2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>: > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who > are not involved with affiliates?
Hi Pine, I would like to give my view on this since extending the deadlines was the main feedback that I gave after the last phase of the consultation. I think it is extremely important that as many people as possible can weigh in on the process, so that they can, hopefully, identify with and support the output of the consultation, even if it might not fully reflect their own opinions. Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully, it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material available in the strategy process. By asking different members of the strategy team it became obvious that the delay was caused by organizational tasks, which should have been done before Cycle 2 begins, but the time was insufficient. Therefore, I believe that extending the timeline is a good idea - a cycle should only begin after it's been thoroughly prepared and outreach can begin from day 1. If the WMF team is efficient enough is a totally different question, on which I don't have an opinion. Strainu _______________________________________________ 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>
