Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement

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


Declining request for endorsement[edit]

Note : all or part of this section content have been copied to the page dedicated to concerns about the endorsement. Please consider centralize your feedback there. --Psychoslave (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the request for endorsement of this draft for some time.

I am troubled by the first words of the lead sentence, which currently read "Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge..." I think that for Wikimedia to be "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge" (emphasis added) would be both unhealthy and unwise. Diversity fosters opportunities and resilience. Also, both WMF and the Wikimedia community have histories of organizational problems, shortcomings, and all-too-human frailties which lead me to question the wisdom of entrusting WMF and the Wikimedia community to be "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge." To me the draft has a tone of boldlness to the point of selfishness and vanity. I think that a measure of humility in regards to ourselves, and a measure of respect and generosity toward others' infrastructure, would be beneficial.

I also would suggest that, while "infrastructure" may be a good word to describe a high-profile function of WMF and contributors of many kinds, "infrastructure" probably is not the first word that crosses into the minds of content creators and content consumers when thinking about the nature of Wikimedia. I think that "Infrastructure" may be a word that is better suited for a place that, while high-profile, is elsewhere in the document.

I am troubled by the process of the request for endorsement, which in my opinion should instead be a request for comment requiring a community consensus or at least a simple majority in favor.

I would need to spend multiple hours to review the draft in detail, but the above problems are sufficient for me to decline to endorse both the document and the ratification process in their current form.

Regretfully,

--Pine 06:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And how do we encourage people to withdraw their endorsements on the finalized direction, Pine? --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
George Ho,
I'm not planning to campaign against the document, so I'm not going to reach out to people to encourage them to withdraw their endorsements.
I think that the strategy process started with good intentions, I understand the desire to articulate a strategy, and I'm glad that WMF made some meaningful efforts to have a bottom-up process. However, as I wrote above, I personally disagree with the document in its current form, and with the choice to request endorsements instead of submitting the document to an RfC or some kind of democratic process.
My dissatisfaction is unlikely to make any difference to those people who are responsible for the draft and for the ratification process (who, I would point out, are WMF appointees rather than community-elected representatives) and who have made clear that they are firm in their support of the current draft regardless of what anyone else thinks, so the situation is what it is. Unless someone wants to actively campaign against the document or the process, I think that those of us who are dissatisfied with the situation should register our dissatisfaction but continue to put one foot in front of the other, moving forward as we think best in consultation with others.
From my perspective it is disappointing that the good intentions of the process became weighed down with the problems that I mentioned. My guess is that if I walk through the document in detail that I will find elements that I like, but at this point no positive aspects could persuade me to endorse the document or ratification process as a whole.
Regretfully,
--Pine 07:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Me too. I fully agree with what you said. I will not endorse the statement, as I explained on a multiple previous occasions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I do BA candidate.svg not endorse the statement as well. There are many reasons. When I first was reading pre-Cycle 1 materials both as a new Meta-Wiki strategy coordinator and as an invitee to strategy track of Wikimedia Conference I saw a lot of vague highly philosophical gibberish. It was promised that in the end we will see something more solid, less vague. I do not see it. I realise it is strategy, I do not expect a script or a to do list as the outcome, just to be clear. But what I see is a document which does a worse job than the Vision statement and Wikipedia's 5 Pillars (extrapolated to wider Wikimedia) and a couple of other things we have (e.g. Founding principles). I cannot say that I oppose the document. I do not, it has points I agree with. But I know that some things in there are either naïve or untrue. Motives behind people contributing for one. My native community, Ukrainian, it is not fuelled by that almost divine mission of goodness on the way of free knowledge spread out. Fight for Ukrainian language place in the Internet, in society, and in the world. Ukrainian language's and Ukraine's. I cannot say if majority's but a considerable part of community's goal. Free knowledge is just a side-effect. In fact many would prefer a local Baidupedia if it existed. I am sure it is not the only community with similar motive present. I am sure it is not the sole "ulterior" motive we Wikimedia movement have in. That the "divine" reason is the common thing. Yes, OK. But the text makes one feel we are some angels dedicating our lives to free knowledge. We are not. Not all of us are anyway. Some of those who do not are though some of the most prominent contributors. I also see that some points do not resonate with an amount of community members' believes. Nor they do with some of WMF's actual actions and positions. Not always transparently stated, but widely known. I can give examples for both, mostly repeating other people's thoughts from other places, but it is too long a comment as it is.
I was involved in the process around Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 and I didn't like it. My own performance was crappy, but the whole process even if one order of magnitude less than myself crappy was still. At the beginning it was all very raw, very hasty. The criteria by which languages to have coordinators were selected is an enigma. Reliance on discussion coordinators to do the same job as paid language coordinators was unfair and was not a best encouragement for them to appear. Insert more factors here. One of the main problems I saw when trying to be a discussion coordinator too was that communities just do not care. I know that some language coordinators had the same problem (while others on contrary had to deal with amount of work exceeding what one person should have been doing). This not caring is on the one hand probably a sign of lack of proactive encouragement from coordinators, on my part it is for sure. But it not completely this. People not caring is just a position of many. In Ukrainian Wikipedia we have a somewhat popular userbox "Do not chat idly, but write articles". Most Wikimedians know what they are doing. They know the problems of their segment of work. They know their own goals. Short and long term. I am pretty sure it is not just about individuals. I also was present (just observing) at a Belarusian conference on a strategy session they had. They were just mainly not ready to discuss strategy. With so much tactics to plan. The question is do they, the people who know what they are doing, need strategy? I doubt so. I am pretty sure that the majority of our wide community does not actually need this thing. I am not though talking that it is unneeded. It is an interesting thing to have, just another essay to link to on occasion (to justify a grant application for one). But local RfC on concrete issues, local RfCs on wider issues, or even local strategy discussions of our constituencies I think would be more useful. For instance is this document really useful for Wikinews? I don't think so. Not harmful, perhaps even not completely useless for instance recognising different forms of free knowledge resonates with WN, but no not really useful. I am pretty sure a Wikinews strategy direction would be more useful. Mediawiki. Translators of global Wikimedia stuff. Editors of Wikiproject Whatever. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Whatever. Wikiquote. Readers of Wikipedia from Wherever. This applies to any of them. Now, the process was we ask everyone equally, in reality those caring to respond, we build this thing. Now the entities like the one mentioned build their strategies within the frame. Isn't it an irony that this document talks about equity? I am pretty sure that the order should have been different. You need bricks to build a house. You do not make a house of clay and then chisel it to look as though made of bricks.
And I agree with Pine. The document ended up arrogant(ish) and this phase of the process is not in wiki mood. Asking people to endorse something would actually get you win a ban for canvassing in many wikis. Having a two-side say is always the way Wikimedians chose.
Disclaimer: Insert "IMHO" where it is not explicitly there; I am not trying to rally for opposition. --Base (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this, it is actually helpful (though probably will have no effect whatsoever).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I put my name in the list of “individual contributors”, with a Oppose Oppose template. Alas, it has been removed, and located in a different page: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement/Concerns. Obviously it is the idea to make it less visible. --Ziko (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ziko, I restored it. It is abusive to modify or blank people's comments. Alsee (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Pine, George Ho, Ymblanter, Base: Ziko and I have responded with opposes. Merely declining to endorse is to let them make us invisible. If you want to oppose, go ahead and oppose. Alsee (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I too, find I cannot endorse this strategy, as I find it too vague and potentially open to abuse. It is like the horse designed by a committee which ended up a camel. I accept that it was apparently done in good faith, and it is not blatantly bad, so I do not oppose as much as abstain from support. It leaves me with an uneasy feeling that something is not right, without being able to pin down exactly what it is. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    Peter (Southwood), and others: Note that declining to respond results in in being BANNED from participating in further discussions. Quote: necessary step in order to participate in phase 2 discussions. Alsee (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    To be honest, I consider Phase I sufficiently broken to have no incentive to participate in Phase II. I do not foresee any potential development of the situation which could lead me to endorse the outcome of Phase II.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    And that actually identifies what I find most objectionable about the whole warped process. I refuse on principle to be coerced like this. Does anyone know who made this decision? I wonder when and where the principle of consensus was swept under the carpet as inconvenient. Thank you for pointing this out, I now know what it is that was bothering me about the process. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    The WMF budgeted $2.5 million[1] for consultants and contractors etc for this strategy process. Rather than utilizing community members with experience in processing responses into a consensus summary, they took a conventional authoritarian-top-down approach. Items were cherry-picked to support the WMF's internal agendas, while more widely supported things were tossed in the trash. Alsee (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know whether your analysis is correct, but it does agree with the impression I am getting of the process. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


I join concerns raised here, so most likely I will individually vote against the endorsement. As Pine, I praise the effort of the foundation to create emulation around strategy discussion within the movement. Also, for what I was able to participate in the process, that was interesting, informative, sometimes frustrating, more often joyful. Now for the global result endorsement, while as some stated in more details above, this is more a party politics stuff. So I would advice to make your decision to (not) respond with political considerations in mind. As far as I'm concerned, I will encourage any user group in which I am active to endorse the proposal, for pure promotional purposes, especially under-represented user groups. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the unclear wording from the page. It's not about excluding people from the conversation, but about giving people the chance to express support and commitment to participate in the following conversations in good faith. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Nicole, what's wrong with expressing opposition toward the direction and the endorsement process? Also, you undid the changes. May you please explain why? --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I also do not see why there should not be a structure and have therefore restored the subsections. The "direction" is set in stone anyway (Please note that the strategic direction will not be renegotiated), so what's the harm in clearly expressing dissenting opinions? All it might lead to is a re-consideration of the "direction", which can only be beneficial to the "movement".--Cirdan (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
They can spend another million carving it in a giant granite slab if they like. To the extent the direction is an accurate summary of items with broad support, and to the extent implementations are in line with consensus, then there is no need to say anything "will not be renegotiated". On the other hand any portion of the document which was produced with a disregard for consensus, or any implementation which goes against consensus, will blow up in their face if they try to force it. That is why they should have used a more legitimate process on this project. Alsee (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Notifying others about the Endorsement day[edit]

Do local wiki communities deserve to be notified about the Endorsement, like En.WP? I've not yet notified them about it. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

George, you are completely free to inform anybody about the opportunity of endorsement as you see fit. It's up to anybody to endorse the Strategy or not to endorse it. But at least everybody should be informed about the possibility. And that off course includes all local communities. --Gereon K. (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree, Gereon. But this possibility to endorse should be accompanied by the information that you can also reject it. That would be more balanced. Ziko (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements sorting[edit]

Psychoslave, I see you started to sort endorsements. It was by designed that all Wikimedia organizations are together and sorted by date. There is no reason to split by "type". They all are movement's organizations :) Schiste (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course they all are movement's organisations. Just like both groups and individuals are both member of the movement. Making typological distinction doesn't imply distinction in dignity. That is just a typological distinction which can be made, and might be of interest for some readers. Those who don't care can just abstract it, just as they can do so for individual/group answers. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Forgot I was logged off from that computer :D Well actually, the legacy is there was some distinction in "dignity". Plus, you will need to create a whole new category for Wikimedia Foundation, and we really don't want to have Wikimedia Foundation singled out from the other organizations. We are all Wikimedia Organizations, Wikimedia Foundation included :) Schiste (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now restored the original structure of the page. I would also like to point out that this endorsement page is intended to work like a show of approval and support instead of an RfC. We are asking people to support it, to show that they agree upon the outcomes and intent to contribute to the following process in good faith. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know that, but that's exactly the problem. Some experienced Wikipedians, including me, want to make very clear in full public that this document is not in our name and we dont agree with it. I participated in the Strategy Process and found it far from unbiased and democratic, let alone inclusive. So the dissent is not only to the result of the process, but also to the process itself. It is in my opinion very typical that WMF has extreme problems to deal with dissent. Even if I agreed with the content, which I do not, I'd never back a statement without the possibility to reject it.--Mautpreller (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mautpreller that I will not endorse this strategy because of the lack of willingness to accept dissent. I personally do not have strong objections to the strategy other than that it is so vague that it could be interpreted any way that the WMF of the day choose to interpret it, which I guess is a moderately serious problem, but the attempt to whitewash over dissent is not acceptable. As there is very little reliable data on what fraction of the actual movement took part in the discussions, there is no way to identify how representative of actual contributors to the projects this select group of supporters constitutes. It is starting to feel a bit like an exercise in empire building. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Nicole Ebber (WMDE) it's certainly appropriate to expect people to participate in good faith, and I thank you for removing the text saying it was necessary to endorse the product here in order to participate any further.[2] However trying to set up an "endorsement" page intended to only allow approval is the clearest statement of illegitimacy of the entire process. Dictatorships run governance-processes where the only available option is to approve. Inviting public input to the first stage is meaningless when it's run as a conventional authoritarian top-down process, when poorly supported items were cherry picked and more broadly supported things were ignored at the whim of staff or consultants. The WMF is still unwilling or unable to participate in our consensus-based movement. Trying to accumulate endorsements to manufacture a pretense of authority won't work. I don't want to be needlessly provocative, but I am more than happy to detail how badly it can fail if you want. Alsee (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It's strange how you've played with that idea over the years, Schiste :) from the original™ Citation needed.

Merging oppose votes[edit]

We have two sections of opposes. Wondering if we should merge them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the separate page for concerns can be merged into the main page, but both Guillaume and Nicole initially took great care to remove all dissenting opinions completely. The fact that the page for concerns is even linked and opposing votes are visible is solely due to numerous bold changes by volunteers.--Cirdan (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I definitely agree that this needs to be cleaned up. The duplication mess was created when multiple (WMF)'s tried to ban dissent from the page, and the deleted responses were restored. The whole /Concerns subpage should probably be closed up to prevent the mess from expanding. Duplicate responses in both =Oppose= and /Concerns can be struck or otherwise eliminated, and some non-duplicate responses should probably be merged from /Concerns to the =Neutral= or =Oppose= sections of the main page as appropriate. Alsee (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added a message box to the duplicate page/section telling people not to use it. Howevere I'll pause to make sure there are no objections/concerns before making more intrusive edits to actually resolve the mess (striking duplicates & moving non-duplicates). I do not take lightly edits which touch other people's responses. Alsee (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ideally the authors of the duplicated responses should make the changes to their own responses. Ping them to do so. This is a mess caused by interfering with peoples comments, further interference is not the best way to fix it.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements by WMF staffers[edit]

I am not really happy by sudden rise of endorsements by WMF staffers. Whereas they are obviously entitled to have theor own opinion on the issue (and I highly respect opinion.s of many of them), WMF should be in the organized group section, or WMF employees should have had a separate section.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There are also quite a few WMF/chapter employees who signed with their volunteer accounts. It seems that the WMF encourages their employees to sign to make it seem like there is broad interest in the communities, the same way they tried to hide the fact that there are many who object to both the process and its outcomes. We already had a desperate attempt by a WMDE staff member who writing under his volunteer account tried to paint the direction in the most positive light in the de-wp sign post.--Cirdan (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Desperate? I'm sorry? Why can't I state my opinion on this – from a volunteer position, with a disclosure that I'm working as well for Wikimedia Deutschland? --Jcornelius (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Jcornelius, nothing against you personal. But in general I think at least that one about disclosure is a fair point. One reason is that the "Direction" is redefining the "community". Ziko (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You can of course state your opinion and I'm very happy to hear/read it, but the fact that your salary is paid by the same organization which tries to establish the "direction" (not even considering that you are closely involved with its drafting and the strategy process) creates a massive conflict of interest. You cannot possibly be without bias in favor of the strategy, having helped create it in your professional capacity. You posting an overly positive lengthy article to the Kurier and Nicole attempting multiple times to silence and hide critical comments here shows how personally involved and biased you are, which, again, is perfectly fine and natural given your roles in the process. I would however expect you to show professional judgement and refrain from participating in the debate as a volunteer.--Cirdan (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Here is WMF's conflict of interest policy, Cirdan. --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
What a surprising document that is. :) Thanks George, I'd never read it. Meanwhile, the covered signings continue. SashiRolls (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
George Ho, I'm aware of this policy, but it is not relevant here. My objection with WMF/chapter employees voting here (and especially those voting with their volunteer accounts) in the same section as community members who are not employees is the following: If in the future there is an initiative based on the direction, the WMF will claim that so-and-so-many individual contributors (in addition to virtually all Wikimedia organizations) also supported the direction, therefore the direction and the initiative that follows from it have the consent of the community. (As a side note: WMF and chapter staff has to "endorse the direction" in their professional capacity anyway, whether they like it or not.) This pattern is a very common and effective communications strategy, which has been employed e.g. by Wikimedia Germany (a member's association under German law) when their member's assembly votes on the annual project and budget plan, with a third to half of the members in the room being Wikimedia Germany employees and their team leaders and boss present. Objections were always muted by saying "Well, 80% of our members agreed to the plan." and it was virtually impossible to change anything about the plan. That's the conflict of interest I'm talking about here. If there is no interest in broad community consensus anyway, the WMF should just move on with their strategy process, they have all the right and power to do that.--Cirdan (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cirdan, I understand your concerns. But still I think it my right as a volunteer to take part in this process. Yes, I am one of the WMF staffers who signed with her volunteer account. I did that, because as a volunteer I have been following the strategic process before I was hired by the Foundation. I liked the way it was going and was thinking about endorsing it, if it kept going that way forward. Then I was hired. The strategic process, in which I was not involved in my staff capacitiy, moved on the way I had hoped for. Am I not allowed to express my opinion, because of that? How about my colleagues that have contributed much longer than me? --Kritzolina (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Kritzolina, You are as free as anyone else to express your personal endorsement or otherwise. However as you are in a position where a conflict of interests is conceivable, it may be best to clarify your position from the start, by openly stating what you have stated above, along with your endorsement, so that any reader can plainly see where you are coming from with this. Particularly as this process has been unduly polarised by some poor choices by the people running it, which causes others to be automatically suspicious. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I should have done the clarification. Corrected now. --Kritzolina (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Kritzolina Thanks, that's exactly how I believe this should go. It should be immediately clear to everybody, especially those without inside knowledge, who on the front page is on the WMF's or a chapter's payroll and who isn't. It strikes me as odd that this doesn't seem to be a concern for those signing under their volunteer accounts.--Cirdan (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I know that the direction can't be renegotiated. However, with the concerns raised, like above, and very few non-chapter, non-WMF volunteers/editors, how will the consensus be determined? --George Ho (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC); fully struck, --10:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is no indication that consensus is a consideration here. I don't think it even a relevant concept for this particular poll. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
George Ho, the WMF does not do consensus. The WMF is not a participant or member of the consensus community. This is not, and never was a consensus process. It does not establish a consensus. All advertizements for this page are calls-to-endorse. The WMF never intended to allow any opposes on here, and actively tried to delete them. If the WMF tries to use this strategy to implement something against-consensus on community wikis, there is going to be a shitstorm. Alsee (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, we don´t have a strategy so far, we have a vision for 2030. How to make that vision a reality will be the task of the next phase (will be done next year) and following that strategy will be phase three (after Wikimania 2018). That vision thing - a.k.a strategic direction - is, more or less, an update of what Jimmy Wales dreamed about 15 years ago. At that time smartphones were unknown. It is pointless to discuss something we have been following for that long. By the way, since that vision is not new, I see no need to support that. I think, new things will grow without such a lame vision. Take Wikidata for example, that was created by a few nerds supported by WMDE. By the way, semantic web (Wikidata) is an old dream too. --Goldzahn (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Goldzahn, are you responding to someone's post here? The indent of your post suggests either Alsee or myself, possibly George Ho. If so, it is not clear which post you are responding to. Please clarify. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I´m responding to the post, I was posting after. --Goldzahn (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

From the main page[edit]

I am moving a misplaced opinion, not sure whether it is a support, an oppose, or just a comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not know the princples of cooperation. There are too many first and second freeriders who block the developement of the International Community of Voluntary Individuals (iCIV, which Lila Tretikov did not understand). It is difficult to ask the remaining people of a declicine after many have left, how to go on. --84.62.141.220 23:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC) (look up: Meidung - also gone.)
Agreed, misplaced on main, and I also have no idea what the author was trying to communicate.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I recognize the user from the talk page of former executive director LilaTretikov_(WMF). They regularly posted elaborate and incomprehensible posts, including idiosyncratic phrases and acronyms such as iCIV. There was definitely a language barrier, and possibly more. After several attempts to communicate failed, I think everyone pretty much gave up responding. The posts just kept coming. Alsee (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Being allowed to participate in Phase 2[edit]

I have another question. Would those not endorsing the direction be allowed to participate in Phase 2? --George Ho (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This is really not a question of "allowing" people to participate or not. The next steps will will be designed as an inclusive process, and for different steps in this process, different parties need to be at the table: Some will include individual contributors, some organized groups, some new voices, and some all of the above. As Phase 2 is still far from being fully designed and planned, there is no more concrete information to share at the moment. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I would say, now it is obvious there is no phase 2. All the foundation wanted is that paper and lots of "endorsements". I see as one use case the Funds Dissemination Committee, where the paper could be used to decide which proposal should get money. --Goldzahn (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)