Sent from my iPhone
> On May 30, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @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> _______________________________________________ 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>
