Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/CEE Meeting 2016 notes

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notes take at CEE Meeting 2016 - Day 3

Structure of today's chat:

  • KM introduced self, talked about Wikipedia15 and how Poland helped early with bison symbol.She has been ED for three months. A top priority of board is strategy. Should be cooperative exercise. How people participate is a key.
  • Start with ground rules
  • Shani gives ground rules: Productive and leave room with Katherine having well-documented perspective.
  • Introduce objectives
    • Build a common understanding of what “strategy” means, the process, timelines, and opportunities for participation. Important to have common definition.
    • Understand how you would like to participate in strategy development. What's the best way for you to take part.
    • Talk about some possible strategic themes to consider during the strategy discussion Key issues?
    • Resolve any confusion, answer any questions. You questions important.
  • Go into introduction
    • The Board's strategy directive (one of the top priorities for the year)
    • What is strategy?KM says definition of strategy is something she has been grappling with. In business world means something different. For global movement as "wild and wooly" as Wikipedia movement, people involved more important. Shared vision is more important for us. Whatever we work on within movement we can apply this underlying philosophy. But the Foundation will not shape projects, we can help share that approach and allow you to apply.
    • Rather, we'll share principles and a vision.  The overarching Wikimedia Vision remains the same; but we need a strategic vision for the next few years of our work.
    • Understanding of the way the past two major efforts worked (good and bad)
    • Belief in the value of community, inclusivity, and project integration (high-level)At Esino Lario a strategic vision emerged as top of board's list -- but not just the board. Around the movement people have said they want an underlying strategy to unify. There is no shared set of goals, people told KM as she spoke with many around movement. People said they would like to have a clearer vision. 2010 a five-year plan was attempted. It was a big project. People have good memories of this, but the outcomes were not productive. Goals were not achieved. 2012-2014 Foundation tried by asking questions. Community did not think that was inclusive. That process was also good in some ways, but not others. We need shared ownership to give real goals. More inclusive to be more involved. Let people plan. Participants accountable. Transparency will be key -- new page on Meta. She is planning for a comprehensive, shared, accountable process. Documentation will be done and shown to board. Fun part is to come! In January.
    • KM asks for questions:
    • Kaarel Vaidla of Estonia: He has been involved in strategy for nonprofits, thinks timeline too optimistic. It seems a bit unrealistic.
    • KM: A lot of it has started. Not all documented yet, but will be on Meta soon. There is a lot of work, but it's her top focus for next two months.
    • (No more questions yet)
    • Support for emerging communities and its current and future achievements.
    • Role you can play, perspectives you can bring. What can we build together?
    • Discuss timelines and process so people know what stage we are in
  • Ask the questions
    • What is your perspective on past strategy efforts and their success?
      • What is your perspective on how these efforts have been helpful for your community?How many were involved in 2010 discussions? (Five hands) Other strategy talks? (More hands) KM asks for comments.
      • Vojtěch Dostál from Wikimedia Czech Republic says it's difficult to engage people. Hard to get people involved. Real life and Wiki attract a low number of people. He doesn't have a very good recipe for her. Maybe ask different ways in different channels. Still people
      • Nikola Kalchev: I know we have discussions about the future. Last year I posted on Village Pump about voting for board members and people didn't vote they casually asked who they should vote for. He says more translations are badly needed. <Shani asks who shares this opinion, many hands raised>In the past small local meetings after big events like Wikimania were useful. What about that? When we get back from conferences we should have meeting with local communities, and move those offline. <many hands raised>
      • Cornelius Kibelka of Germany: Starter kit for communities so they can use prepared questions. German communities not really interested in Foundation politics. Community leaders should get Wikipedians involved. It's very important, and need to do more than on Wiki because funny ideas come up but not consensus.
      • Kaarel again:  It has been too weighed. People need to know exactly what the Foundation wants. Too weighed and too specific are a problem. It's good ED is working on.
      • Shani: Local meetups good? With a list of questions.
      • Kaarel: Yes, with structure. There should be general steps.
      • Nat Tymkiv: Local groups would give cakes for 15.
      • Svetlana gets up to draw: She says they are in audience and need steps to the stage. And those steps to get to the big goal need to have evaluation. Wikipedia community members in audience need involvement, too.
      • Shani: How do this practically?
      • Svetlana: Give more examples to the community and let them work with shorter steps. <Svetlana leaves front>
      • Tamás Mészöly from Hungary: Is there an execution plan for strategy? Or do you just create strategy?
      • KM: Execute every year on the big vision. Who should do this part and that part? Use that plan to address goals. Many involved, not one institution.
      • Common plan, but its' execution might look very different in different parts of the world and different communities.
      • Asaf Bartov: Most difficult part of process is ensuring communication and involvement. Hard for community members to be involved because they care about specific projects. Ask someone who only cares about tools how to reach new readers, they won't answer and will leave conversation. The prompts are key. Help people find the part they care about. Give people direction and more specifics.
      • KM: Good point. 2010 was good on that.
      • Vahid of Wiki Ed: Good for communities of Foundation set global goals and communities decided how they could meet those golbal goals.
      • <No hands>
      • Kaarel: What goals?
      • Vahid: Whatever. Communities decide how to help. Does that work?
      • <a few nods>
      • Krzysztof Machocki from Wikimedia Polska: So you decide on goals and we decide how to meet? Yeah, could help address Wiki rants about community leaders and the fact that strategic discussions are often sidetracked by them.
      • Cornelius: Could work if not forced affiliates need to have freedom.  Tie money to that might be OK but let affiliates do their thing.
      • Kaarel again: Outsource goals to community. They take responsibility and let orgs follow up.
      • Shani: So maybe we suggest but people are involved early on? Two people agree.
      • Tamás Mészöly from Hungary: I would 2nd or 3rd that it's not easy to take lead on this. Village Pump asks people to read strategy stuff, but very few click on that. One of the top priorities should be increasing the number of volunteers. That helps everything. We need tools and people helping.
      • Shani: We're not there yet. We're talking about how to get people involved in the building of the strategy.
      • Nikola: Have you thought about to transfer knowledge from communities to organizers of the strategy? How read them and present it?
      • KM: Good question. In past, we resourced paid for translations and worked to translate back. That info was pulled together into distilled, thematics, structured table. So many people wanted to talk about this, that. We looked for big themes. That was internal Foundation work. A lot of work. Thinking aspect hard, let along compilation. Budget will be needed. You all are reps of your communities, projects, languages. You have insight into what works best. That's what I want to hear. So important to hear from you. In the past we heard from a group or English speakers. The reason I'm here is that it's so important that you participate in building strategy and future of this movement. If you leave this room with nothing else, take an open invitation to participate and give your perspective. Need to hear from you. Not important how. All of your roles are valuable perspectives. Your voices are represented, that is the key. We will budget if required.
      • Cornelius: You're sensible about this, but try to make it relevant to smallest editor and community. My community colleagues don't care. Speak in an easy language. Really important.
      • Shani: Do we need a short online form? <Half hands go up>
      • KM: How important is it that we use wikis? We've been committed to using wikis because we've assumed needed. Perception of working off wiki could be odd if we sent people to, say, Facebook.
      •  ?: It might just be such a fuzzy concept to define global goals. The car works and travels on the highway. We can make things a bit better but discussions not concrete. Try to just have local impact rather than global fuzzy talks.
      • Nat Tymkiv: Forms: I believe in a lot of ways. People who edit might have thoughts, but not used to talking in public. If we want to have feedback in Ukraine we have open discussion but also forms. Not exclude anonymous editors.
      • Michał Buczyński from Wikimedia Polska: People don't care. Maybe if we asked them what they expect in next 10 years. It's far away from them. People don't want to be involved.
      • Gereon from Wikimedia Deutschland: Transparency and accessibility is the problem. They don't get involved at all.
      • Tomasz Ganicz from Wikimedia Polska: Wiki vs, online. Both are OK but people may need prompts. After Wikimania he wrote about harassment and that led to discussion. Local conversations summarized needed. Tough globally.
      • Shani: Multuple lines preferable? All agree?
      • <almost all hands up>
      • KM: Three recommendations:
        1. Translations wanted.
        2. Offline meetup component.
        3. And multiple channels of input.
    • KM: Want to talk more? Use my Talk Page, email, Facebook. Please reach out. I want to hear from you. My top priority. Inclusive is key. My first time here, hope not the last. I hope to meet you all. A big thank you for talking strategy with me. Thanks for sticking with it. Get together again. Work toward our future.
    • Gives link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017
    • Susanna: Thank you for coming. We enjoy your company. Than you for your warm involvement, for sharing your ideas. I and Katherine not able to attend closing, but I would like to thank all of you, the program committee, our team, Foundation team, your presentations. See you in Armenia one more time. Maybe Wikimania!
    • CEE You next time :)
    • Asaf: The amazing achievements of WM Armenia owe a lot to this woman <pushes Suzanna out>, her determination and tenacity. Since 2011, despite obstacles, take it from me: This woman deserves thanks.
    • What are your top concerns and priorities
      • About your work right now?
      • About the strategy process?
    • How would it be best for you to be involved?
    • What are some potential themes the strategy should consider?
  • Summarize the conversation and conclusions
  • Clarify the next steps
    • Where do these notes go?
    • Where do we build from here?
    • meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017
  • Cornelius and Nicole -- Stay involved on simple translations and tools for communities.
  • Krystolf Machoki Halibutt: Local translations
  • Antanana (nat) to stay in touch regarding translations, tools
  • Kaarel: Will def stay in touch on strategy