayer]

Congratulations!

For background, this blog post from 2014 details the efforts by Biplab and
others to get this Wikipedia off the ground back then:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/08/a-focused-approach-for-maithili-wikipedia/

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Biplab Anand 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am delighted to share with you that Maithili Wikipedia has reached 10,000
> articles <https://mai.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics>.
>
> To reach the milestone Maithili Wikimedians has taken a challenge
> named Maithili
> Wikipedia Mission 10
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maithili_Wikimedians_
> User_Group/Events/Mission_10>.
> In the month of December, Maithili Wikipedia shows high level of activity
> <https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/15148>.
>
> We are really proud of the Maithili Wikipedia Community and Maithili
> Wikimedians volunteers who run and support the Mission 10. We would also
> like to thanks each and one contributor who contributed to the Mission 10.
>
> Happy New Year 2017!!!
>
> Best
> Biplab
> ___
> 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apple Pay donations

[Tilman Bayer]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Antoine Musso  wrote:
> On 15/11/16 02:12, Steven Walling wrote:
> 
>>
>>  Given that payments on mobile are such a huge headache and
>> declining desktop traffic to Wikimedia properties, it might be an
>> interesting pilot to explore nonetheless.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Going out of topic sorry. Regarding mobile and desktop traffic declining,
> according to https://reportcard.wmflabs.org/
>
> * Overall page views is about the same since 2013.
> * Mobile traffic quickly raised until reaching a plateau in 2015.

As indicated - in small print - on that page, it uses two incompatible
pageview definitions for the time before and after May 2015. Hence it
should not be relied upon for such a trend analysis.
See instead (for example)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AReading_and_Comm_Tech_Quarterly_Review_Q1_2016-17.pdf&page=50

>
> Surely one can say that traffic shifted to mobile, but for the last two
> years the desktop/mobile ratio seems fairly stable.
>
Not quite, the ratio still decreased during that time (or conversely,
the mobile percentage increased); although it is true that it did so
less rapidly than in previous years, and also intermittently moved
into the other direction. See the above link or for more detail
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_daily_pageviews,_mobile_percentage_(April_2015-).png
-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [WikimediaMobile] "Among mobile sites, Wikipedia reigns in terms of popularity"

[Tilman Bayer]

ut to suit the device. (Try
>> resizing your web browser on your computer to the size of a mobile web
>> browser to see what I mean.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>> > On 11 May 2016, at 20:36, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hoi,
>> > It is wonderful to see how we have evolved.. Does anyone remember the
>> good
>> > old days when it was an application totally and utterly outside of
>> > MediaWiki?
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> > On 11 May 2016 at 20:33, Pine W  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Forwarding since this may be of general interest regarding Wikipedia
>> >> readership.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Tilman!
>> >>
>> >> Pine
>> >>
>> >> -- Forwarded message --
>> >> From: Tilman Bayer 
>> >> Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:23 AM
>> >> Subject: [WikimediaMobile] "Among mobile sites, Wikipedia reigns in
>> terms
>> >> of popularity"
>> >> To: mobile-l 
>> >> Cc: Wikimedia developers , Analytics
>> Team
>> >> -
>> >> Internal 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> New study (US only) by the Knight Foundation:
>> >> https://medium.com/mobile-first-news-how-people-use-smartphones-to ,
>> >> summarized here:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/people-love-wikipedia/482268/
>> >>
>> >> "People spent more time on Wikipedia’s mobile site than any other news
>> >> or information site in Knight’s analysis, about 13 minutes per month
>> >> for the average visitor. CNN wasn’t too far behind, at 9 minutes 45
>> >> seconds per month. BuzzFeed clocked in third at 9 minutes 21 seconds
>> >> per month. (BuzzFeed, however, slays both CNN and Wikipedia in time
>> >> spent with the sites’ apps, compared with mobile websites. BuzzFeed
>> >> users devote more than 2 hours per month to its apps, compared with
>> >> about 46 minutes among CNN app users and 31 minutes among Wikipedia
>> >> app loyalists.)
>> >>
>> >> Another way to look at Wikipedia’s influence: Wikipedia reaches almost
>> >> one-third of the total mobile population each month, according to
>> >> Knight’s analysis, which used data from the audience-tracking firm
>> >> Nielsen."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Tilman Bayer
>> >> Senior Analyst
>> >> Wikimedia Foundation
>> >> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Mobile-l mailing list
>> >> mobil...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>> >> ___
>> >> 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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Source-o-meter

[Tilman Bayer]

See also the review of that preprint we ran in the Wikimedia Research
Newsletter: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2016/February#Test_of_300k_citations:_how_verifiable_is_.22verifiable.22_in_practice.3F

and the community discussion it generated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-02/Recent_research#Test_of_300k_citations:_how_verifiable_is_.22verifiable.22_in_practice.3F

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, George Herbert
 wrote:
>
> Just saw this in The Atlantic.  A suggestion Wikipedia implement a source 
> verifiability meter for each article.
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/wikipedia-open-access/479364/
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] wikinews has a NPOV policy derived from wikipedia, mamamia ...

[Tilman Bayer]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:42 PM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> hi jimmy,
>
> i asked on the facebook group wikipeda weekly if joe/ed could publish
> an upcoming blog post on wikinews. joe sutherland mentioned ".. I
> simply cannot get my head around its attitude to news coverage". which
> i find frightening. an editor for 10 years, tens of thousands
> contributions, thousands of pages created, degree in journalism,
> dissertation about news on wikipedia, administrator.[1]
>
> jimmy, as wikinews refers an old mail of you from 2003 as the holy
> grail of NPOV, could you please clarify once and for all that your
> NPOV statemant you sent to wikien-l was valid for wikipedia. and not
> for wikisource, wikiquote, wikinews. best on the wikinews talk page
> concerning NPOV [2][4]. i understand of course that certain publishing
> standards might apply - but NPOV, and "sourced" in the sense of
> published somewhere else cannot be amongst them [3].
>
> just as a note, i hate that the blog [5] opens 20 times slower than
> wikinews on my mobile phone,

The blog is hosted by Automattic (known for Wordpress.com) in the same
environment as high traffic sites like time.com or fivethirtyeight.com.
You can file technical issues on Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/328/ or contact the blog
team (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines ).

that it is not in different languages,
>
It does support multilingual posts, e.g.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/18/wikimedia-server-switch/ is available
in 23 languages.


> that i do not have the "usual mediawiki features". i hate that
> signpost [7] cannot be read on mobiles because of formatting. i hate
> the glam newsletter [6] for the same reason, despite beeig again on a
> different wiki, no "read in different languages". which is the main
> reason i write this mail ... and asked joe why not using wikinews. and
> i hate that wikinews does not use mediawiki features to properly
> classify what quality an article has, e.g. "blog", "npov", etc.
>
> [1]
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Foxj&project=en.wikipedia.org
> [2]
> https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#raphael_honigstein_and_outreach_blog_on_wikinews.3F
> [3] https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Pillars_of_Wikinews_writing
> [4]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html
> [5] blog:
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/22/ted-wikimedia-collaboration/
> [6] glam newletter: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
> [7] signpost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
>
> best,
> rupert
>
> ___
> 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Tilman Bayer]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM,   wrote:
> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how 
> many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing 
> comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, 
> Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios 
> are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases 
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager

Interesting question. There may be more suitable venues for it, e.g.
the research mailing list (CCed). Anyway, to start with two examples:

http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/gender-bias-in-wikipedia-and-britannica.html

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/May#Notable_women_.22slightly_overrepresented.22_.28not_underrepresented.29_on_Wikipedia.2C_but_the_Smurfette_principle_still_holds
Comparison of Wikipedia with, among other sources, "Human
Accomplishment", a 2003 "ranking of geniuses throughout the ages and
around the world based on their prominence in contemporary
encyclopedias" (NYT)


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FLOSS for operations equipment

[Tilman Bayer]

See also:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Freedom_and_open_source
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 2016-03-21 6:15 PM, James Salsman wrote:
>>
>> Is there a list of equipment that WMF uses without viable FLOSS
>> alternatives, please?
>
>
> The switches and routers for one; as far as I know, high-end networking
> hardware is not available with Libre OSes, nor would the supplier support
> one flashed with a non-proprietary OS (as one can do with some mid-range
> gear).
>
> And there is a fuzzy line about being "all-FLOSS".  Do you use servers with
> only open source BIOS and firmware on all attached hardware?  At best, that
> severely crimps your options and I'm not sure there exists viable
> alternative for /all/ required hardware.
>
> The *important* thing is that anyone can grab Mediawiki, the dumps, and a
> Libre OS supporting LAMP and make the projects run.  Beyond that, best
> effort to always favour FLOSS when it gets the job done is a solid
> philosophical stance that is universally applied.  But, like most
> principles, it cannot be a suicide pact.  We cannot, as a movement, refuse
> to get the job done unless we reinvent every proprietary wheel - this way
> lies both madness and a tremendous waste of donors' money[1].
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
> [1] For instance, a common thing that is surfaced is to home-spin software
> when the only FLOSS alternatives require either serious customization or
> maintenance; we *could* hypothetically hire enough engineers to maintain
> every bit of needed software - or even write the bits that don't exist - but
> that's not what we *do* (nor should it be).
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for July-September 2015

[Tilman Bayer]

Greetings everyone,

the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
past quarter (July-September, Q1 of the 2015-16 fiscal year) took
place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now
available:

Community Engagement:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement,_October_2015

Discovery:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_October_2015

Reading and Advancement (with Fundraising Tech):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading_and_Advancement,_October_2015

Editing (comprising the Collaboration, Language Engineering,
Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_October_2015

Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
Services, TechOps, and Labs teams) and CTO (comprising the Design
Research, Research & Data, Performance, and Security teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure_and_CTO,_October_2015

Legal, Talent & Culture (HR), Communications, Finance & Administration
& Office IT, and Team Practices:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015

As usual, much of this information will also be available in
consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q1,
which is planned to be published on October 19.

See 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
for some general background about the Foundation's quarterly review
process.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation report, April-June 2015

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi all,

please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the fourth quarter
of the past fiscal year at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q4_(April-June).pdf
.

Quoting below the foreword by Terry:

We are pleased to bring you the Wikimedia Foundation’s Quarterly
Report for Q4 of the 2014/15 fiscal year. This is the third report
since we switched from a monthly cycle, to align with our quarterly
goal setting process. We are continuing to optimize the report’s
format and the organization’s quarterly review process that the report
is based on, to bring you better information at a lower overhead for
the teams that take out time from their work to tell you how they have
been doing. Participation in the review process is good and growing.

This issue includes some new pieces of information, e.g. the
approximate size of each team (in FTE, on average during this
quarter), and for each objective, the number of team members who were
involved with a significant amount of their time. The overall metrics
scorecard now contains new, more reliable uptime numbers for both
readers and contributors.

As before, we are including an overview slide summarizing successes
and misses across all teams. In a mature 90 day goal setting process,
the “sweet spot” is for about 75% of goals to be a success.
Organizations that are meeting 100% of their goals are not typically
setting aggressive goals.

Terry Gilbey, Chief Operating Officer

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi all,

the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and
slides for those meetings are now available:

Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/CE_and_Advancement,_July_2015

Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_July_2015

Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading,_July_2015

Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering,
Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_July_2015

Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design
Research, and Security teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure,_July_2015

Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and
Team Practices:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_July_2015

As usual, much of this information will also be available in
consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4,
which is planned to be published on July 30.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation official Youtube channel(s)

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi Nasir,

Jan Ainali has kindly forwarded this to the Social Media mailing list
(https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media ), see the
answers there: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/social-media/2015-July/thread.html#2794

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Nasir Khan  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today i was searching in Youtube and found that there are two channels of
> Wikimedia Foundation (the links are following). The channel which has a
> verified link (the first link) has only a few videos and the other channel
> has user friendly URL and more videos.
> Can anyone tell why there are two channels and which one should i follow?
>
> [1] - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK_cUZLMpibyRiIdp0uF-lQ
> [2] - https://www.youtube.com/user/WikimediaFoundation
>
>
> --
> *Nasir Khan Saikat*
> www.nasirkhn.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16

[Tilman Bayer]

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Garfield Byrd  wrote:
> Hi Pine,
>
> I have answered your questions in the text of your email.
>
> Regards,
>
> Garfield
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
...
>> * Are SMART goals documented for each department? If so, where can we see
>> them?
>>
>
> In the quarterly goal setting process, the annual plan will be segmented
> into quarterly goals for each department or team. The success of the
> quarterly goals set by each department or team will reported on in the
> Wikimedia
> Foundation Quarterly Report
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q3_(January-March).pdf>.
>
To add, for people who are specifically interested in the current
quarterly goals of the Engineering and Product teams: Those have
already been published at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals .

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report, January-March 2015

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi all,

please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the third quarter of
the fiscal year at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q3_(January-March).pdf
.

Quoting below the foreword by Terry.

---
We are please to bring you the WMF Quarterly Report for Q3 of 2014/15.
This is the second report since switching from a monthly cycle, to
align with our quarterly goal setting process, and contains several
changes that focus more on results and achievements.

One major change is that goals are counted as either a success (green)
or a miss (red). This report is now a comprehensive overview of all
the Q3 objectives rather than a subset of the quarters goals, as we
delivered in the Q2 report. In a mature 90 day goal setting process
the “sweet spot” is for about 75% of goals to be a success.
Organizations that are meeting 100% of their goals are not typically
setting aggressive goals.

We have also been able to reduce the amount of time and effort that
goes into producing the report by flowing information straight through
from the Quarterly Review Meetings.

In the report you will also find a couple of new pieces of data. The
overview slide shows the status of all 130 goals from Q3 on a single
page, broken down by organization. Additionally we have been able to
include site speed metrics as part of our overall report card.

Terry Gilbey, Chief Operating Officer

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews

[Tilman Bayer]

And here are the minutes and slides from the remaining two quarterly
review meetings from this round:

Legal, Finance, Talent & Culture (HR), Communications:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_Finance,_HR,_Communications,_April_2015

Analytics, User Experience, Team Practices, Product Management
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics,_UX,_Team_Practices_and_Product_Management,_April_2015

Much of the content of the slides will also (in somewhat more polished
form) feature in the WMF quarterly report, which is planned to be
published by May 15.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the quarterly reviews for the past quarter (January-March 2015) took
> place last week. Minutes and slides are now available for the
> following meetings:
>
> Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement_and_Advancement/April_2015
>
> Mobile Web, Mobile Apps, Wikipedia Zero:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_and_Wikipedia_Zero,_April_2015
>
> Parsoid, Services, MediaWiki Core, Tech Ops, Release Engineering,
> Multimedia, Labs, Engineering Community:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid,_Services,_MW_Core,_Ops,_RelEng,_MM,_Labs_and_ECT,_April_2015
>
> Editing (covering VisualEditor), Collaboration (covering Flow),
> Language Engineering:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_Collaboration_and_Language_Engineering,_April_2015
>
>
> As mentioned in February [1], the quarterly review process has been
> extended to basically all groups in the Foundation since Lila took the
> helm last year, and it was further refined this quarter, reducing the
> number of meetings to six overall, each combining several areas.
> Minutes and slides from the remaining two meetings should come out
> soon, too. (And naturally, all the engineering team names above refer
> to the structure before the reorganization that has just been
> announced.)
>
> [1] 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076835.html
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews

[Tilman Bayer]

dback 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report, October-December 2014

[Tilman Bayer]

Thanks, Alice!
The "Participation" and "Content" sections in the scorecard already
link to pages where further details on the definition of each metric
can be found, so I take your comment as a vote to include more of that
in the slide itself next time.
"Articles" means "Wikipedia articles".
"Page Views" refers to all projects, just like in the previous "Data
and Trends" of the monthly reports - but now focusing on human traffic
only, like the slide says ("Crawlers excluded").

(For those interested in the full gory details, see
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89024 )

As the "beta" indicates, we may still revisit the selection of metrics
in the next quarterly report.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Alice Wiegand  wrote:
> Hi Tilman,
>
> I like the focussed view and the compact information. On slide 4, the beta
> scorecard, it would be helpful to know and see (especially for further
> usage) which projects are base for the numbers.
>
> Alice.
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As Erik announced in November [1], the Foundation has changed its
>> reporting from the monthly cycle that has been in place since 2008 to
>> a quarterly rhythm. A main reason being to better align it with the
>> quarterly planning and goalsetting process that has been extended to
>> the entire organization since Lila took the helm. The first of these
>> new quarterly reports has now been published here, in the format of a
>> slide deck suitable for a 90 minute presentation:
>>
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q2_(October-December).pdf
>>
>> As discussed before [2], the main objectives and design principles for
>> this report were:
>>
>> * Accountability: Help our movement and our supporters understand how
>> we spend our effort, and what we accomplish.
>> * Learning together: Highlight important internal & external data,
>> trends and lessons.
>> * Presentable: Anyone, from volunteer to the executive director,
>> should be able to present the work of the WMF using this report.
>> * Reasonable effort: Pull as much as possible from existing sources,
>> e.g., quarterly review slide decks & minutes.
>>
>> Please refer to the linked PDF for the full report (I will see to
>> provide a wiki version on Meta in the next few days, exploring the
>> best technical process for this kind of conversion). But to offer an
>> excerpt from the “Key insights and trends” part (slide 5):
>>
>> --
>> * Readership: Globally, pageviews are flat. Mobile is growing, desktop
>> is shrinking. Given a growing global potential audience, this means we
>> need to invest in the readership experience, with focus on mobile.
>>  We have learned that we can move at highest velocity on mobile apps
>> due to their self-contained nature.
>> * Beyond editing:  Inviting readers to perform classification tasks on
>> their smartphone is showing promise; response quality is exceeding
>> expectations.
>> * Performance: The implementation of HHVM across Wikimedia sites is an
>> engineering success story and demonstrates that dedicated focus in the
>> area of site performance can pay off relatively quickly.
>> * Fundraising: Mobile matters -- thanks to focused effort, we were
>> able to increase the mobile revenue share from 1.7% to 16.1% (2013 vs.
>> 2014 year-end campaign).
>> --
>>
>> Be aware that in the interest of readability, the report focuses on
>> the work done on a number of key priorities rather than attempting a
>> comprehensive list of every team’s goals - for a more detailed view,
>> consider referring to the documentation of that team’s quarterly
>> reviews [3]. This being the first report in this new format, we will
>> surely tweak format, content (including the choice of key metrics) and
>> process for the subsequent issues. Comments continue to be welcome at
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports .
>>
>>
>> Regards, Tilman
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2014-November/001005.html
>> [2]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076747.html
>> [3]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tilman Bayer
>> Senior Analyst
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>>
>> ___
>> Please n

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

[Tilman Bayer]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:57 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Tilman Bayer wrote:
>>Quarterly review minutes and/or slides of the following teams have
>>been posted in recent days:
>>
>>Multimedia:
>>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarte
>>rly_reviews/Multimedia/January_2015
>>
>>Legal & Community Advocacy:
>>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LCA_Q2_Slides.pdf (abridged
>>slides only)
>>
>>Fundraising and Fundraising Tech:
>>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarte
>>rly_reviews/Fundraising/January_2015
>>
>>Communications:
>>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Communications_WMF_Quarterly_Revie
>>w,_Q2_2014-15.pdf
>>(slides only, as a report - no actual meeting took place)
>
> Hi.
>
> I'm trying to understand why certain groups seem to have had a formal
> quarterly review (with minutes on a corresponding Meta-Wiki page) and why
> others seem to have bypassed this process. Why wasn't there a review for
> two of the four groups mentioned (Communications and Legal & Community
> Advocacy)? Publishing slides is better than nothing, I suppose, but it
> seems strange to not hold a formal quarterly review for these two teams.
>
> MZMcBride
>

This was actually the first time that groups outside Engineering and
Grantmaking took part in the quarterly review process. While indeed
almost every team or department was conducting quarterly review
meetings this time, bear in mind that the process is still being
worked on and rethought, e.g. regarding the amount of detail covered
in each meeting (corresponding to its length), and what level of
involvement from senior management should be required in each case.

As recorded on the overview page, Legal & Community Advocacy held in
fact a quarterly review meeting on January 30, it's just that we
decided not to publish minutes because much of the discussion was
confidential and sensitive - perhaps unsurprisingly, considering the
department's work area.
Because the Communications department is still in build-up mode, there
was a sense that a formal quarterly review meeting did not yet make
sense for them this time. But the team decided to nevertheless produce
a full slide deck that, I think, contains a lot of relevant
information about its Q2 work.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Quarterly review minutes and/or slides of the following teams have
been posted in recent days:

Multimedia:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Multimedia/January_2015

Legal & Community Advocacy:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LCA_Q2_Slides.pdf (abridged slides only)

Fundraising and Fundraising Tech:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Fundraising/January_2015

Communications:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Communications_WMF_Quarterly_Review,_Q2_2014-15.pdf
(slides only, as a report - no actual meeting took place)


With this, documentation from all 20 quarterly review meetings that
took place about Q2 (October-December 2014) has been published.


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report, October-December 2014

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi all,

As Erik announced in November [1], the Foundation has changed its
reporting from the monthly cycle that has been in place since 2008 to
a quarterly rhythm. A main reason being to better align it with the
quarterly planning and goalsetting process that has been extended to
the entire organization since Lila took the helm. The first of these
new quarterly reports has now been published here, in the format of a
slide deck suitable for a 90 minute presentation:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q2_(October-December).pdf

As discussed before [2], the main objectives and design principles for
this report were:

* Accountability: Help our movement and our supporters understand how
we spend our effort, and what we accomplish.
* Learning together: Highlight important internal & external data,
trends and lessons.
* Presentable: Anyone, from volunteer to the executive director,
should be able to present the work of the WMF using this report.
* Reasonable effort: Pull as much as possible from existing sources,
e.g., quarterly review slide decks & minutes.

Please refer to the linked PDF for the full report (I will see to
provide a wiki version on Meta in the next few days, exploring the
best technical process for this kind of conversion). But to offer an
excerpt from the “Key insights and trends” part (slide 5):

--
* Readership: Globally, pageviews are flat. Mobile is growing, desktop
is shrinking. Given a growing global potential audience, this means we
need to invest in the readership experience, with focus on mobile.
 We have learned that we can move at highest velocity on mobile apps
due to their self-contained nature.
* Beyond editing:  Inviting readers to perform classification tasks on
their smartphone is showing promise; response quality is exceeding
expectations.
* Performance: The implementation of HHVM across Wikimedia sites is an
engineering success story and demonstrates that dedicated focus in the
area of site performance can pay off relatively quickly.
* Fundraising: Mobile matters -- thanks to focused effort, we were
able to increase the mobile revenue share from 1.7% to 16.1% (2013 vs.
2014 year-end campaign).
--

Be aware that in the interest of readability, the report focuses on
the work done on a number of key priorities rather than attempting a
comprehensive list of every team’s goals - for a more detailed view,
consider referring to the documentation of that team’s quarterly
reviews [3]. This being the first report in this new format, we will
surely tweak format, content (including the choice of key metrics) and
process for the subsequent issues. Comments continue to be welcome at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports .


Regards, Tilman


[1] 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2014-November/001005.html
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076747.html
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from four recent meetings have appeared under the
following URLs:

Analytics team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/January_2015

Parsoid and Services teams:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Services/January_2015

Mobile Web and Apps teams:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile/January_2015

Product Process Improvements (update meeting):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Product/January_2015

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Draft structure for the new WMF quarterly reports (feedback welcome)

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi everyone,

as detailed by Erik earlier [1], the Foundation is changing its
reporting from the monthly cycle that has been in place since 2008 to
a quarterly rhythm. A main reason being to better align it with the
quarterly planning and goalsetting process that has been extended to
the entire organization since Lila took the helm. The first of these
new quarterly reports is set to come out on February 15, and while the
content is being filled out over the next week, we wanted to provide
an opportunity for the entire community to comment on the planned
structure.

The main objectives and design principles for this report are:

* Accountability: Help our movement and our supporters understand how
we spend our effort, and what we accomplish.
* Learning together: Highlight important internal & external data,
trends and lessons.
* Presentable: Anyone, from volunteer to the executive director,
should be able to present the work of the WMF using this report.
* Reasonable effort: Pull as much as possible from existing sources,
e.g., quarterly review slide decks & minutes.

We have decided that this iteration of the new report will appear in
the format of a slide deck suitable for a 90 minute presentation,
which means that it will need to focus on the highest priorities in
each area, linking to the quarterly review documentation and other
material for further detail.

See the mockup (linked below) for the intended structure, which
includes the following sections:
*Key metrics (expanding the "Data and Trends" section of the previous
monthly reports, adding a red/green/yellow indicator to provide
context on whether each number is seen as concerning, positive or
neutral), and overall insights/takeaways from this quarter
For each priority work area:
*What we said (previously set goals) and what we did (results).
*What we learned (how should the results impact the work going
forward? What insights can the Foundation or the movement take away?)
and concluding with:
*What's next (excerpt of the highest priority goals for the next quarter)

The draft structure (with mocked up content - not the actual report
yet) can be found here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports

Please leave comments there. We will try to take them into account
while tweaking the structure further, and of course, this being the
first iteration, we are likely to make many further changes for the
next quarterly report.

Note: This report is going to cover the second quarter of the
Foundation's fiscal year (October-December 2014). The remaining
monthly reports under the old model until September have all been
published by now, you can find them at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports .


[1] 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2014-November/001005.html

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Editing (formerly VisualEditor) team await perusal at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing/January_2015
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Collaboration team (which was formerly called the Core
features team and is working on the Flow project) have appeared here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Collaboration/January_2015

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from three recent quarterly review meetings held
last week are now available:

Language Engineering team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Language_Engineering/January_2015

MediaWiki Core team
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/MediaWiki_Core/January_2015

Talent & Culture team (slides only:)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Quarterly_Review-_2014-15_Q2_-_Talent_%26_Culture,_Redacted.pdf

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from two recent quarterly review meetings of the
Foundation's Grantmaking department are now available at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/January_2015_-1
(focusing on the Experimentation & Community Health area)
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/January_2015_-2
(focusing on the Community Growth area)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from four recent quarterly reviews are now available:

Team Practices Group:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Team_Practices/January_2015

Engineering Commmunity Team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Engineering_Community/January_2015

Release Engineering and QA (Quality Assurance) team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Release_Engineering/January_2015

Mobile Partnerships (Wikipedia Zero) team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/January_2015

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update regarding WMF's reporting practices

[Tilman Bayer]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Given https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-
> January/076324.html, some questions.
>
> Erik Moeller, 06/11/2014 07:57:
>
>> Format: Effective immediately, we are shifting to a quarterly
>> reporting format. This will impact our reporting, and the October
>> through December
>>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Report,_September_2014 is still missing. Who's going to compile it?
>
> Nothing has changed about the process for this last monthly report. I just
sent out a ping about the last missing bit, and will try to publish it as
soon as everything is in.


>> As above, the deadline for publication of the first report, covering
>> October 1 - December 31, is February 15.
>>
>
> Is this confirmed?

Yes

>
>
>  For this first report, we are
>> being conservative with regard to the deadline, as we will have our
>> resources directed at our staff all-hands and developer summit in
>> January.
>>
>> Tilman and I will begin creating a draft structure for this new report
>> in coming weeks, and will do so in public from the get-go.
>>
>
> Did this happen? If not, will Tilman still help draft this structure?

Yes, Erik and I have been working on this. "get-go" was probably a bit
ambiguous - as soon as the new draft structure has been made available to
staff, it will also be made available on Meta (rather than revealing it
only together with the report's publication next month).

>
>
>  We will
>> also rethink the “Wikimedia Highlights” alongside other multilingual
>> movements news formats, likely detaching them from reporting
>> functions.
>>
>> Out of scope of this effort for now:
>>
>> - Providing more timely updates on initiatives with high user impact.
>> We’re continuing to provide updates to Tech News [2] and similar
>> newsletters, but we’re not currently doing a major overhaul here.
>>
>
> Is https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-
> October/074889.html still accurate in that Guillaume continues tech
> reports for now?
>
> Nemo
>
>  [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News
>> [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Dashboard
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Thursday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Multimedia team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Multimedia/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the recent quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's MediaWiki Core team can now be found at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_MediaWiki_Core_Team/Quarterly_review,_October_2014/Notes
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
MediaWiki Release Management team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/MediaWiki_Release/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the recent quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Parsoid, Services and OCG (Offline content generator)
teams have appeared at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Editing (formerly VisualEditor) team can now be found at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Core features (Flow) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Core_features/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly review for Grantmaking

[Tilman Bayer]

(For other readers: Pine appears to refer to the publication of the
minutes from the quarterly review meeting for the Wikimedia
Foundation's Grantmaking team, announced in a separate thread at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/074824.html
)

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> Tilman, thanks for those notes.
>
As mentioned at the top of the page, these minutes were actually taken
by Anna Koval and Maria Cruz. (I had been unable to attend this
particular review due to a conflicting meeting.) So the thanks should
go to them ;)

> There was discussion awhile ago about involving the community in quarterly
> reviews,
I don't recall that discussion, do you have a link?

> and I have some questions and comments about this review, mostly
> for Lila.
Sure! Feel free to leave them on the talk page - as community members
have already been doing with other reviews this week.

>
> However, I would like to see the notes from the "group" mentioned at the end
> of the quarterly review before I make comments, or if there is an
> opportunity for community participation in the "group", I would like to
> participate in a community capacity, if that is ok. (:
>
Well, again, I wasn't at the meeting myself, but my interpretation of
that sentence is that "to group about this" simply was a somewhat
colloquial expression meaning to have a smaller followup meeting
between staff from the Product team and from the Grantmaking team,
including Erik and possibly Lila, about the particular issue in
question - technical support for grantmaking work which would need
dedicated time from WMF software developers in the Product team. I'm
not sure what you meant by "the notes" - please be aware that not
every WMF staff meeting has a designated minute-taker - and in any case
"group" was a verb here, not a noun ;)


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Grantmaking department are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Wikipedia Zero (Mobile Partnerships) team team are now
available at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last week's mid-year review meeting of the
Foundation's Wikipedia Education Program team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Education_Program/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Analytics team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Growth team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Growth/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the recent quarterly review of the
Foundation's Language Engineering team are available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Language_Engineering/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Release Engineering and QA team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Release_Engineering/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the first ever quarterly review of the
Foundation's Technical Operations team (held on August 28) are now
available at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/TechOps/August_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi all,

ten years ago this Sunday, Wikimedia Commons went online. We've sent out
the below press release to draw some attention to this occasion, and also
published a separate blog post by Lila which goes a bit more into the
project's history (such as the very first photograph uploaded to Commons):

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/05/celebrating-the-10th-anniversary-of-wikimedia-commons/


-- Forwarded message ------
From: Tilman Bayer 
Date: Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:54 PM
Subject: [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary
To: press-release 


(This press release is also available online here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Commons_celebrates_its_10th_anniversary
)

Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary

   - *22 million+ images make Wikimedia Commons world’s largest freely
   licensed educational media repository.*

(San Francisco, USA) September 5, 2014 -- This Sunday marks the 10th
anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>. Its creation was officially
announced on September 7, 2004.

More than 22 million media files have been uploaded by the Wikimedia
volunteer community over the decade since Commons came into being. The
Wikimedia Foundation is extremely grateful to have a dedicated community of
creators and institutions who continue to share their images and other
media so that the project has flourished and will continue to thrive.

Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Lila Tretikov said: “Many people
don’t know that the incredible, freely-licensed images that illustrate
Wikipedia are curated and maintained by the volunteer community of
Wikimedia Commons editors. Wikimedia Commons is the visual engine of the
Wikimedia projects, and we look forward to its next decade of
contributions, collaboration, and sharing.”

In the past ten years, creators have contributed to Commons in a variety of
ways, including the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest, which is currently
inviting submissions through the end of September. The Guinness Book of
World Records named Wiki Loves Monuments the largest photo contest in the
world, and it has inspired more 900,000 image uploads since 2010.

On this occasion we also celebrate the partnerships with dozens of cultural
institutions (GLAM) from around the world that have donated portions of
their collections. Their contributions have allowed Wikimedia Commons to
become a vital resource for educational and historical content, and ensured
the increasing depth and richness of the illustrations for articles on
Wikipedia.

The Foundation recognizes the vibrant Wikimedia Commons community, which is
responsible for increasing the availability of freely licensed images and
information to the public. The Commons community takes its role as a
guardian of the rights of creators extremely seriously, working diligently
to confirm authorship and licensing status of the media uploaded to
Commons. This work is reflected in the low number of DMCA takedown requests
received by the Wikimedia Foundation every year.

Erik Moeller, then a volunteer Wikimedian, first proposed the Commons in
March 2004 as a common repository for the images that Wikipedians had begun
uploading to illustrate the free online encyclopedia’s growing collection
of articles. Today, Moeller is the Wikimedia Foundation’s Deputy Director
and VP of Engineering, and Commons is the world’s largest repository of
freely licensed educational media on the internet.

“The Wikimedia Commons community is the reason these freely-licensed images
exist for everyone to enjoy." said Moeller. “Our next steps are to prepare
Wikimedia Commons for the future, including support for rich, structured
metadata; a massively improved user experience for uploading media; better
tools for editing media content through the web; and better support for
video. The first decade was just the beginning.”

The Foundation is thrilled to be celebrating these and many more
achievements of the project’s first decade.


About the Wikimedia Foundation

https://wikimediafoundation.org
https://blog.wikimedia.org/

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix,
Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation
receive 413 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most
popular web property world-wide (comScore, July 2014). Available in 287
languages, Wikipedia contains more than 32 million articles contributed by
a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people. Based in San
Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3)
charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact:

Communications, Wikimedia Foundation
+1 415-839-6885 ext 6633kmaher[image: @]wikimedia.org



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Comm

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary

[Tilman Bayer]

(This press release is also available online here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Commons_celebrates_its_10th_anniversary
)

Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary

   - *22 million+ images make Wikimedia Commons world’s largest freely
   licensed educational media repository.*

(San Francisco, USA) September 5, 2014 -- This Sunday marks the 10th
anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
. Its creation was officially
announced on September 7, 2004.

More than 22 million media files have been uploaded by the Wikimedia
volunteer community over the decade since Commons came into being. The
Wikimedia Foundation is extremely grateful to have a dedicated community of
creators and institutions who continue to share their images and other
media so that the project has flourished and will continue to thrive.

Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Lila Tretikov said: “Many people
don’t know that the incredible, freely-licensed images that illustrate
Wikipedia are curated and maintained by the volunteer community of
Wikimedia Commons editors. Wikimedia Commons is the visual engine of the
Wikimedia projects, and we look forward to its next decade of
contributions, collaboration, and sharing.”

In the past ten years, creators have contributed to Commons in a variety of
ways, including the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest, which is currently
inviting submissions through the end of September. The Guinness Book of
World Records named Wiki Loves Monuments the largest photo contest in the
world, and it has inspired more 900,000 image uploads since 2010.

On this occasion we also celebrate the partnerships with dozens of cultural
institutions (GLAM) from around the world that have donated portions of
their collections. Their contributions have allowed Wikimedia Commons to
become a vital resource for educational and historical content, and ensured
the increasing depth and richness of the illustrations for articles on
Wikipedia.

The Foundation recognizes the vibrant Wikimedia Commons community, which is
responsible for increasing the availability of freely licensed images and
information to the public. The Commons community takes its role as a
guardian of the rights of creators extremely seriously, working diligently
to confirm authorship and licensing status of the media uploaded to
Commons. This work is reflected in the low number of DMCA takedown requests
received by the Wikimedia Foundation every year.

Erik Moeller, then a volunteer Wikimedian, first proposed the Commons in
March 2004 as a common repository for the images that Wikipedians had begun
uploading to illustrate the free online encyclopedia’s growing collection
of articles. Today, Moeller is the Wikimedia Foundation’s Deputy Director
and VP of Engineering, and Commons is the world’s largest repository of
freely licensed educational media on the internet.

“The Wikimedia Commons community is the reason these freely-licensed images
exist for everyone to enjoy." said Moeller. “Our next steps are to prepare
Wikimedia Commons for the future, including support for rich, structured
metadata; a massively improved user experience for uploading media; better
tools for editing media content through the web; and better support for
video. The first decade was just the beginning.”

The Foundation is thrilled to be celebrating these and many more
achievements of the project’s first decade.


About the Wikimedia Foundation

https://wikimediafoundation.org
https://blog.wikimedia.org/

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix,
Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation
receive 413 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most
popular web property world-wide (comScore, July 2014). Available in 287
languages, Wikipedia contains more than 32 million articles contributed by
a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people. Based in San
Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3)
charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact:

Communications, Wikimedia Foundation
+1 415-839-6885 ext 6633kmaher[image: @]wikimedia.org

(To be unsubscribed from this press release distribution list, please reply 
with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line)___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, gu

[Wikimedia-l] Introducing the new Wikimedia blog: a place for movement news

[Tilman Bayer]

nd attention of many people to
seamlessly move so much movement history from one platform to another. We’d
like to thank the many members of the community who have been–and no doubt
will be–providing suggestions and bug reports for the blog platform (with a
special thanks to Jeremy Baron). A very big thanks to former WMF
Communications team member Matthew Roth, who spearheaded this process and
led the redesign work in 2013; to Terry Chay, who provided invaluable
technical advice on the process; to the WMF Legal, UX and Operations teams,
in particular Luis Villa and Rob Halsell; and to the teams at Exygy (in
particular Justin Carboneau and Zach Berke) and at Automattic.

A final reminder: Like the Wikimedia projects, the blog is created by you.
You can draft posts directly on Meta, and the Communications team will work
with you to edit and publish, according to a transparent editorial process:
it’s now common for posts to be created in full view of anyone who is
inclined to read or participate. This blog is a platform for the movement,
and we’re here to help you share your message
<http://vip.wordpress.com/hosting-tos/> with the world.

*The WMF Communications Team*
*Katherine, Tilman, Carlos, and Heather*

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's MediaWiki Core team are now available at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_MediaWiki_Core_Team/Quarterly_review,_July_2014/Notes

(agenda/overview page:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_MediaWiki_Core_Team/Quarterly_review,_July_2014
)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Core features team (focusing on the work on Flow) are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Core_features/July_2014
.


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Wikipedia Zero (Mobile Partnerships) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/July_2014
 .


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2014-15 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi all,

the Wikimedia Foundation's 2014-15 Annual Plan has just been published at

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2014-15_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan.pdf

accompanied by a Q&A:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2014-2015_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers

The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees on June 29, 2014.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Analytics team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/June_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last Friday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Parsoid team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid/June_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last Thursday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Editing (formerly VisualEditor) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing/June_2014
.

(A separate but related quarterly review meeting of the Parsoid team
took place on Friday, those minutes should be up tomorrow.)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Disclosure amendment to the Terms of Use

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi GerardM,

have you read Stephen's email?

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> WOW,
> CAN SOMEONE WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO CLARIFY IF THIS WILL GET A
> HEARING?
>
> Either it is something that should apply to all projects and consequently
> it is a board issue or it is en.wp only. When it is en.wp only, the policy
> is either not carefully thought through or it should not be a board issue
> in the first place.\
>
> The time to reconsider the application from a project level did come and
> has gone REALLY
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> On 16 June 2014 19:32, Tomasz W. Kozlowski  wrote:
>
>> Stephen LaPorte writes:
>>
>> > We would like to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>> > has approved an amendment to Section 4 of the Terms of Use to require
>> > disclosure of paid editing.
>>
>> There is a proposal on Wikimedia Commons that aims to opt-out that project
>> from the amendment, given the huge differences between Commons and the
>> English Wikipedia, at which the amendment was targeted.
>>
>> Feedback and comments are welcome at
>> <
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Alternative_
>> paid_contribution_disclosure_policy>
>>
>> Tomasz
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Growth (formerly E3) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Growth/June_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/May_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Tilman Bayer]

(This press release is also available online here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Airtel_Offers_Nigerians_Free_Access_to_Wikipedia
 )

*Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*

   - *Customers to Access Multilingual Content Free of Data Charges*
   - *Restates Commitment to Educational Development, Youth Empowerment*

*Lagos, Nigeria, Thursday, May 29th, 2014*: Leading telecommunications
services provider, Airtel Nigeria, has announced a strategic partnership
with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia, to
offer their consumers across the country access to Wikipedia through their
mobile phones free of data charges.

The initiative, which is first of its kind in Nigeria, is dubbed Wikipedia
Zero, and it is aimed at reaching and empowering billions of people around
the world whose access to the Internet is primarily through a mobile
device. Airtel Nigeria subscribers can access Wikipedia free of data
charges at m.wikipedia.org.

With the new partnership, Airtel will help deliver knowledge and
information of Wikipedia to 21 million of new users in the West African
region. Speaking on the new partnership, Chief Commercial Officer, Airtel
Nigeria, Maurice Newa, said the initiative is in line with the company’s
corporate vision of becoming Nigeria’s number one Internet Company, saying
the new service will help connect Nigerians with relevant knowledge and
information that will empower them to succeed in their personal and
professional endeavors.

“We are excited with our partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and we
will continue to provide innovative solutions that will uplift Nigerians in
line with our brand promise of becoming the most loved brand in the daily
lives of Nigerians,” he said. “At Airtel, we are passionate and committed
to creating solid educational and youth empowerment platforms that will
enrich and transform the lives of telecoms consumers across the country.”

“We commend Airtel Nigeria for taking a leadership role in empowering their
society through information access, and we’re thrilled to partner with
them,” said Carolynne Schloeder, Head of Mobile Partnerships at the
Wikimedia Foundation. “Expanding Wikipedia Zero to the people of Nigeria is
a big step forward for free knowledge in Africa.”


About Bharti Airtel

Bharti Airtel Limited is a leading global telecommunications company with
operations in 20 countries across Asia and Africa. Headquartered in New
Delhi, India, the company ranks amongst the top 4 mobile service providers
globally in terms of subscribers. In India, the company's product offerings
include 2G, 3G and 4G wireless services, mobile commerce, fixed line
services, high speed DSL broadband, IPTV, DTH, enterprise services
including national & international long distance services to carriers. In
the rest of the geographies, it offers 2G, 3G wireless services and mobile
commerce. Bharti Airtel had over 297 million customers across its
operations at the end of April 2014. To know more please visit,
www.airtel.com


About the Wikimedia Foundation

http://wikimediafoundation.org
http://wikipediazero.org
http://blog.wikimedia.org

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix,
Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation
receive 500 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most
popular web property world-wide (comScore, August 2013). Available in 287
languages, Wikipedia contains more than 29 million articles contributed by
a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people. Based in San
Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3)
charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact:

Communications, Wikimedia Foundation
+1 415-839-6885 ext 6633 jwa...@wikimedia.org

(To be unsubscribed from this press release distribution list, please reply 
with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line)___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, February 2014

[Tilman Bayer]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:09 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>> Revenue for the month of January is $3.42MM versus plan of $0.01MM,
> approximately $3.41MM or 58,335% over plan.
>> Year-to-date revenue is $38.17MM versus plan of $45.04MM, approximately
> $6.87MM or 15% under plan.
>
> Can we please use the word "fiscal" if we don't mean calendar year?
>
I added a wikilink to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/year-to-date .
It's a standard expression in this context, always referring to the
fiscal year. I think inventing a new one specifically for the
Foundation's reports would add rather than reduce confusion.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi Cristian,

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Cristian Consonni
 wrote:
> 2014-04-18 0:46 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk :
>> * There is a specific need, a conference we could support, a developer
>> event or something we could help out with. There is a clear goal, and it is
>> one-time. We have a clear benefit. For example: helping OTRS to become less
>> messy.
>
> [OT]
> As a Wikimedia list moderator (just a couple, the Wiki Loves Monuments
> ones) I am ready to pay gold for anything that would reduce the amount
> of spam in the queues be it a better spam filter, a system to delete
> spam from multiple lists at once, magic or whatever!
>
> Cristian
> p.s.: "pay gold" is a figure of speech, but I would definitely
> personally support such a project!

yeah, as moderator on some other lists, I share your feelings about
spam. Note though that SpamAssassin is already running in our Mailman
installation and generating spam scores for mailing list messages,
just not actively discarding them based on these scores. A few weeks
ago, Daniel from Ops wrote up some documentation on how you can
activate that for your list as a list admin:

https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lists.wikimedia.org#Fighting_spam_in_mailman

The current blocker is that it is generating some false positives,
i.e. someone would need to spend time to tweak and test the settings:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56525

So it looks we have to some of our own homework first here. But if it
turns out that there are limitations in SpamAssassin which we could
help them overcome to make it more effective for our purposes, that
might be a very good use of donor money.

(As an example concerning your suggestion for "a system to delete spam
from multiple lists at once": I'm not sure if SpamAssassin is
currently integrated with Mailman in a way that enables it to learn
from list moderator actions immediately. See e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpamAssassin#Bayesian_filtering
http://www.jamesh.id.au/articles/mailman-spamassassin/ --> "The Future" )

> [OT]
>

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] neologisms

[Tilman Bayer]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:35 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

...
>
> Where is the "learning patterns library" mentioned at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/April_2014
> ?
>

At https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library
- which was actually linked at the first occurrence of the therm.
There is a blog post with a fuller explanation here:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/learning-patterns-new-way-share-important-lessons/

In general, please be aware that these quarterly review minutes are
live notes from internal meetings which are provided, only slightly
edited, on an as-is basis for transparency reasons - rather than
purposefully crafted as an accessible documentation about a topic. As
the note on top says: "Consider referring to the presentation slides,
blog posts, press releases and other official material". I am
certainly trying to add explanatory links and include parenthetical
remarks as I go along, such as I did in the above case (and it's great
to know that you and other people are actually reading them and can
benefit from such links, that makes it worthwhile adding them). But
it's a lightweight editorial effort. If the goal was to ensure that
those minutes - and the slides - are as accessible as say, a blog post
about the topic or a documentation page on Meta, it would require much
more time.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Grantmaking department are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking/April_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

[Tilman Bayer]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
>
> Your link to
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
> in [1], which is cited in turn at [2], is dead, and archive.org won't show
> me what it used to be for some reason.
Just on a technical note, I can access this URL without problem, which
should be the IA's capture closest to the time when Geoff linked to
the page in his talk page comment (7 June 2012):
https://web.archive.org/web/20120618214851/http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html

>
> Do you please have a current link for the IRS regulations concerning
> political advocacy by nonprofits?
>
> Also, do you think it would be a good idea to make an annotated version for
> those of us wondering what is and is not allowed when recommending advocacy
> actions in support of volunteer quality of life to Foundation officials?
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
> James Salsman
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AAPG%2FFunds_Dissemination_Committee%2FFramework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC&diff=3815742&oldid=3815636#Some_notes_and_remarks_from_Pavel
>
> [2]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas#Political_advocacy:_We_ensure_our_views_are_known_to_politicians_who_threaten_our_values
> .
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Analytics team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/March_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] New comprehensive overview of ongoing WMF work (Re: WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation)

[Tilman Bayer]

lly
> who's supposed to answer them. It might also be worth me saying that
> we won't have unlimited time for the process, and we're hoping it will
> be broadly participatory rather than being dominated by a small number
> of people. That means that if any particular person has lots of
> questions and follow-ups, we may eventually be unable to keep
> responding. If that happens to you, please don't be insulted -- it
> won't be personal. Also, if questions are asked and you know the
> answers (or can link to answers or more information) please feel free
> to help each other as well: you don't need to wait for us.
>
> Third. You should know -- the WMF is not asking the FDC to recommend a
> dollar allocation for the WMF to the WMF Board for approval. Partly
> that's because from a timing perspective there's no good way to make
> it work. The WMF Board needs to approve the plan by 1 July 2014 when
> the new fiscal year begins, and the FDC input is released 1 June. That
> month-long window doesn't leave sufficient time for the WMF to
> adequately incorporate a dollar amount recommendation from the FDC
> into our cycle, particularly given that the window needs to also
> include WMF Board approval. Ultimately, I think it's fine that the WMF
> Board would approve a dollar amount from the WMF rather than the FDC:
> I think the most important function the FDC can play here is to help
> the WMF to evaluate and assess the strength of the plan overall. And
> so, I've asked the FDC to i) provide input on the plan on the WMF's
> proposal page during the community review period (the month of April),
> ii) give the WMF formal feedback (reinforcement, support, suggestions,
> concerns) on 8 May, and iii) if it chooses to, give a more full and
> detailed assessment of the WMF plan as part of its overall package of
> recommendations on 1 June. Any June assessment will not be received in
> time to significantly influence the plan upon which the Board votes,
> but we would take it under advisement as the year plays out. This is
> perhaps not ideal but there is no perfect solution, and I think it's a
> step forward from last year, because it'll mean the WMF gets community
> and FDC input at the point in the process when it will be most
> influential.
>
> I am really pleased to have the WMF participating for the first time
> with its full draft plan in the FDC process. The draft will be posted
> within the next 24 hours, and your input is welcome from then until 30
> April. We look forward to hearing what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

The minutes and slides from Friday's quarterly review meeting of the
Parsoid team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Parsoid/March_2014
.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
> Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
> Foundation's VisualEditor team are now available at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor/March_2014
>
> (A separate but related quarterly review meeting of the Parsoid team
> took place today, those minutes should be up on Monday.)
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's VisualEditor team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor/March_2014

(A separate but related quarterly review meeting of the Parsoid team
took place today, those minutes should be up on Monday.)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi Craig,

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Craig Franklin
 wrote:
>
> In addition to Risker's comments, which I agree with 100%, I would further
> request that any future survey of users be designed and supervised only by
> someone with extensive expertise and experience in the field of survey
> methodology.  Many previous surveys that have been done by the Foundation
> have, despite a lot of hard work and effort put into them, suffered from
> methodological flaws, either in the form of the questions asked or the way
> that the user sample was selected.  The results have therefore not only
> been useless in some cases, but in some cases actually misleading and thus
> potentially damaging to the movement.

Agree about the importance of careful survey design. But, without
revisiting the dispute about the question in previous editor surveys
that asked Wikimedians to rate the performance of Wikimedia chapters,
which I know well you had concerns about, let me point out that the
Foundation's 2011 reader survey and the two 2011 editor surveys (whose
questionnaires and methodology were largely reused in the 2012 editor
survey) were designed and supervised by a PhD with extensive
experience in quantitative and qualitative research, who had been
conducting surveys in several countries even before she joined WMF. Of
course that doesn't mean that the questionnaire and methodology can't
be criticized or improved in each case - I recall that community
feedback about specific issues led to various improvements - , just
wanted to set the record straight.

>
>
> This is something that the Foundation has gotten better at over the years,
> and since we're on the topic it's something I'd like them to stick to!
>
Thanks, and please do continue to hold WMF to high standards ;)

> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
> On 13 March 2014 21:32, Risker  wrote:
>
> > On 13 March 2014 05:13, James Salsman  wrote:
> >
> > > > Is there ... an explanation which explains what it all means?
> > >
> > > It's an attempted improvement on the policy survey at
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey
> > >
> > > "A survey about the importance of various policy issues ... given the
> > > highest priority by our community."
> > >
> > > If you are having trouble working the preference ballot at
> > > http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft
> > > then please try the demonstration, instructions, and background
> > > material at http://demochoice.org/
> > >
> > > The ranked-preference ballot makes respondents consider choices
> > > pairwise, which has an accuracy advantage over approval (yes or no to
> > > each) or Likert scale (e.g. 1 "strongly agree" to 5 "strongly
> > > disagree") responses when respondents are not familiar with all the
> > > options. Approval on an issues survey can have problems with
> > > relatively disproportionate numbers of responses with only a few
> > > options or all or almost all options selected, and the Likert scale
> > > gets fewer responses on issues less familiar to respondents than
> > > ranking.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > James
> > >
> > > ___
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't think this would be a very useful survey, and I would not
> > participate in it.  The shopping list of causes - many of which have little
> > or no correlation with anything even vaguely related to the operation of
> > the WMF, its core philosophies, or its purpose - is very americo-centric.
> > Just as importantly, it says that 12 topics will be "elected".  Elected for
> > what?  Why 12 of them?  What about if lots of people think one of these
> > topics is really important, but for different reasons?
> >
> > Mostly, thoughthis just really feels like it is trying to take the
> > Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core
> > objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group.  I'm not
> > interested in that.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> > _______
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More new editors?

[Tilman Bayer]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
>
> Asaf Bartov, 07/03/2014 22:49:
>
>> Another version of this that has been tried by WMF, more similar to
>> Charles's second suggestion, is documented here:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geo-targeted_Editors_Participation/report
>
>
> Uh. Thanks for linking. Being on en.wiki, basically orphan and uncategorised, 
> it's impossible to find.
>
> Nemo
>
It was also summarized a bit later in this blog post:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/02/english-wikipedia-editor-pilot-philippines/


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Wikipedia Zero team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/March_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Friday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Growth team are now available at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Growth/February_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from this week's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Core features team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Core_features/February_2014

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/February_2014

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Tilman Bayer]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
>>
>> Add to this the complexity that several barnstars are subst:ed rather
>> than transcluded -- but not all -- and you end up with a completely
>> intractable problem.
>>
>
> Bah humbug.
>
>

Quite a few researchers have published quantitative analyses of barnstars, e.g.:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/July#cite_ref-7
(analyzed 21,299 barnstars awarded to 14,074 editors on the English
Wikipedia)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/August#Briefly
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012-04-30#Recognition_may_sustain_user_participation

Yes, some of them could probably have enhanced their datasets by
taking e.g. talk page archiving into account, but I wouldn't rule out
the possibility that they still achieved a good approximation.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes, slides and graphs from Wednesday's quarterly review of the
Foundation's Growth (formerly Editor Engagement Experiments) team are
now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Growth/December_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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
>
...

>
> 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from Tuesday's quarterly review of the Foundation's
Multimedia team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Multimedia/December_2013
.


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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
>
>
...
>
> 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
>




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How lovely live communication works worldwide

[Tilman Bayer]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Manuel Schneider
 wrote:
...
> We use BBB regularly for our staff and board meetings, weekly meetings
> with 4 - 5 participants. Works great.
> The biggest issues are people not having connected their mic or adjusted
> their mixer properly or not using a headset at all, causing background
> noises and echos. But no solution, neither Skype nor Mumble, can fix that.
>
Many solutions fix that using echo cancellation
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoconferencing#Echo_cancellation ).

According to 
http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2012/10/15/the-long-journey-towards-good-free-video-conferencing/
, the lack of good free echo cancellation code used to be the most
critical problem for free videoconferencing software. ("good echo
cancellation  is required in order to avoid having an ugly echo
effect when trying to use your laptop built-in speakers and microphone
for a call. So people have been forced to use a headset to make things
work reasonably well. This was a quite hard issue to solve as there
was neither any great open source code available which implemented
echo cancellation or a good way to hook it into the system.")

That post goes on to say that the issue was mitigated last year when
"Google ended up releasing a quite good echo cancellation algorithm as
part of their WebRTC effort." I don't know if Mumble or BBB have since
made use of that, though.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How lovely live communication works worldwide

[Tilman Bayer]

Note that this solution is still based on proprietary software, in that it
requires users to install a Flash plugin.

It would be interesting to learn about the experiences of Wikimedia France,
who has been replacing Skype with the entirely free Mumble, according to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange .


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:42 PM, David Cuenca  wrote:

> Jan, please report the issues that you had to the maintainer of the
> instance or directly to:
> http://bigbluebutton.org/
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Jan Ainali 
> wrote:
>
> > We just did. Too many were not able to log in.
> >
> >
> > *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
> >
> > Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <
> http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida
> > >
> > 0729 - 67 29 48
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/12/3 David Cuenca 
> >
> > > Maybe try this one?
> > > http://videoconf.wikimedia.ch/
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Micru
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Romaine Wiki 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Somehow, I don't know how we get that happen, almost every time we
> use
> > > > live communication to communicate about projects to enrich and
> improve
> > > the
> > > > Wikimedia projects, something goes wrong in the communication.
> Besides
> > > the
> > > > usual problems of connecting to the internet, a lot of software
> issues
> > > > occur, then we have a microphone of someone that doesn't work in only
> > one
> > > > software programme, while it works in others, or we don't get sound
> out
> > > of
> > > > the programme, programmes that need an account but refuse you to sign
> > up.
> > > > From Google Hangout, Skype to Mumble, all have issues.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be lovely to have a piece of software maybe hosted
> by
> > > WMF
> > > > that works for everyone to enable everyone to participate. Currently
> > > users
> > > > are excluded because of insufficient software and it takes too much
> > time
> > > to
> > > > get everything working. The key of the Wikimedia projects is that
> > > everyone
> > > > can participate, besides when it comes to live communication.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > > Romaine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the quarterly review of the Foundation's
Grantmaking and Program Evaluation teams are now available at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking_and_Program_Evaluation/October_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the third quarterly review of the Foundation's
VisualEditor and Parsoid teams are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor-Parsoid/November_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the third quarterly review of the Foundation's
Mobile Contributions team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions/October_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Overloaded with CentralNotices (Tilman Bayer)

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi Jane,

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> @Sue, I understand the idea behind doing this and applaud the idea -
> it would be so much easier to make strategy decisions in WMNL if we
> had more input from more involved people in the Dutch Wikipedia
> community. I get that it is really a conflict of interest for WMNL
> insiders to be the only ones to comment and approve the funds request
> made by WMNL insiders. The problem with this central sitenotice, as
> Romaine pointed out, is that it is in English and points to the WMNL
> fund request in English.
>
Actually, the banners are available in Dutch, and Romaine had said so
as well. If you see them in English, one possible reason could be that
your browser's interface language is set to English.

The main (global) FDC banner has been translated into over 70
languages, and the general community review page that it points to is
available in over 10 languages:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/FDC_portal/Proposals/Community/Review
.

Comments on the funding requests can be made in languages other than
English, too. As for the funding requests themselves, yes, they are in
English. I guess it would be too much of a burden for the either
fund-seeking organizations or volunteer translators to provide the
entire proposal form in several languages. But one idea for the future
might be to make at least the shorter "overview" section of each
request translatable (e.g.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Nederland/Proposal_form#Overview_of_grant_request
).

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Overloaded with CentralNotices

[Tilman Bayer]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> hi,
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Romaine Wiki 
>  wrote:
>
>> The reason why I wrote is not to blame anyone, but to promote thinking of
>> other ways to communicate to the local communities.
>
>
>
> I'm skeptical, if a general banner is the best idea, too. Since quite
> likely only the more active WIkipedia users will comment on the FDC
> process, going to the Village Pump on local projects would be probably
> equally effective.

Yes, sending out messages to village pumps is an option that we
considered as well (using Global Message Delivery). However, based on
my experience there is no doubt that this would have been considerably
less effective.  There is a lot of active users who don't frequent
village pumps (or mailing lists) at all. To consider a concrete
example we may recall from the FDC's own history, the call for
volunteers that led to the formation of the initial committee was
first announced via a global message to village pumps in July 2012,
and then promoted with a CentralNotice banner (to logged-in users) in
August. In July it received 766 pageviews, in August it was 11,123.
(http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/201208/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Call_for_Volunteers
)

Of course it is to some degree a political decision how much normal
editors should be integrated into the decisionmaking process about
this donation money, and as such not mine to make. I do think that for
proposals that plan to spend money on supporting the local editing
community in their work, members of that community have special
expertise when it comes to assessing on how effective the planned
measures might be.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-ambassadors] Overloaded with CentralNotices

[Tilman Bayer]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Konstantinos Stampoulis
 wrote:
> 2013/10/29 Dan Garry 
>>
>> How would you suggest we tackle this problem?
>>
>
> Echo can be a good alternative.
> Imagine a new notification for every user, a "global notice" (not a talk
> page message)
> This can be sent to registered users, with its own icon, a notification
> message with text simillar to what it would be included in a banner, and
> linking to the relevant page (instead of own talk page etc).
> So, every user will get it only once, but he can go back to it by clicking
> the notifications icon.
>
> mockup: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Echo-centralnotice.png
>

Yes, that could be a great idea, in particular when combined with some
kind of topic-specific opt-in and opt-out.

There has been quite a bit of thinking about technical solutions to
this kind of problem, including hope that Echo and/or Flow could play
a role in them. See e.g. the material at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Movement_broadcasting , in particular
the linked Wikimania presentations from this year (by Andrew Gray) and
last year (by myself).


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Overloaded with CentralNotices

[Tilman Bayer]

about them that is coming to my attention.

> This time several users got a notice in English what was perceived disturbing.
>
All the FDC banners contain a link inviting to add missing
translations (the global banner has been translated into >70
languages), but at least for major languages like Dutch, the intention
is indeed to get them translated before they go live. As you said
yourself on the De Kroeg, this banner was available in Dutch when it
came live yesterday.

> Also they experience getting banners as not interesting for Wikipedia.
>
> As bonus I personally and other users have experienced that clicking away a 
> banner made the banner appear again within the hour visiting other pages. I 
> had that at least four times on a project, on several projects. Re-appeasring 
> after being clicked away is useless and disturbing.

Yes, that should not happen. The banners rely on a cookie to store
this user choice. A possible reason could be that the cookie got lost
e.g. when the browser was restarted, or it might be a bug.

>
> Also it is annoying that I need to click the same banners away on each 
> project I visit, many users visit Wikipedia, but also work on Commons, 
> Wikidata, etc.
>
I agree, that's something worth looking into - I assume it would need
additional technical work.
>
> I think the the CentralNotice should be redesigned or the CentralNotice will 
> loose it effectiveness. Something is really going wrong.
>
>
> Romaine
>
> (tech ambassador for nl Wikipedia)
>
> _______
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the third quarterly review of the Foundation's
Editor engagement experiments (E3) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editor_engagement_experiments/September_2013
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updates on VE data analysis

[Tilman Bayer]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:52 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

>
> For example, why are you not providing a daily version of the hourly
> graph at http://ee-dashboard.wmflabs.org/graphs/enwiki_ve_hourly_by_ui
> ?
Note that if you are interested in VE edits per user type instead,
http://ee-dashboard.wmflabs.org/graphs/enwiki_ve_hourly_perc_by_user_type
already offers a smoothing option (click the spanner icon on the top
left), which can be set to 24 hours or more.

Everyone who previously cited (or relied on) information from draft
versions of the analysis on Meta should read the updates that Dario
has linked, because that information may have become obsolete.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Tilman Bayer]

Minutes and slides from the second quarterly review meeting of the
VisualEditor and Parsoid team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/VisualEditor-Parsoid/July_2013

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller  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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The most controversial topics in Wikipedia: A multilingual and geographical analysis

[Tilman Bayer]

; time needed to draft and prepare a study, this gap may very well be
> unavoidable, but it certainly made me raise an eyebrow.
>
> One final comment I had from briefly reading the study was that in the
> past few years we've made good strides in making research like this
> easier. Not that computing cryptographic hashes is particularly intensive,
> but these days we now store such hashes directly in the database (though
> we store SHA-1 hashes, not MD5 hashes as the study used). Storing these
> hashes in the database saves researchers the need to compute the hashes
> themselves and allows MediaWiki and other software the ability to easily
> and quickly detect full reverts.
>
> MZMcBride
>
> P.S. Noting that this study is still a draft, I happened to notice a small
> typo on page nine: "We tried to a as diverse as possible sample including
> West European [...]". Hopefully this can be corrected before formal
> publication.
>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

[Tilman Bayer]

I'd like to hijack this thread a bit to advertise
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:YouTube_files , for cases
when one sees a freely licensed video on YouTube that ought to be on
Commons too. With WebM available both  on YouTube (as one of several
download formats, for many videos) and on Commons (as upload format),
the transfer has become a lot easier, eliminating the time-consuming
conversion with ffmpeg2theora etc. And since earlier this year, the
chunked upload option on Commons allows uploading files beyond the
earlier 100MB limit (up to 500 MB currently).

It's admittedly offtopic here,  as in this case the video was
available both on Commons and on YT from the beginning, as Tomasz and
Victor have said. But for example I have noticed that some chapters
are uploading event videos to YT or Vimeo only, and it's also useful
for Google Hangout recordings, like those of the monthly metrics &
activities meetings.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
 wrote:
> Hi,
> it came to my attention very recently that a link to a YouTube video has
> been included in our fundraising banners[1] last year, enabling people by
> default to watch a video about Wikipedia loaded through a YouTube 
> element.
>
> There's been a small discussion about this on IRC, and I've been asked to
> seek the opinion of the wider community on this matter, which I hope to
> achieve by starting a thread on this list.
>
> I wonder how the solution used in the banners reflects on our values,
> especially since we prefer to use a proprietary service over our own
> Wikimedia Commons, and effectively invite our users to expose their data
> (such as their IP address) to an external website (because no one's going to
> read the small information about YouTube privacy policy).
>
> I am told that there are technical limitations behind the decision to prefer
> YouTube over Commons, but I'm not really convinced about that; I generally
> think that we should not include links to websites that can track our users
> in our banners, and YouTube (as well as websites that use Google Analytics
> for statistical purposes) definitely falls under that definition.
>
> [On an unrelated note, it might be worth pointing out that the video on
> YouTube is listed as CC-BY and as CC-BY-SA on Commons, which introduces
> confusion and might lead to creation of derivative works that are released
> without the ShareAlike clause, which - I believe - it's not what the author
> of the video was after.]
>
> == References ==
> * [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?banner=B12_1227_ThankYou_5pillars&forceBannerDisplay=true
>
>   Tomasz
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>