Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Steering Committee/Notes/2017-02-03

3 February 2017: Community Process Steering Committee

Meeting A: 8 a.m. Pacific (4 p.m. UTC) (See conversion)

Meeting B: 2 p.m. Pacific (10 p.m. UTC) (See conversion)

Committee members:

• Risker, Canada, Individual contributor/Former ArbCom/Functionary/Election Committee/FDC
• Lucy Crompton-Reid, UK, Staff/ED of WMUK
• Bishakha Datta, India, Former WMF Board/FDC
• Florence Devouard, Former WMF Board/Individual contributor
• Nicole Ebber, Germany, Staff of WMDE
• Mykola Kozlenko, Ukraine, WMUA
• Dumisani Ndubane, South Africa, WMZA/Former FDC
• Sandra Rientjes, Netherlands, Staff/ED of WMNL
• Kaarel Vaidla, Estonia, Former ED of WMEE
• Liam Wyatt, Italy, Individual contributor/GLAM/FDC
• Andrea Zanni, Italy, Wikimedia Italy, Wikisource leader

In attendance

Meeting A

• Andrea Zanni, Sandra Rientjes, Nicole Ebber, Lucy Crompton-Reid
• Core Team: Guillaume, Suzie, Shannon, Ed
• CE Support: Jaime A (facilitator), Karen B (notes)

Meeting B

• Florence Devouard, Mykola Kozlenko, Kaarel Vaidla, Liam Wyatt
• Core Team: Guillaume, Suzie, Shannon, Ed
• CE Support: Jaime A (facilitator), Nick W (notes)

Agenda

HH:00 Welcome and Orientation: Following-up & Milestones Review

HH:10 Track A: Facilitator of Facilitators

HH:20 Prototype Review: Guided Discussion

HH:55 Wrap-up and Next Steps

HH:00 Welcome and Orientation: Following-up & Milestones Review

Task	Status
Core team will be collating this information to bring more to the committee next week.	Delayed until next week
Job Posting	Post is up and already have 25 applicants on the 3rd day
Input ideas to the channels brainstorm document

• January 20: The Committee holds the first to discuss design parameters for the two track processes (organized groups and individual contributors) and share ideas on process with the core strategy team. COMPLETE
• January 27: The core strategy team shares the first draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
• February 3: Post Draft #1 of process on Meta for comments; core strategy team shares the second draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
• February 9: Post Draft #2 of process on Meta for comments; core strategy team shares the third draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
• February 13: Post Final Process on Meta

Design Considerations:

• Engages our global communities with a process that is diverse, inclusive and robust, within the overall timeline and constraints.
• Process is highly participatory across languages, geographies and projects, with active facilitation through a variety of methods, potentially including online (synchronously and asynchronously) and in face-to-face discussions, which includes significant data to drive ultimate decision-making.
• Facilitates inclusive representation of all voices, without the loudest voices dominating.

Core ideas from the first meetings:

• Identify appropriate channels and platforms, such as being brainstormed
• Leveraging Affiliates in language groups where they exist to reach more of community; can organize discussion on and offline

• Engaging ambassadors (enthusiastic community members) and hired liaisons for different languages, especially to reach communities where there is no affiliate support and facilitate two-way conversation (not just input collecting)
• Using private and public channels as well as direct messages to talk pages, local wikis, Facebook
• Accessing editors through education and other programs

• Identify the pitch (articulating the goals and message to engage people). Should be tailored to communities. Could have basic inspirational video with subtitles.
• Identify the questions (e.g., a blank sheet, or a set of prompts or provocations)?
• Close the feedback loop, so that people can see what happened to their input. Even if it's not the exact thing they said, they can see through the extensive documentation that something of what they contributed has been retained.

Key challenges from Week 2 prototype review

1. Cycle 1 - dependency on facilitator’s role. How do we make this job easier to do and better supported, given over 110 affiliates and 20-30 other organized groups?
2. Synthesis - especially before Berlin conference. How do we ensure that synthesis is being done in a timely manner and in a way that takes the information to the next level for Berlin and then for cycle 2?
3. Timeline. How do we get the discussions started sooner and make the most of this time before Berlin?
4. Toolkit. How do we build a Toolkit will help ensure strong and effective discussion and have a good template for reporting back to/from English?
5. Cycle 2 - prevent discussion helix. How do we ensure that Cycle 2 remains focused on deeper conversations and convergence, and doesn’t default to cycle 1 divergent conversations?
6. Diverse voices - recruitment (Track B). How do we encourage contributors - both veterans and those new ones who have “survived” - to participate?

:00 notes

Group A

• JA intro: Prototype and update on Meta as of yesterday. Very busy meeting scheduled for today, so there is a summary section available in the notes doc.
  • Tasks review is being delayed until next week
  • Job posting is up and has 25+ applicants already
  • Ideas have been put into brainstorm document; have committee members been able to review those yet? Also, submit your ideas before Monday
  • Next up: review of where we’re at, review of 2nd draft of prototypes (please review those outside of the meeting, due to time constraints), design considerations, core ideas, key challenges
• JA: any questions so far about any of those?
  • LCR: No comments, but I have to be honest and say I haven’t had a lot of time this week to work on strategy due to day job stuff. I’ve been catching up today, but would rather not lead on this conversation
  • SN: Quick review from key challenges: biggest thing we heard was “how are all these facilitators going to do everything we ask of them?” So we’re thinking about how to better support those roles, find some resources, set down some clarity for those roles. That’s something we plan to discuss today: a “facilitator of facilitators” role.
    • Lots of questions remain about how to make the synthesis thing work, and the Core Team is working on this. We’re hoping to have something to share with you next week on that.
    • Timeline adjustments/prototype will be covered today somewhat
    • Recruitment - working on hearing all the voices - also a priority
  • SN, reading comment by NE: how do we connect ?? to the why(?)
    • Potentially in Berlin we could designate 1-2 hours that would specifically be about the “how” conversation, to avoid derailing other tracks with that
• JA: other comments/questions? No? Moving on! We encourage you to dig in and comment on some of the remedies we’ve gotten written down.

Group B

• JA intro: Prototype and update on Meta as of yesterday. Very busy meeting scheduled for today, so there is a summary section available in the notes doc.
  • Tasks review is being delayed until next week
  • Job posting is up and has 25+ applicants already
  • Ideas have been put into brainstorm document; have committee members been able to review those yet? Also, submit your ideas before Monday
  • Next up: review of where we’re at, review of 2nd draft of prototypes (please review those outside of the meeting, due to time constraints), design considerations, core ideas, key challenges
• JA : Still working on the challenges identified in last meetings. Core team working on potential solutions. Hopefully you've had time to look at those.
• JA : any questions so far about any of those?
  • Working on the proposal for the
  • SN: Quick overview of the key challenges: How can we help the affiliates to have these discussions, what should be in the toolkit. We think it makes sense to bring in someone to act as lead. Everyone else will continue to be thought partners. With 100 affiliates it's a big ask.
  • We'll have a doc ready for you to review next week. Next up is a deeper dive into the toolkit.
  • Make sure we have the contributor description clearly defined.

HH:10 Track A: Need for Track Lead

Proposal: Add additional support for Track A coordination of inputs through a  Community. Combination of lead and designated support team (CE staff - multiple people adding to 1-2 FT). Lead work as a partner with the core strategy team and coordinate efforts of Track A. ~ 30-40 hours a week, March-August 2017

• Job description to be written - “Lead: Strategy Track A” (Pulling in the Foundation’s Talent & Culture team to write and share Mon)
• Minimum accountabilities (What else?):
  • Acts as a partner with the core strategy team, consults and advises on movement dynamics, history and politics, provides insights on a strategic level, and is actively involved in shaping the process, helping to synthesize, and driving the “final results”
  • In conjunction with support team, does the following:
    • Coordinates with all 110 affiliates and other org groups
      • Ensures they have a facilitator, the Tool Kit, answers all questions, and gives guidance as needed
      • Potentially helps facilitate the conversation (if there’s a language match) - or works with designated person who translates
      • Assists with recruitment of “volunteer” and ambassador help
    • Personnel management (staff and volunteers)
      • Coordinates the track, paid language specialists, and volunteers to ensure that discussions are being scheduled and summaries are being written
    • Project management
      • Keeps an overall timeline of who is having discussions
      • Keeps track of summary submissions and facilitates select responses from the core strategy team for 2-way conversation
    • Materials support
      • Works with core strategy team to ensure Toolkit and other materials are built and adjusted as needed; champions this work to be translated and ready for dissemination
• Skills & experience: Trusted Wikimedian with a comprehensive understanding of affiliates and other organized movement groups, international Wikimedia perspective and relationships internationally, Advanced project management and facilitation skills. Good social skills. Fluency in at least one other language besides English is a plus.

:10 notes

Group A

• Please skim the notes above describing this. JA summarizes:
  • Goal is to have a “coordinator of inputs” through a community lead
  • Role 30hr/wk, through August
  • Work in conjunction with support teams to make sure everyone has the people and tools they need to interact with strategy process
  • This will help recruit volunteer ambassadors too
  • Person will coordinate the paid language specialists we’re hiring
  • Person will keep an overall timeline of discussions, and collate notes so they can be passed back and forth among levels of the discussions
  • Will tweak and adjust toolkits as we receive feedback
  • Must be trusted Wikimedian with understanding of affiliates and international WM perspective & relationships
• JA: Ok, committee members, what do you think? Do we need to add or remove aspects of the role? Anything else?
  • SN adds: Also, we’ve determined that some of the CE support staff could support the person in this role
• LCR: I’m really pleased you took feedback from the last session and created this role to address it. It’s going to be a crucial role. I think we need to look for someone with experience in direct facilitation. Also, a question: why a 30-hour week? That’s not enough to be FT, but too much to take as a side job. Might discourage applicants of both types
  • SN: 30 hours right now is being determined by financials, but may be tweakable
  • GP: even if job is not totally FT, remember that other WM staff will be helping in the role
  • AZ: +1 to direct facilitation skills
• SR: [speaking, but audio issues and group can’t hear her]
• AZ: Look for someone with English and at least one other language. Wondering if something is lacking in the facilitator JD without reaching for extra languages like that. Also I agree that 30 hours is a strange number - a clear part-time or full-time would be better and potentially more attractive to applicants
  • SN: will look at budget and see what kind of wiggle room we could get for hours
  • AZ: yeah, in Italy 30 hours is not part-time
• JA: Due to the timeline and need for this to be an experienced Wikimedian, this position will need to involve direct recruitment and the hours issue seems to be something we can address in cooperation with our search conversations and as we finalize the process plan and staff support in the next week or so.
• JA: Sandra is still working on audio issues. We’ll move forward to the next section, and Sandra can type comments if she has them and her mic continues not working

Group B

• SN: Is it agreed that we should have this position? Does it make sense for this to be a community member? [accurate? didn't hear clearly]
• JA: Some of the people might have special skills that help with this role. They'd be involved with additional track support, and might contract until August.
• LW: Do all the different language-community liaisons report to this person?
  • JA: The language liaison will help with track A and B. No, the new role won't be doing people-management, but rather leadership making sure the [?]. Making sure the discussions are working well and at wide scale.
• SN: [explanation of 'thought leaders', as above]
• FD: so the lead of track A will actually be little collaborating with the facilitators of track B ?
  • JA: Yes.
• JA: Does the role make sense overall?
  • FD: looks to me this position is mandatory if no one from the staff is doing it officially
  • LW: Yes
  • MK: Yes. Consider only recruiting someone who is going to Berlin. Also important they understand how affiliates work.
  • KV: Yes. Required for track A to succeed, because the world isn't ideal. But we still need to build clear structures. 1 magic person still doesn't scale.
• JA: [going through specific tasks].
  • FD: but explicitly should not be involved into summarizing themselves without others involvement. If they're experienced enough to grok all this, they'll naturally be someone involved, and have biases.
    • GP: You mean they should be impartial and neutral?
      • FD: Essentially. We should make sure they're not filtering things based on their own preferences.

H:20 Prototype Review: Guided Discussion

• Challenges/Remedies - In the prototype document, the Core team has mapped the proposed remedies to the challenges. Please review and make comments directly in this document BEFORE the meeting, as we will not review this in detail during our time together, but work from a summary. The prototypes assume these remedies, but we would like to know if people have other concerns or solutions for the challenges.

• Prototype image - this will be released later today (Not yet Linked in doc - the core team is working out some timing implications and what is realistic to complete before the Berlin conference and hope to release it later today Pacific or early day Friday UTC. We will plan to focus on this during our conversation time Friday, for people to share what they think are strengths, weaknesses, and potential remedies for any issues.
  • Track A prototype #2
  • Track B prototype #2

To cover if not mentioned (comments from pre-work):

• Berlin - add in a session during the 12-hr track or plenary time to review structures (the HOW), so people aren’t distracted by that instead of talking about the WHY (Nicole’s comment)
• Are the larger affiliates willing to help support the smaller ones, in terms of helping to facilitate the discussions?
• For the next design:
  • Synthesis - how to avoid bias and self-censorship?
  • Framing (30 slides): what led to the initiation of this process, who is involved in the design, who are the stakeholders, what do we expect to hold in our hands at the end of the process, how do we get there, what role can each and every individual play here, plus why is it important to hear many different voices and how do we try to synthesize all the different inputs. what will happen after 2017

:20 notes

Group A

• JA intro: Suzie has shared prototypes for Track A and Track B. Let’s start by reviewing Track A with Suzie
• Track A:
  • SN: going to talk about how we’ve adjusted this since last week. The big thing is that we know the liaisons are probably not going to be fully onboarded until 8 March. We had been hoping to start everything by 22 February, but now that seems less than feasible with time constraints. So we (core team) have rearranged things a bit. Beta launch 20-28 February, full launch of Cycle 1 Track A 1 March-10 April. This would let groups with larger staffs get a head start during Beta, but would leave room for discussions in other groups needing to happen after Berlin
  • We don’t want people to feel penalized if they get to Berlin and haven’t had time to start locally yet
  • So we’d have group conversations in Berlin, and post summaries of those conversations, but not try to do any convergence or synthesis until everyone has had time to participate in cycle 1
  • Beta period also lets us test the toolkit, make everything is working properly, etc
  • Remainder of the cycles is mostly similar to what we had last week, though we have cleaned up information flow. Wanted to be really clear on how Cycle 1 would operate.
  • Synthesis will be cross-tracks
  • Any questions/feedback on Track A?
    • LCR: I think the timeline change makes sense. You’re right that it would have been difficult the original way.
    • NE: Question: Will people in Berlin also be working in the time after the conference, or is Berlin seen as an alternative - either your affiliate has a meeting on its own, or it sends someone to Berlin? Should large affiliates like mine plan to meet before and after Berlin as well?
      • SN: From a whole-plan perspective, cycle 2 is when the “after” conversations happen, with all outcomes - not just Berlin outcomes
      • NE: it will be hard to get people to 2-3 meetings in as many months. Is there guidance on which meeting/which cycle is most important to funnel people to? Before Berlin, or after?
        • SN: the intent right now is that Cycle 1 is for idea gathering, big questions, etc. Cycle 2, after the cross-checking, is for re-convening groups (not always the same individuals! Will probably be a smaller group)
        • Ed: To add something to Suzie: Cycle 1 is, for bigger affiliates, kind of a “warm up”. Berlin will be much more diverse and busy
        • GP: Let’s not de-emphasize Cycle 1 too much, though. We got criticized last strategy for starting with set themes; people wanted to be part of the discussion that led to the themes. So don’t treat Cycle 1 as lesser or not as important. Regarding convening 2 different discussions: this might not be possible in the time frame for all affiliates, but they don’t have to be the same kind of discussions (one could be in person, another could be on-wiki, or a survey, or...etc etc) - organizing those choices will be the job of the facilitators
      • LCR: Question: Would it be appropriate to set up a discussion where members of my immediate chapter/trustees could participate, but also volunteers? Such a meeting would mean that we’d be mixing Track A and Track B work.
        • SN: since the toolkits/prompts will be the same for both tracks, deciding whether to mix the groups for any given chapter is up to what works for the chapter(?). In the end the content that comes out of the discussions will end up in the same funnel.
        • GP: the topics will be discussed may be different between Track A and B, but it will be up to groups to decide which they want to discuss
      • JA: One comment to add about Nicole’s point of two different conversations and some needing to choose where to spend time - This might be something to address in the toolkit instructions - depending on the size of your group, it can be easy to coordinate, or very hard. So let’s make sure people can understand up front what they can choose to participate in (be clear what Cycle 1 discussions are, vs Cycle 2 ones, etc), so they know what they are choosing between if they cannot participate in both parts
        • SN: Shannon and I had also been discussing offering “levels” of participation to suit different needs of people/groups
  • On to Track B! Mostly timeline
    • Biggest change is that we’re running Cycle 1 largely through volunteers, and starting 10 March - 10 April (same cycle period as Track A, but different forums) and then go into the same “sense making” bucket as Track A’s output
    • As much as possible, we want summarizing available by March 20, to take to Berlin
    • SR: has this kind of process been tried out before in other orgs?
      • SN: I’ve done this type of work with other orgs, and generation and reduction steps generally work best in separate cycles, especially when there are lots of stakeholders involved. Helps everyone understand the intention for each period
      • Part of what we need to bring next week is thoughts about how to make sure the sense-making/synthesis happen, and doesn’t only happen onwiki
    • GP: maybe now we should discuss what community members think we need in the toolkit?
  • Shannon: yes, let’s talk toolkit. It will have two pieces: 1) what do affiliates/facilitators/etc need to effectively get moving on facilitating these discussions, and 2) what will the framing (i.e. slide deck) for this conversation look like?
    • Let’s start with toolkit elements. Thoughts?
      • GP: Initial question: If you were told that next week you need to hold one of these discussions, what would you need right now to be able to do that?
        • NE: Introduction, techniques for facilitation (how to hold an effective session, what is the expected output, what questions should they prepare beforehand), clear questions for the participants to discuss, a template for what documentation of findings/outcomes/comments from these meetings should look like
        • Ed: Those are great examples of specific tools! Keep in mind that one of the “tools” will be the framing documentation Shannon mentioned that we also want to talk about
      • Shannon: more thoughts on tools?
        • AZ (in chat): a qualtrics account? for creating survey at requests or similar.
        • NE: We would need a introduction/package for people who don’t have time to read deep, long documentation before starting - easily understandable, not time-consuming. Run our intros and tools by people who don’t already speak strategy to find out if they’re actually usable by those people, who we need! Maybe generate a list of 10 documents to be read?
          • Ed: Guillaume and I have started making a list like that. If you have specific documentation suggestions, let us know. Right now we are in the process of creating “summary slides” for people who can’t dig into the resource materials
          • GP, via chat: To see the (messy and incomplete) inventory later: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources#Inventory
          • GP: take a look at that list and edit to add ideas if needed. By next week we should have a better idea for the prototype’s framing, but if you know you want something to be there, add it!
          • Ed: Documentation (?) is often insightful, but not at a high-enough level
          • SN: Shannon and I are also working on a master list for the toolkit. By next week you should be starting to see us prototyping that (feedback soon, please, there’s not much time!)
        • SN: I wanted to ask you quickly: did we help move the needle above the “7-ish” ratings you gave these prototypes last week?
          • AZ: 8
          • LCR: 8-9 now I think (but we’re not really expecting people to read 10 different documents to start, are we?? Guillaume: no, one summary doc and then 10 optional more-detail docs)
          • NE: 8
          • SR: 8
        • Ed: we’re aiming for “if you have 30 minutes to prepare to do this, what do you need to read?”
          • LCR: yes, 30 minutes seems about right - we need to make it easy and brief for them, that’s very important!
          • GP: I’m envisioning a series of pages on Meta with a summary in the framing, and then “more details” available. Summary also available in presentation deck. Also potentially a short video version of that presentation.

Group B

• JA intro: Suzie has shared prototypes for Track A and Track B. Let’s start by reviewing Track A with Suzie
• Track A:
  • SN: going to talk about how we’ve adjusted this since last week. The big thing is that we know the liaisons are probably not going to be fully onboarded until 8 March. We had been hoping to start everything by 22 February, but now that seems less than feasible with time constraints. So we (core team) have rearranged things a bit. Beta launch 20-28 February, full launch of Cycle 1 Track A 1 March-10 April. This would let groups with larger staffs get a head start during Beta, but would leave room for discussions in other groups needing to happen after Berlin
  • Any summary reports ready by March 20, would be pulled and used as part of the discussions in Berlin. Then a summary from Berlin.
  • Local groups who cannot attend Berlin, would be able to meet themselves, and submit a report, around the time of Berlin. (giving them some time afterwards)
  • Then synthesis-sense-making, would integrate the Tracks C&D.
  • Beta period also lets us test the toolkit, make everything is working properly, etc
  • Remainder of the cycles is mostly similar to what we had last week, though we have cleaned up information flow. Wanted to be really clear on how Cycle 1 would operate.
  • We grok there are concerns about multiple rounds, but the toolkit should make this adaptable for groups who don't have capacity to devote the maximum suggested effort.
    • KV: What was noted in the draft, it's hard to make synthesis for Berlin with only 1 week. Depends how many affiliates will be able to submit before Berlin. Might have problem where affiliates are waiting for Berlin before submitting. Concerned about the multiple rounds. Concerned that some affiliates might want to drastically redefine the way they are working, once they see the results from the other affiliates.
    • SN: Do you think it's feasible to do the cross-pollination before April 15? The idea is take all contribs from Cycle 1, and synthesize, and use that to create the baseline for Cycle 2.  Do you want a 3rd opportunity for affiliates to refine their process?
      • KV: We're already tight on time, but 2 weeks should be enough. Need to make sure there are enough affiliates reporting before Berlin, versus just going to Berlin to learn.
      • SN: Yes, that's part of the role of the proposed lead. Making sure that we have enough content for those initial conversations.
      • GP: Agreed, also in my experience as organizer of the Berlin conference back in 2009; it's difficult to get people to do their homework
      • MK: Chapters selection last year, started 1 month before, and finished a few weeks after.  Most chapters submitted their votes within just a few weeks. If we say "stage 1A, before 15 or 20 March, you discuss a first attempt. Then we meet in Berlin, with 1 of you present. Then you go home with the inspiration from Berlin, and go back to your home community to reinitialize." If they have additional ideas they can add them, but we must set hard deadlines relatively far in advance.
      • JA: yes, staggered deadlines are important.
      • KV: If we are encouraging them to file before Berlin, then we need to empower the people who will work on this material  and prepare for Berlin.
      • JA: also need a way for folks to catch up rather than get left behind though another reason to clearly define cycles and opportunities they provide. In evaluation we use cut-offs for synthesis too, so things flowing in post that cut-off get synthesized live or later
      • SN: Part of what we're building out, is the template for the report, which would be summarized for each affiliate. E.g. would it just be 1 page. Or just a headline. Then come back with the themes that are being generated. So that the synthesis is easier. We won't be started with hundreds of pages of raw notes, but instead with the pre-summarized details that the affiliates submit.
      • Ed: having a richer discussion in Berlin is what we hope. Pre-Berlin could be early thoughts from those who can get it in in tim. We could assume affiliates will change their minds after Berlin.
      • MK: just don't leave them any choice. tell them that affiliates should submit feedback on XX March. and let them additional window opening after Berlin and until 15 April
      • FD: the problem is that the person coming to Berlin may not be the spokesperson of the group
        • MK: yes, but at least this person was selected by the group
        • FD: yes, but not be the one able to "force" others to go through the process
        • JA: In Berlin, for all but self-funded or APG groups were asked to have their groups select the strategy track representative actually
        • FD: which goes back to my original question on one of the document... who are the contact people you will speak with to get the group feedback ?
        • JA: We will also be asking self-funded and APG folks to designate at least one of their representatives to be the point for the strategy track
        • FD: so the "contact" for affiliate will definitely be the one going to Berlin ?
        • JA: ... but that is only affiliates, not other organized groups
        • JA: @ Florence, I imagine we can at least connect them since the person attending is expected to represent and report back officially
      • KV: track lead will only be available in early March. Concerned that the loudest voices will get to the table first and dominate. Need to make sure we're all on somewhat the same page before the conference.
      • JA: We will also be asking self-funded and APG folks to designate at least one of their representatives to be the point for the strategy track
      • MK: I looked through the list and I think most user groups sent more experienced people for strategy, and less experienced people for main track
        • JA: that is correct
    • Track B:
      • Because the liaisons will not be hired and onboarded until ~March. Conversations there will run March 10 - April 10.
      • MK: initial input from Track B would be most useful in Berlin. Could we start Track B earlier?
        • GP: We have to wait for the language liaisons and coordinators to be hired, and that won’t happen until March 1, and more realistically March 8.
        • SN: We could start on Meta in English but concerned about bias about releasing in English first.
      • MK: how will we organize the communities without their own facilitators?
        • JA: whilst we're funding paid facilitators, that's to get to high-priority places. But the toolkit is intended to help any group get involved.
        • MK: We need to inform these people about what they'll have to do in advance. I.e. if we need 700 facilitators from the remaining communities, the requests need to be very clear. The communities will need at least 2 weeks to self-organize.
      • Shannon: Agree about early invitation, help people organize early.
    • Have the changes we've proposed (new additional lead, plus CE support) improved your quick out-of-10 scores?
      • KV: half-point more (i.e. 7.5), still concerned about timing.
      • MK: ditto. 7.5 and 6.5. Especially concerned about Track B, given the delayed schedule, in regards to input for Berlin.
      • FD: The lead on Track A is a good move. I will raise it a point.
      • LW: I'm going to say at least 8, based on all the changes directly addressing the concerns from last time! The currently unknown content of the toolkit is the remaining issue.

:55 Wrap-up and Next Steps

• All:
  • Complete your brainstorm of channel ideas to be sure your ideas are input
  • Add thoughts or considerations to the role and needed skills of the “facilitator of facilitators”/community Lead for Track A so that we can begin recruitment next week.
• Suzie:
  • Post updated prototypes to meta following second steering committee feedback session so that community members are commenting on the same version
• Core team:
  • Pull together summary of lessons learned from past strategy efforts and outcomes
  • Synthesizing feedback and additional plans to the prototype including first mapping of the toolkit.