Talk:Advisory Board

Note: Content was formerly housed at advisory: wiki

Everything produced by the advisory board seems directly relevant to the heart of strategic planning. Yet they have not yet been indicated in the SP discussions to date, nor have I seen Advisors directly engaged in the planning process yet. This sort of disconnect across the core pieces of a small meta-organization speaks to the fundamental Inefficiency and Ownership fallacies implicit in wanting to design and carry out a new solution to an old problem. -- sj | translate | + 11:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advisors have been listed as important stakeholders from the beginning. A few advisors have already been on strategy; I expect to see more in the coming weeks. I've spoken personally with several, and the Bridgespan Group has been scheduling interviews with every member of the Advisory Board, with summaries of their conversations to be posted on the strategy Wiki. Nowhere on the Wiki or in any of the discussions have I or anyone else suggested that these be the only ways that we engage with the Advisory Board or anyone else. We have an outreach page for brainstorming other ideas to broaden outreach. --Eekim 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life status[edit]

Just wondering whether that AB thing is still alive. --Base (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Base, I'm going to guess that there is still a pulse judging by the most recent edit on the WMF page. Perhaps that content should be mirrored here? Green Giant (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest simply linking across. There are discrepancies, though. This version of the page mentions Angela Beesley Starline as chair, who appears in neither of the lists of current or former members at wmf:Advisory Board. This Meta page would more logically be where members of the Advisory Board communicate with the projects, as is done here on Meta at Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard: see the comment below. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community link[edit]

Is there a designated mechanism for the community to communicate with the Advisory Board? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are welcome to leave input for the advisors on the board noticeboard, however. –SJ talk 22:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather strange advice, considering that the Advisory Board lapsed some time in 2015. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever the WMF operates a site that cannot be accessed, the front page should clearly explain what the site is, who qualifies for access, and how to request access.[edit]

I have been looking at various WMF-owned pages as part of a series of tests that I am doing to see how many barriers we have put up for blind people using screen readers.

While doing this I ran into a project page that should be fixed, but I cannot request that is be fixed on that page because the problem that should be fixed prevents me from reporting the problem on that page.

Whenever the WMF operates a site that cannot be accessed, the front page should clearly explain what the site is, who qualifies for access, and how to request access.

[ https://advisory.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ] says

"This wiki has moved to Meta:Advisory Board and has been closed."

...which leads to [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board ], which is fine.

On the other hand, [ https://advisors.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ] says:

Welcome! For more information, visit the Community Portal.

...but the Community Portal that it tells you to visit doesn't contain any information other than a "Login required" page. Again, whenever the WMF operates a site that cannot be accessed, the front page should clearly explain what the site is, who qualifies for access, and how to request access.

If advisors.wikimedia.org is active (I can't tell because I cannot access it) then that page needs a better explanation about what it is and why an ordinary user cannot access it.

If advisors.wikimedia.org is not active, then it should be closed in the same manner that advisory.wikimedia.org was. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]