@Garfield - I would love to hear what sort of community feedback you are hoping for; and what you would ideally get out of it. Was this past week's input helpful? Are you looking for additional feedback over the coming weeks?
Liam writes: > It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following > the rules that it sets for others, itself. This is not only good, but necessary, if we want any sort of coordination of planning and strategy across the movement. This year's plan was much later than expected — the first draft shared a week ago — motivated by recent changes in senior staff and plans, particularly shifts in engineering and the creation of the community engagement department. As all have noted, this leaves little time for public or board feedback, and less for dialogue about that feedback. I suspect a draft plan 2 months earlier would have been very useful *all the same*, even knowing it was bound to change due to the reorganization. This highlights a basic problem with having static annual plans in a quickly changing environment. I thought we would move away from the 'static annual' planning model this year, and this still seems to be the intent, just delayed. I hope the current plan draft will be the last to follow the old model, and plan updates will become more flexible and frequent this year. In that case, we can still aim to get public and expert thoughtfully, say by mid-July, specifically inviting input from affiliates and community projects that have excellent goals and plans. Then this feedback can guide the implementation of the plan from July on, and guide the development of any mid-year update of the plan. Regardless of the deadline mentioned on the publication page, the Board is discussing the plan at its monthly meeting on June 11, and will review a summary of community feedback as of June 9. [The board approval vote is indeed at the end of June, but by the time the board meets to review that, it is an up-or-down vote with no time for revision.] Pine writes: > It does make sense to me that there would be at least a month between > publication of the full draft plan, including the documentation requested More data & detail is needed, even for this draft. But given how late everything was, I appreciate that things were published for the community as soon as they were available, despite being in a draft state. > I think that the WMF audit committee or the WMF Board might be in a better > position than the FDC to do a thorough review of the plan, including > holding public Hangout meetings in which the plan is discussed, much like > how government legislative bodies review proposed budgets in public. A fine idea. Let's try it and see how it works: a public discussion, inviting a set of voiced participants & making a stream available to all, even if some invitees cannot make it. The third week of June would fit the current compressed schedule. Such a public discussion would also be a chance to make [more] connections between WMF planning and movement strategy. 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>
