On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocrist...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 2015-05-28 11:42 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com>: > > The WMF talks about "eating your own dog food"[2] in terms of > engineering, > > but it would be good if something similar would take place in the annual > > planning too... Chapters are required to submit their annual plans to a > two > > *month* period of quite thorough public review before the FDC gives its > > recommendations, and then there's a further period before the actual > > decision/appeals.[3] > Agreed. In the first place, the problems with such a heavy process of review are felt by all participating groups – including the burden of having to publish a draft budget so long before the start of the relevant year. Either this is a poor idea and all should find a better way, or the WMF should do it as well. > And also a little addition (from [1]): > «The FDC would like to encourage the WMF to share more data in > advance, and to do so publicly as much as possible. Very much agreed. > The Board may need to adjust the > calendar of FDC work, but allowing for a comprehensive review by a > committee from the community (such as the FDC) rather than the > Wikimedia Foundation itself is essential, especially in light of the > minimal feedback from the community on the public pages. > What do you think would be a reasonable sort of review? Lila has mentioned the idea of moving towards updated plans every 6 months, with detailed reports every quarter. I would welcome an FDC-style review of the 'latest published biannual plan + report', on any timescale that works for the FDC, assessing the same things that it does for all annual plans. A review of that sort in April or May would be timed well to influence the 'Annual Plan' discussion, even if it was a review of the published plan & report as of January, rather than the draft plan developed in April. How would current FDC members feel about this? Can we find a way to do this without obliging the current FDC members to do more work? [considering that there are others with similar experience in the movement] The WMF has high competencies in governance and in running a large > organization, and should be significantly more proactive in > disseminating its knowledge and supporting chapters and thematic > organizations through training, onboarding plans, and fostering > cross-chapter exchange. > Bearing in mind the size and budget of the new Community Engagement department, I'd be interested to see more specific suggestions here, or pointers to examples of this done well. > As it was already said above. I, personally, do think that we can > discuss about making some adjustments to the process to make it work > for an organisation of the size of the WMF, but I also would like to > see the WMF play along the rule of everybody else in the movement > (again, considering all the special need and characteristics of this). I think we can make it work. There are other movements with collaborative budgeting or community review that we can learn from. What sorts of adjustments do you have in mind? Sam _______________________________________________ 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>
