Talk:Product and Technology Advisory Council/Proposal

Let's wait to the Movement Charter ratification

Hello @JWheeler-WMF. I have been pointed to this page in a discussion I had today with @Laurentius about the Movement Charter. I really thing that the WMF needs better strategic planing and a full advisory group for many issues, including technology. Especially technology. However, the Movement Charter proposes a Technology Advancement committee within the Global Council, which seems to overlap with this other Advisory Council. I honestly suggest to wait to the Movement Charter ratification, because having too different structures with very similar purposes would be redundant and might be even worse than the current situation. Theklan (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theklan this proposal is linked from the Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft and is part of the commitment to moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Council, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC.

It is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31 to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission.

Regardless of the outcome of ratification of the charter, this pilot - which I agree with you is needed- will be time limited to a year and can begin now and inform whatever comes next! JWheeler-WMF (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense if the Charter is not approved. Having two parallel committee's with the very same function is a good way to create even more friction. Theklan (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Hello, I just read this proposal and have some comments/questions:

• The use of “we” (“we will give priority”, “we will kick off”) and of passive voice (which obscures who or what is performing the action”) makes it unclear who will actually be deciding on membership − could you clarify?
• “P+T Committee” links to a private page on Office Wiki, is that intended?
• “3 WMF Foundation stakeholders […] 2 WMF Board technical stakeholders” − it could certainly be argued that board or not, they are WMF stakeholders. You may want to either rename the former “3 WMF staff stakeholders” or acknowledge that these are 5 WMF stakeholders
• How would the “2 WMF Affiliate technical stakeholders” be selected?
• Can you please provide the overall reasoning for the membership setup? In particular, why the mandatory representative from enwiki?

Jean-Fred (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

More questions from me:

• it’s unclear to me how this proposed body relates to other bodies, such as the Board’s P+T Committee, the WMF Board as a whole, and the WMF staff. For example, who does the PTAC report to? Who will decide whether or not to implement the recommendations made by the PTAC? Assuming the pilot is deemed a success, is the idea for the PTAC to eventually replace/take over the duties of the P&T board committee?
• thinking more about it, “2 WMF Affiliate technical stakeholders” seems very low. You would definitely need someone from Wikimedia Deutschland, so that’s only one seat left − and that seems little to cover the wide range of technically-minded affiliates we have (for example, just for the ones that immediately come to my mind, I would personally welcome folks from Wikimedia Sverige, Wiki Movement Brazil User Group, Indic MediaWiki Developers User Group…)

Jean-Fred (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jean-Frédéric. Thanks for your questions.

• I and a representative of the Product and Technology board committee will ultimately select members of this pilot group from our pool of applicants. The inclusion of an active enWP community member is a reflection of significant technical and architectural needs and planned software changes at this time.
• While there are 5 WMF stakeholders, WMF Board members are not WMF staff and have a different remit. We are distinguishing these two stakeholder groups.
• We will select our Affiliate stakeholders through a separate process led by me and the Product and Technology board committee.
• The PTAC is a new pilot effort designed to comment and advise on the activities of the WMF product and technology department. For example the product and technology department may seek the PTAC's input on our approach for graphs or interactive content. We think the PTAC will be especially helpful in navigating tradeoffs and strategic commitments. Ultimately, WMF's staff have final decision authority to execute on key technical questions during this pilot.
• Assuming the pilot is a success, the PTAC could continue on as part of future movement charter discussions. But of course, given that this is a pilot, that outcome is not yet determined.

SDeckelmann-WMF (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Translation

Could this page please be marked for translation? Thanks. Joalpe (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just marked it for translation, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Joalpe (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A request to make application process public

I think it will be a good idea if the names of all applying contributors were public. The PTAC appears to be a significant commitment, and I (and several others) would be quite invested in making sure it has solid contributors. A public list of all applying names would help guarantee that. If there are not many applications, we are incentivised to encourage others who have solid technical contributions in the community. On the other hand, I personally will prefer not to apply if I know there are people with much stronger technical qualifications from my communities already.

I think this transparency is good overall, without adding any significant overhead to the process (the actual selection can be private). And it helps the communities self select for the process and guarantee there's a solid pool of candidates to select the PTAC from Soni (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Soni - this is a great suggestion. We don't plan on sharing individual responses to applications, and had planned on sharing aggregate data on the # of applicants, diversity of applicants, etc. I think it's possible we share the usernames of applicants in some capacity, but am unsure how/when we'd do it in the process. Let me have a think on it! JWheeler-WMF (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not know precisely how you plan to do the application process, but my imagination was as simple as "Add yourself to this list when you apply". Either by an automatic template or some other simple way at the same time they submit the actual form for applying.

As for when in the process, the transparency reasons mean it should be shared, but not on when. But the "encourage other competent people" reasons mean it's better to keep this list updated as new applications come in. Either by participants themselves (like above) or by some WMF staff doing so every N hours/everyday. You want the community to know who is applying so we can self correct for obvious misses Soni (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)