It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try talking to the Fundraising Team.
Is it time to rename Teams to something else, something that suggests that they don't work in a cave on the Moon? -- svetlana On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 08:32, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Lila, > > Thanks for your response. In the past, fundraising was more of a > collaborative effort - maybe it would make sense to rethink the fundraising > process after this round, and see how the community can be made co-own the > process, so that the work of the team becomes easier, and friction less. I > think that would be a way to solve a lot of the hurdles we're encountering > right now. > > Best, > Lodewijk > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Ryan Lane <rlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lila Tretikov <lila@...> writes: > > > > > > > > This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are > > > thinking about other options. But, as with anything, "every action has > > > equal and opposite reaction". Anything we do, we have to consider the > > > consequences and we will find flaws. > > > > > > Now for the specifics: > > > > > > Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust > > to > > > changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are > > > multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size, > > > parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation. > > > Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also > > > use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is > > > counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they > > > work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the > > > overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased > > 3rd > > > party to do some of this analysis. > > > > > > > I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you > > share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the > > methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated > > data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage. > > > > Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're > > saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong. > > > > - Ryan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
