User talk:KVaidla (WMF)
Welcome to Meta!
Question about WMF strategy working groups
Hi Kaarel, which working group would be good for me to contact with a suggestion that they include financial transparency for WMF and affiliates in their list of priorities? Thank you, --Pine✉ 19:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Pine!! Thanks for the question and sorry for delayed reply!
- I think that the groups where it fits the best are quite evidently Resource Allocation and Revenue Streams. Also I think that transparency on a general level will be part of the discussion in Roles & Responsibilities group. The scoping process in these groups starts in the end of September / beginning of October. This is the point of time where all the feedback from the wider community will be fed into the groups. You can add your thoughts on the topics of particular topics on the talk pages of the groups at the moment. We also plan to run a community input cycle in September.
- Best regards, --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification regarding a removed comment
Hi Kaarel, please see the recent diffs from this page. I'm fairly certain that the IP was trolling, so per WP:DENY, I reverted its comment along with my response. If you feel that my removal was in error then please let me know. Thank you, --Pine✉ 19:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
the recent strategy-surveys infiltrate into what has been typically community-only domains (policies of neutrality and reliability et al), I plan on mass-messaging all wiki-projects to participate in the survey. Any objections? Any preferred write-up? Winged Blades of Godric (AWB) (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Winged Blades of Godric (AWB),sorry for a delayed reply and thanks for offering help. Mass messaging would not be the way I would go forward about this as it does not have the more personal approach needed for such discussions. I will follow-up shortly with posting the survey links to some of the wikis and will follow up later with a link to recommendation drafts. I will discuss if the mass messaging for the recommendation review could be a way forward with the team. I understand the need to provide a clear opportunity for everyone to participate, but a mass message does not feel too inviting from my perspective. Happy to discuss this and thank you again! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'll tell you right now, we sure need something more than this.  That does not in any way convey the gravity or massive destructive potential of many of these recommendations. Seraphimblade (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I missed your reply (which came after a week). You know what - no 'pedian who is not connected well enough with the affiliates/user-groups fucking cares about the thousand and thirteen garden-variety surveys that you do about and the pattern of communication indulged in by you, seems a lot like this. Given the radical nature of proposals, we need more direct calls for participation, that clearly gives example of the changes that you are supposedly going to manifest. And, even if you are not doing it, I will do that. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Winged Blades of Godric, thank you for your continued engagement regarding this and sharing your thoughts regarding some recommendations. Also for thinking about community engagement. My previous answer and communication approach was related to the survey and I am well aware of the survey fatigue (please do mind your language though!). The idea of the survey was created rather to give opportunity to provide anonymous or specific input to enrich the discussions for those interested. Spreading it widely across all the projects felt to be too much for the survey type approach and overwhelming.
- With the recommendation drafts the case is much different though and I agree that they need more attention from diverse range of project communities to improve the recommendations and add content/context to the ongoing working group discussions and support conversations across the communities regarding these ideas. We will follow up regarding recommendation drafts across a wider range of wikis and are planning to integrate feedback and input to the recommendations. Thank you both Seraphimblade and Winged Blades of Godric for pinging me on the talk page, understanding the significance of the process and its recommendations as well as taking proactive approach in supporting inclusion of voices in these discussions! It is well appreciated. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)