Meta is not a community, it's a venue for all our communities and for the global community. When you say that you will "inform Meta", that's meaningless. I suggest you revise your model. --Nemo 08:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed this. The intent is not to say that we will "inform Meta" but that we will keep our Meta pages updated so that people who are interested can find information if they're looking for it (and watchlist pages as they'd like). I'll make some language updates on the page to clarify. Additionally, we'd love to know if these are the right places/communities to be informing and/or consulting, so please let us know if we should be thinking about this in a different way. AGomez (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Things that need further clarification
There are a number of pieces of this framework that need further thinking, refinement, and definition. This is a place to gather those. Please add any others that you think we should address. AGomez (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Definition of roles. What "consulted" means in different cases, in particular emphasizing veto power of communities. How does being "consulted" differ from being "responsible"?
- How we will measure and ensure that community collaborations are working for those community members? We have measurements in place to evaluate the impact of the work that we're doing in terms of changes in usage and awareness. We also need to define ways to understand if the communities we're working with think that these are productive collaborations, that their voices are heard, and that their time is respected.
- Relationship to affiliates (eg CIS) vs. individual community members
Other areas for clarity:
- Define specific protocol/structure for different types of projects & collaborations
- Adding in grants work (starting in Q2 FY1718)