wikimedia-l | wikisource-l | meta | mediawiki | Phabricator | feedback

Plan and goals for the Wikimedia, the Foundation, the Affiliates and the movement, Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2016 Strategic Approaches Report


#1

Dear Wikimedians,

TL;DR: share your thougths on the future direction, plans and goals

In the past weeks dozens of people have shared their analysis and
unsolicited advice on many aspects. I really appreciate all of your
thorough thinking and careful wording in many long posts. While the HR
committee of the BoT and the BoT as a whole are busy contemplating who to
appoint as (interim) and would like to ask you to use your thoughtpower on
some specific forward looking items.

The strategy consultation for the Wikimedia Foundation 2016/2017 Annual
Plan attracted over 500 comments, most of them in rather short posts.1 A
report with findings from the community consultation has been published.2
There is a new call for a movement wide strategy. Please add your name and
share your thoughts and analysis.3

After ‘narrowing focus’ the two main ‘programs’ of the Wikimedia Foundation
are “tech” and “grant making”. After the last reorganization "grant making"
program has been renamed to “community”. The breakdown in the latest
financial reports4 preceded by the terms in the CtA and current AP5 is:
(1) Improve Technology & Execution: building the technological and
operating platform that enables the Foundation to function sustainably as a
top global Internet organization,
(2) Focus on Knowledge & Community: strengthening, growing, and increasing
diversity of the editing community, and
(3) Support Innovation & New Knowledge: accelerating impact by investing in
key geographic areas, mobile application development, and bottom-up
innovation,
all of which, to support Wikipedia and eight other wiki-based projects.
(Correct me when I made a mismatch between report and plan. Jaime
Villagomez, the new CFO can probably reflect on that, reaching out to Amy
to contact him. Amy can you ask Jaime to briefly introduce himself to this
list. His predecessor had a pivotal role in financial oversight of
affiliates.)

The current strategy consultation makes a breakdown into three areas:
(1) Reach
(2) Communities
(3) Knowlegde

Please share your thoughts and analysis and join the conversation. Who can
see a shift in strategy from the first to the second breakdown, and why?
What are the implications for staff, affiliates, the movement and
communities?

Do affiliates, especially funded chapters, have a breakdown in these three
categories reach, communities and knowledge? How relevant is this breakdown
for affiliates? Do you use these names for these programs, or other names?
What kind of programs have affiliates that fall not in one of these three
areas reach, communities or knowledge? APG funded affiliates are evaluated
based on the strategic priorities:6

  • Stabilize infrastructure

  • Increase participation

  • Improve quality

  • Increase reach

  • Encourage innovation

Reaching out to Liam Wyat and Anne/Risker from the FDC. Can you reflect on
shift in strategic priorities? How will APG funded affliliates be evaluated
regarding their programs? Will that continue to be on the list of strategic
priorities or might that be on the list of topic areas mentioned in the
strategy consultation, or something else?

Reaching out to Brion Vibber explicitly. Brion shared some long and
interesting posts last week and started a thread about what it means to be
a high tech organization. My question for Brion is to share his case why
the WMF should be a high tech organization. In the first breakdown above
tech(nology) is explicitly mentioned. Is the second breakdown as ‘developer
inclusive’ as the first breakdown? Or would technology assume a supportive
role to the leading programs reach, communities and knowledge?

When I read the current statements of mission, vision, values and guiding
principles I hardly get the impression the Wikimedia Foundation is a high
tech organization, or an organization which employs a lot of engineers and
developers. How should the mission, vision, values or guiding principles of
the Wikimedia Foundation be amended to give due weight to engineers and
developers? Could you elaborate on that Brion. Wes you are one of the
C-level staff. On this list people have suggested to appoint one of the
current C-level staff to (interim) ED. I have directed question about tech
to Brion and not you. Could you please introduce yourself?

Another C-level is more well known on this list and is currently CCO. We
know her qualities in communication. Dear Katherine, can you share with the
list your experience with, prior to Wikimedia, with not-for profit
management, building relationships with communities, and your experience
with innovation, ICT and fundraising? Anything missing on the wishlist for
an ED? Katherine, please share your thoughts on the strategic direction of
the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement in general.

Anyone who would rather see me, or him or herself, than Katherine as
(interim) ED? I don’t belief so. Correct me if I’m wrong. Someone called
for open hr recruiting on wikimedia-l. For some specific roles at the WMF
one of the requirements is to be able to join the conversation on
wikimedia-l. I’m with Jimmy that the Wikimedia Foundation is a great place
to work. And I’m with current staff who feel the place felt more like hell
hole. I’m considering myself to apply for a job. I have been at a 200 plus
employee institution that had the courage to battle a full board out,
including experience with a follow up healing process and reorganization.

Regards,

Ad Huikeshoven


#2

Reaching out to Brion Vibber explicitly. Brion shared some long and
interesting posts last week and started a thread about what it means to be
a high tech organization. My question for Brion is to share his case why
the WMF should be a high tech organization.

I would argue that it has been one its entire history, with much budget and
staff being in web site operations support and software development.
Whether that’s the best way to concentrate WMF resources or not is a
question I won’t try to answer myself here, but I believe we have a decade
of precedence.

In the first breakdown above
tech(nology) is explicitly mentioned. Is the second breakdown as
’developer
inclusive’ as the first breakdown? Or would technology assume a supportive
role to the leading programs reach, communities and knowledge?

I find all of these breakdowns to be vaguely worded corporatespeak and hard
to devise actions around.

When I read the current statements of mission, vision, values and guiding
principles I hardly get the impression the Wikimedia Foundation is a high
tech organization, or an organization which employs a lot of engineers and
developers. How should the mission, vision, values or guiding principles
of
the Wikimedia Foundation be amended to give due weight to engineers and
developers? Could you elaborate on that Brion.

Engineering does not exist for its own sake, but to accomplish some goal.

In other words, our mission/vision/values/guiding principles should not be
particularly focused on engineers it developers. They should focus on what
the movement wants to accomplish, and WMF’s job is to use technology and
other resources to make those things happen.

– brion