Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Events Outline/Draft/Feedback

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This is a summary or feedback received during a community consultation on the Transition outline's draft, on which feedback was received from August 6th - August 25th. The summary is created by the Support Team. Please feel free to highlight any missing points in the talk page.


  • Simplify the language overall.
  • Make the intent more explicit and clear.
  • Less principle and more concrete content.
  • More descriptive, less imperative - use a clear, active voice, less process.
  • Use more concrete language with a substance to react to, make it less vague.
  • Aim for a high school level of English, easy-to-understand for non-native speakers.
    • Should live up to the inclusivity principle.
  • Change the name from big and small.
    • Some options: introductory and concluding events, focused events.

Logical structure[edit]

  • Good design, separate the actual event plan from the information on discussions
  • Separate the actual event plan from information on the discussions leading up to it.
  • Start with the objective or purpose
    • “What is all this for?” “What problem is it trying to solve?”
  • Put concrete steps in the plan before the broad principles.
    • E.g. tackle steps to include people first, then describe the aim for inclusivity.


  • So far, people really like small > big > small, and now they want to know exactly what they are.
  • Must balance equity with realistic capacity and resources to host, manage and monitor these events.
    • Not only do we ask: which recommendations/actions do you prioritize, but also: What (resources, capacities) will you need to participate in their implementation.
    • Can there also be regional implementation plans?
  • It should be clear what’s the approach of the events
    • What is being consulted on?
    • What is being communicated?


  • How will event organizers be chosen? Is there any specific way for someone to nominate themselves for that role or for communities to propose someone in that role?
  • Clarity of roles for small and big affiliates.
    • It's unclear how someone would propose a specific event, especially if it required some resources.
    • Indicate where can bigger affiliates lead/co-lead, where can they be a partner for others.
    • Make clear what options or opportunities larger affiliates / organizations have available to them to ensure they invest their time wisely without dominating.
    • Not including the bigger projects in the previous phase had negative consequences.
  • Introduce a “buddy” system / mentorship process.
  • Suggestion to create an independent body to work on Strategy (perhaps funded through grants) to be transparently formed by community and affiliate members, with limited and public WMF participation
  • Can volunteers and communities shape agendas for some of the events?
  • Suggestion to add for each event what audiences or audience profiles we want to see.

Engagement & outreach[edit]

  • Identify topics relevant to project communities and their work.
  • Identify the relevant topics and themes for online/project communities.
    • Make the plan connect with online community members, what’s in it for them?
    • Can there be regional implementation plans?
  • Make it super clear for people which event they should join.
    • Describe what audience or profiles you want to see at each event (or each type of event), to give affiliates some guidance on whom to send to what event.
    • Provide in-advance notice for each event, so those interested are able to join.
  • Timezone management and translation support key priorities emerging from the feedback, especially in the ESEAP region.
    • Request for a professional Korean translator, can also be an affiliate-assigned or community selected translator.
    • Surveys can be translated in many languages, can get to all kinds of editors and communities, and can provide a wide participation profile.


  • Need for support from paid translators for the written materials, and paid liaisons to organize the calls, ensure participation, track the process and take notes.
  • Clarify how small events will be organized and supported.
    • Who will be responsible for providing support and resources.
    • Documentation, analysis and synchronization of results will be a huge effort.
  • How will input be analyzed?


  • Provide clear and explicit tools for decision-making.
    • There’s a lack of any defined decision-making process for all of these meetings
  • Strong push for this to be a consensus process - how to address it planned, with .legitimacy and good faith, and with the support of communities.
    • Skipping RFCs looks like a process that aims to impose some solutions that only have a bare majority of support or less.
    • Not necessarily through RFCs, but engaging with communities in extended conversations, empowering communities with real choice, and doing the hard work of being open to new ideas, and finding common ground between seemingly divergent position.
    • “Stakeholders” and “decision-makers” need to be mapped out before.

Trust Issues[edit]

  • Feedback and voices have been ignored in the past.
    • For example, mistrust regarding Notability and NC/ND licensing (now removed) still comes up.
    • Those who provided feedback for issues in the recommendations in the past need to be reassured of how their feedback was taken in.
  • “Why should we participate?” - Continued fears around changes being imposed.
  • Branding discussions may come up during Transition discussions as well.