Wikimedia Summit 2019/Documentation/Annex

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summit 2019
Program Fringe Events Registration & Participants




Reports, Reviews

RZ Logo Wikimedia-Summit black.svg

» Structure of this report
» The Process: Step-by-Step!
Day 1 – Downloading
» Re-Connecting
» Onboarding Working Groups…
and everyone else.
Day 2 – Processing
» Changing Movement Structures
» Progress Check-In
Day 3 – Uploading
» Your Agenda
» Looking Ahead
» Closing & Wrapping Up
» Working Groups' Highs & Lows
 » Questions about the process
 » Next steps for Affiliates and Communities

A. Session 2A: Working Groups’ Highs and Lows[edit]




  • “Work of first 2 years seems losts”
  • “The first 3 months”
  • “Unclear end deliverable”
  • “Lack of agenda”
  • “Lack of clarity in the process”
  • “The confusion and slow start at the beginning”


  • “WMCON 2018, Identifying priorities and opportunities”
  • “Friendly group/ Easy to work with”
  • “There is lived experience and empathy in the group”
  • “Healthy group”
  • “Support each other”
  • “Finding the channel of communication and seeing people excitedly collaborate. Leadership”.



  • “Half of the team never showing up”
  • “Can’t invest more time because of several reasons”
  • “Not knowing what to do, feeling that nothing is happening”
  • “Couldn’t participate from the first 4-5 weeks…”



  • “August to November”
  • “Not being sure where we were going”
  • “Some can’t attend due to timezone constraints”"
  • “When we had a number of video calls with no work in between”
  • “When we spent two months deciding if we could start deciding”


  • “First time we “hacked” or edited our Scoping Document collaboratively on a group call”



  • “Consultation with the community during CEE meeting”
  • “Oct / Nov not ask to engage with the process fully”


  • “Sharing of responsibilities within the group”
  • “Joining the Capacity Development working group after joining the Foundation (being here for 4 months)”



  • “Lost? November and December didn’t understand the process”
  • “Another email not answered”
  • “Not able to attend most of the meeting due to work and personal commitments”
  • “Homework as mapping discussion”
  • “Toggling between strategic and operational”
  • “Two opportunities to meet did not work out”


  • “Seeing the group work through a very through process of building a core working solution that matched different time zone, backgrounds and ideas”.
  • “Quick work on final review - we did it! despite timing challenge”
  • “Peter’s initial Scoping Document (first comprehensive look at a scope)”
  • “Starting to actually writing the documents”
  • “Using the input from last years conference”
  • “When the working group decided to develop glossary document to help other community members understand different terminologies”.
  • “Break through of deciding to review the work of previous Partnership group”.



  • “Unable to diversify the group in a decent time frame”
  • “Too much time wasted in getting traction”
  • “Exiting of members due to lack of clarity and workload”
  • “Liang’s Low Point: Hard to invite Kangah from Ivory Coast to join our group’s in-person meeting”
  • “Find how to share my time between my chapter and the WG [working group]?”
  • “People leaving (Peter at al)”
  • “When things dragged in late 2018”
  • “Emotional labour”
  • “Not able to join the meeting and lose some of the progress”
  • “Inactive people / resignations”
  • “When I was very confused if we were getting anywhere and consider quitting after seeing many people do the same”


  • “Facilitation, note takers, organisers”
  • “Introducing of more paid roles to declare workload - volunteers”
  • “Getting the Scoping Document done”
  • “Consolidating the white papers into the scoping doc”
  • “Finalising the Scoping Document”




  • “work/personal life stress meant I wasn’t as productive in the process as I should have been”
  • “Mandate unclear until half-way into scoping”
  • “Difficult to meet and make progress”
  • “Leaving and coming to terms”
  • “Working group call (very different time zone from me and that was difficult)”
  • “In-person meetings getting rejected”
  • “Time, time, time!”
  • “Long phases without participation from me”


  • “The process and effort and collaboration on the Scoping Document”
  • “It will get better because we have goals”
  • “…. document”
  • “Finalised membership of working group”
  • “When we started proposing different documents”
  • “Interviewing lots of people from their input”
  • “Discussion with Oscar about his personal situation in Venezuela”
  • “Amazing cluster documents”
  • “When we were trying to understand as a group what processes currently exists (getting on the same page)”
  • “Writing and reviewing the scoping docs”
  • “Defining the resources to be allocated”
  • “That the majority has the same ideas like I have about diversity”
  • “Finishing the Scoping Document despite …”



  • “No discussion of of current situation to inform future change”
  • “End of a long call in mid-Feb, feeling of failure as facilitator and lack of mental space for the actual topic”
  • “Still not having that much clarity on the entire process”
  • “Recent 3 months and departures”
  • “Berlin [meeting] (in Feb)”
  • “Process flow; length; clarity”
  • “There are still missing voices in the group”
  • “Working on Scoping Document”
  • “General process; confusion”
  • “Slow and unproductive process”


  • “When Liam said “I am surprised that I like the control tower”
  • “In person meeting in Berlin”
  • “Completing scoping question during the personal meeting in Berlin”
  • “Scoping -> meeting”
  • “R+R, R+A, R+S, February Berlin meeting”
  • “Seti vs. Chris, Rap Battle Berlin”
  • “Having a document finished that works”
  • “Berlin meeting, the 50% where we were allowed to get on with work”
  • “Berlin (in Feb)”
  • “Meet together and work on scoping”
  • “Brussels face-to face”
  • “When I realised the group is moving forward on its own and owns the process”
  • “The Berlin meeting”



  • “Disconnect between movement strategy and WMF planning”
  • “Cancer diagnosis; figuring out how to balance commitment”
  • “When I realize how exhausting on volunteer time the strategy exercise is”
  • “Not sure about implementation”
  • “Clarity of the process”
  • “Group meetings at 5am:(“
  • “Anything involving post-it notes”


  • “WG - meeting, discuss in person”
  • “Coming together to finalise the scope document”
  • “Right now!”
  • “Liang’s High Point, A lot of participants of WMSummit are interested in our capacity building document”
  • “Delivering the Scoping Document”
  • “Finalising scope (finally)”
  • “Scoping documents delivered”
  • “Scoping questions done”
  • “Delivering scoping on time (and only slightly unfinished)”
  • “The day we had the Scoping Document ready after all the reviews and work”
  • “Work in the glossary/delivering the scope/ almost all of the meetings”
  • “Delivering scoping doc”
  • “Editing soping questions into conference”
  • “Hearing about Kathe from WG members”

B. Session 2B: Questions about the Movement Strategy Process[edit]


  • (30) How can we practically ensure that the recommendations are effectively implemented?

29-25 points

  • (29) How can we involve more people in Wikimedia Movement Strategy?
  • (28) Which are the main common issue among all Working Groups?
  • (27) How can we ensure the Strategy will produce real, mesurable change?
  • (27) Is the process team going to actively support chapters/UGs/communities in actually implementing the final strategy?
  • (27) How to retain our fellow Wikimedians for capacity building ?
  • (26) How organisation and local community can help and work on solutions?
  • (26) How and by whom the recommendations will be approved for implementation?
  • (25) How well does the core team knows the affiliates who are eventually going to be affected by decisions?

24 - 20 points

  • (24) When will we start to apply the new strategy and how we will do that in a local (national) level?
  • (24) How can we represent the people who are not here? What do they need?
  • (23) What are the best practices for engaging user groups to get quality back?
  • (23) How do we accommodate the diverse needs of all our affiliates?
  • (23) What keeps people from Treating strategic goals as irrelevant that are given lip service while doing their accustomed programmatic work?
  • (22) How the strategy is going to be implemented?
  • (22) Do we collect ideas that are about implementation of the strategy to reuse them when the time has come?
  • (22) How do you include sources which are not in written source like a folklore?
  • (22) How do I get my community to share their views of our movement strategy?
  • (22) How will we encourage the new members to follow the new recommendations?
  • (22) Wikimedia movement 3rd point is titled “Knowledge equity”: please explain this in detail how does it affect Global South?
  • (22) Will one strategy work for all of us?
  • (22) How are we to assure a diversity of voices and content in Wikimedia projects when many makes structures silence voices?
  • (22) What if our community wants to take a different path from the global movement?
  • (22) Possible political consequences of strategy?
  • (21) Do we think the communities will engage in the process?
  • (21) How do we engage active contributors into strategic thinking?
  • (21) How to make Wikimedia a pedagogical tool?


  • (19) How will we make sure that small communities are represented in strategy process outcome?
  • (19) Will the global strategy be flexible to be adapted for regions?
  • (19) How can we include kids (under 18) in the designs of the Wiki projects, as not just readers but also contributors? And how are we designing Wiki projects for Accessibility to 1st time Internet users?
  • (19) Is there a strategy for people who don't speak english during the Wikimania meeting?
  • (19) How are we going to share the recommendations with our community to actually improve?
  • (19) What will happen with people that like being part of these (WM) but does not take part of the strategy?
  • (18) Will we reach enough of our communities/people?
  • (18) What happens next after we have our strategic plan 2030?
  • (18) Who makes a/the decision about which way to go?
  • (18) Will the outcome of the strategy discussion include the options of every affiliate/volunteer?
  • (17) Is there a body in the Wikimedia movement that can define and implement the strategy?
  • (17) Does AffCom have clear procedural guidelines? If so, are they available somewhere?
  • (17) What formats do you plan to use to reach out to diverse user groups?
  • (17) What is the difference between the Strategy process and Strategy directions?
  • (16) What happens when the scope document is finalised? What is the road ahead?
  • (16) When will it all end?
  • (16) What does the 2030 vision say about the future of the free open source software Wikimedia Foundation releases (MediaWiki)
  • (16) What about collaboration chapters Working Groups?
  • (15) Should the strategy indicate concrete goals? Why/Why not?
  • (15) How to retain the engagement even after meetup?
  • (15) How do we make sure all languages are represented in the movement strategy?


  • (14) Will the strategy groups resolve the problems of financing the persons or affiliates in countries like Russia or Iran?
  • (14) Who will make decisions about the recommendations? What power will they have to do so?
  • (14) Should we do a review of the questions in Scoping Documents?
  • (14) How community knows about conclusions?
  • (14) How will the finalised strategy bind local communities?
  • (13) How do we reply/give feedback to the questions towards the wider community in the Scoping Document?
  • (13) Are they choosing some keywords? What are they?
  • (13) What happened with all the content that went into creating the strategic direction?
  • (12) In which Working Groups educations fall into?
  • (12) What about bad behaviour community?
  • (12) How do we make sure that new changes still allow flexibility for different countries/regions/groups?
  • (10) What is the value of everyone participating in the 2030 strategy?


  • (9) How was the strategy process going on before (I mean before defining “2030 strategy process”)?
  • (9) Will the core values be filled with (new) self consciousness through the process?
  • (8) What happens if we fail to unite?
  • (7) What will the final strategy document “look like”?
  • (6) Where can we get some money?
  • (6) Does the capacity building scope include cooperations between user groups/chapters?


  • (0) What content you would like to create?
  • (4) How do we adopt to a world of Alexa, Siri, Cortona and “OK google”?
  • (3) How does Wikimedia become an infrastructure?

C. Session 8: Next steps for Affiliates and Communities[edit]

1. Whom will you engage in the first conversations [after this Summit]?
2. What channels are you going to use?
3. What support might be needed from Kelsi?

Wikimedia User Group Nigeria

  1. First conversations: Community engagement and onboarding in the strategy; process; Request feedback; Effect implementation of the strategy.
  2. Channels: User group mailing list; Social media.
  3. What we want from Kelsi: support, guidance.

WM Espana

  1. With our communication manager;
  2. Hang out, telegram, email, blog, twitter;
  3. How to be sure we can communicate to everybody in our community?

Wikimedia Hungary

  1. An update on the strategy process on Hungarian Wikipedia.
  2. Village pump + Chapter mailing list
  3. -

NY Triangle Wikipedia User Group

  1. Roles+responsibilities: how to organise user groups to be more effective/sustaining; two main “[word is missing] ” of our user group.
  2. Email/ in person.
  3. love the idea of using this “Toolkit”.

Esperanto and Free knowledge

We will talk [how] our group can contribute and join the Working Groups.

  1. With whom: User KuboF, user Sahaquiel, user Pinqueno.
  2. Channels: probably mailing lists.
  3. Guide.

[Unknown group]

  1. Active offline user group community
  2. Face-to-face meetings
  3. Occasional support as needed.

User group Malta (wcm)

  1. First the conversation with wcm board +members on what’s is the strategy and how it concerns us?
  2. Face-to-face, wcm wiki
  3. What we need from Kelsi: patience (those things takes time); T-pered expectations (we are a small/new user group).

Wikimedians of Latvia User group

  1. What will be the practical output of the strategy process? How can we benefit (core Wikimedia community)
  2. On wiki, skype chat, email list, special networks.
  3. Updates about working group outputs as recommendations are finalised.

Wikimedia Polska

  1. About: Advocacy, Community health (tbd)
  2. Conversation in the village pump (the community expects it to be there)
  3. -

Wikimedia Sverige

  1. Conversations: Roles & Responsibilities
  2. Channel: start in the board and decide how to reach out
  3. -

Ohio Wikimedians user group

  1. [Conversations]:
    • Start with Pony Toast, our official strategy liaison: discuss Berlin happenings; Plan actions.
    • I would like to present on the Summit to our Wikimedia connected friends at Ohio state: they fall under our user group umbrella
  2. [Channels]: Newsletter; start with Facebook but adjust of necessary
  3. [Needs from Kelsi]:
    • Toolkit;
    • Reminders to engage
    • Updates on the process
    • Be available for communication

GLAM Macedonia user group

  1. First conversation will be with the board members
  2. In person
  3. From Kelsi we don’t need anything at the time being.

Wikimedia Canada

  1. First conversations with the board of Wikimedia Canada. Second conversation with the Wikimedia Canada programme committee;
  2. Videoconferencing; in person meetings in Montreal
  3. More time; This timeline seems a bit short, but we will do our best J

Wikimedia Ghana User group

  1. The entire group will get an email (posted to our what’s app & telegram groups as well) to tell them what trespassed here & what is required from us from now;
  2. Mailing list, whatsapp, telegram, google doc, mentimeter

Wiki Mujeres

  1. You need to read the workgroup reports. The first Diversity and second community health.
  2. Telegram, google docs,

Open Foundation West Africa

  1. I will first have a discussion with my team on [how] we can thoughtfully contribute to the overall objective of this strategy process

Wikimedia Ukraine

  1. Whom to involve? Which thematic areas?
  2. Board – WMUA – Wikipedia working group – Voice calls.

Wikimedia Portugal

  1. I will speak to the Portuguese language strategy liaison which is Lukas Teles. I will help him do his job, close to the Portuguese speaking community.
  2. Social media (Facebook, twitter); Mailing list.
  3. We would like to receive updates on how the process is evolving. She can write periodic reports, specific to the Portuguese speaking community, explaining the process.

Wikimedia CH (Switzerland)

  1. Conversations:
    1. With the Board: Advocacy, partnerships.
    2. With the Community: Diversity, Community health.
    3. With other Working Groups.
  2. (a) mailing list, meetings on Wiki. (b) During the events, (c) person to person emails, board mailing lists.
  3. Information on Wikimedia [word is missing] and tasks (user groups? institutions?)

Wikimedia Denmark

  1. Future of MediaWiki + Wikibased software
  2. Wiki/emails/personal meetings

Wikimedia Chile

  1. Structuring Wikimedia Levant - with user groups, board. Starting peer review
  2. In person. Later on: social media + voice conference.
  3. -

WikiConference North America

  1. Talk with organising team about various types of partnership ideas.
  2. Group chat/ slack.
  3. -

Wikimedia MA user group

  1. [On] Diversity [with the] user group members
  2. Social media (Fb group)
  3. Guidance

Wikimedia Community User Group Botswana

  1. Community engagement team/Request feedback from community.
  2. Channels: mailing lists, what’s app group, telegram, Meta-page.
  3. -

Wiki Journals:

  1. Summary of most relevant conversations. Main scoping within our remit.
  2. On Wiki, main talk page, mailing list, monthly conference call
  3. To notify us if new academia/expert related conversations start in any group.

MediaWiki Stakeholder’s group (#wmstake)

  1. I will open a discussion about how the strategy for Product&Technology will effect our group and how our group might contribute (funding) to the WMF.
  2. Next week we will have our yearly conference and monthly video conference happening at the same time. I can start the conversation there and continue it at the next group video conference.
  3. -

Wikimedia Bangladesh

  1. First question to ask about: Advocacy -> Partnership -> Capacity Building -> Resource Allocation. With whom: Aktive wikimedians that live in Dhaka (possibly in a meet-up).
  2. Meet-ups, Facebook groups, Messanger, Mailinglists, one to one interviews.
  3. Guidelines for how to summarise a huge conversation to a short report that will make sense + help her work.

Wikimedians of Chicago User Group

  1. Partnership & Capacity Building, as they relate to Diversity.
  2. Mailing list + Facebook group - eventually, in person.
  3. Help in building capacity for conversation & action. How do we optimise our limited volunteer time, or even increase it, to realise our goals?

PhilWiki community

  1. Support a capacity building in different [word is missing] to different individuals I met in the Summit.
  2. Face-to-face.
  3. Communication, content updates, on-boarding on matters that is “huge” for this community to grasp each of roles and responsibilities, diversity, others.

Wikimedians of Korea

  1. I will start with the challenges we are facing, and I will talk about it with our members to solve the problems.
  2. I will use in-person meetings, in such a meeting we can get immediate solution to the problems.
  3. -

Centre for Internet and Society

  1. With Cis-Aak team
  2. Email, video conference
  3. I would like to be in touch, so that can get back to whom support needed.

Cascadia Wikimedians

  1. Will arrange to talk about the strategy at our monthly meetup. May also start a discussion page on Meta.
  2. Meetup, The Cascadia WM email list, in person
  3. Unsure if we need anything from Kelsi in this moment. Maybe contact info?

Wikimedia Soumi (WMFI)

  1. Informing the board of the chapter about the process is the next step, they might have ideas for how to proceed. Then gradually opening the talk to the larger community.
  2. Mailing list of the board; slack group; Fb group for “Friends of Wikipedia”; Finnish village pump in WP
  3. Push to actions? Timetable?

Wikimedia Community of the Republic of Srpska.

  1. First conversation will be with the member of the [word is missing] team [word is missing] events in wikimedia summit. Talk about Partnership and Resource Allocation.
  2. Google hangout.
  3. For time being, nothing.