Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Design Group

Thanks for the update(s). The report on the first meeting initially appeared on Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition. I like the compiled list at Strategy/2030/Office Hours/Transition/List of Initiatives. Work on at least one item (number 16) has already started, so somehow, someone was capable of prioritizing, and getting something done. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Ad Huikeshoven: thanks for your dedicated follow up and constant feedback. I would like to clarify that the actual prioritization of the initiatives is supposed to take place at the Transition events in September - November. The Design Group did the exercise themselves not to come up with the result, but to experiment with the process (which is why the prioritization they did was, mostly at least, not included in the summary).

Based on the work from that session (and brainstorming from session 1), there has been more concrete discussion and work in the Session 3 last thursday. A summary of the 3rd session is now available, if you're interested --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC).

Thanks @Abbad (WMF). The other day I tried to prioritize the complete list of initiatives to my preferences. That took me a full hour. Just telling. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Superfluous right brackets

In the caption under the image two right brackets appear, and they are superfluous. Can they be removed without removing the image? @Abbad (WMF): Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Huikeshoven: It was an issue of translation tags. Fixed and thanks! --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Time frames

Please heed the message and not the messenger. I hope that the way that this came about is not setting a trend. I'm interested in what the importance of this process is for the overall movement - and who is driving it. A window of 20 days for nominations, and another window of 10 days for feedback just 3 months later, with no clear request for inputs inbetween, especially during a year like we've had, is sure to be missed by the majority of Wikimedians - and it was even missed by everyone in our chapter as evidenced by the lack of any mention in our committee meeting minutes, for example. Without any criticism at the work done, this makes it seem like this is just an insignificant part of the overall movement strategy. In my experience the majority of Wikimedians need at least 6 months to become aware of something. 3 Months if something is being pushed hard. If you want to "sneak something past" do it in under 3 months... but don't expect buy in. So the small timeframes involved here make it seem like this is unimportant. The committee might be diverse in some areas, but not others. I would've liked to see a much longer time frame to have felt included and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. In fact, I would like to see a Wikimedia-wide survey of acceptable timeframes perhaps ranked by reach of the effects of a change. Is the plan here to "go fast" or to "go far" as the proverb goes? AFAIK it's the later. The wisdom to accomplish that is "go together"... and in the context of Wikimedia it means "wait for everyone". Not just the salaried employees who get paid to drive what they drive every day, but also the thousands of volunteers who may only have a weekend every month, or perhaps even less, but who also care deeply. Not to mention the chapter volunteers who need time for diffusion and feedback within their own communities. Dagelf (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dagelf: Thank you so much for sharing this perspective. Hoping to address some of the points below (execuse the bullet point, just added for clarity):

• The Strategy process has been a long one and has been largely shaped by the complexities of the Wikimedia movement, which is something more needed than ever with the difficulties brought about by the current global situation.
• Kindly note, though, that the current phase of movement Strategy has been going on for significantly over three months: the final recommendations were publicly shared in May 2020, and the "planning phase" for implementation started soon afterwards. While cautious of rushing it, we are also conscious that prolonging it too much may cause the loss of invaluable momentum and energy around a lengthy and a challenging process.
• There's definitely a need for some sort of timeline that can make us get where we need to, but that can also be hopefully adaptable to "wait for everyone" and "get us together". Accordingly, and has happened before in this process, the timeline for the current phase is being adjusted to run through early next year (instead of wrapping up by the end of this year).
• The current aim is to deliver a draft implementation plan for movement Strategy by the end of January 2021, which will be later the basis to kick off the implementation of Strategy in 2021-22. Nevertheless, we think it makes sense to already start having the conversation around Strategy on a global level in November through December, so that we can keep the building on the energy from earlier this year as well as from dozens of meetings and conversations that have been happening.
• As for the engagement around the events outline, we tried to maximize outreach although we had no liaisons or assigned people to reach out across different languages and platforms. While we have aimed to engage where possible, we are conscious that the outline was more of a "plan for a plan" (i.e. a plan of how to create the movement strategy implementation plan): hence, it may have been on a level that's less interesting for many communities and volunteers, already impacted by the global conditions and with a limited time capacity to be able to participate.

I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lengthy response I'm happy to hear further your suggestions or follow up --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC).