I agree to a point. I think if we had some carefully chosen people
involved, like a representative from the FDC in the case of Grantmaking, or
a representative from the proposed Technology Committee in the case of a
Product or Engineering team, there might be some value. I agree though that
the handling of this might prove to be more effort than it's worth.
This particular discussion with Grantmaking was 1.5 hours.
Here's another thought: there could be a live broadcast of the quarterly
review for 1.5 hours, and have a half hour after that made available for
community Q&A through IRC, including questions and comments that are queued
during the first 1.5 hours.
Pine
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I do not think it is a good idea to have community
members directly
involved in these meetings. First off, any community member who
participates is in no way representative of the broad international
community as a whole, so granting individuals access gives them a radically
disproportionate influence on the outcome of these meetings.
Secondly, this is the team's ONE chance per quarter to have the undivided
attention of the Executive Director, and they need to be able to
communicate directly with her for the purpose of evaluation of their work.
They have one hour, and they have to be able to ensure that they cover
the essential points of their message. Even a few off-point
questions can have a significantly adverse effect on their ability
to update the ED on their progress on the responsibilities within their
portfolio. This is part of the evaluation of the performance of the teams
and its individual members, which is directly a responsibility of the ED
and the executives, and is absolutely not a responsibility of the
community.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask community members to put their
questions on the talk pages of the minutes, and for the community to expect
that questions relevant to the responsibility of the team will receive a
response.
Risker/Anne
On 5 October 2014 14:13, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Tilman,
Thanks for redirecting the thanks to Anna and Maria.
Erik mentioned quarterly reviews accounting for community feedback:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/471142. Involving
community members directly in meetings could be interesting if done
carefully, and/or there could also be ways of amplifying the weight given
to community feedback already received about projects like Flow when
conducting quarterly reviews. I believe that Communications already wants
to find someone who will perform sentiment analysis, and perhaps
summarizing community sentiment for quarterly reviews could be part of
their job.
Let me quote the end of the notes from this quarterly review of
Grantmaking:
Anasuya: As we are. If we are moving to a much more proactive structure,
we
are going to need much more tech support
internally. There needs to be a
larger long term strategy around that.
Lila: it should show success and then Product can invest. We need to
integrate these projects in the communities. Let's say the library is a
good one, someone in product needs to look at it and see what is the
threshold of success and how much staffing do we need so that we can
match
it. And it seems like Growth may be the place to
evaluate these things.
Erik: We also need to look at your team's short term needs. Like I did on
Friday with Frank Schulenburg and Floor with regard to the education
program's needs.
Lila: I think the next steps is to group about this and determine next
steps.
To me it sounds like there is further significant business to be
discussed
that is effectively a part of this quarterly
review but time expired for
this particular meeting, so I am hoping that there will be notes from the
discussion that follows. In order for me to comment usefully, it would be
good to know if that follow up discussion has already happened and if so
what was decided in that discussion, or if that discussion is planned for
the near future.
Thanks,
Pine
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Tilman Bayer <tbayer(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
(For other readers: Pine appears to refer to the
publication of the
minutes from the quarterly review meeting for the Wikimedia
Foundation's Grantmaking team, announced in a separate thread at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/074824.html
)
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Tilman, thanks for those notes.
As mentioned at the top of the page, these minutes were actually taken
by Anna Koval and Maria Cruz. (I had been unable to attend this
particular review due to a conflicting meeting.) So the thanks should
go to them ;)
There was discussion awhile ago about involving
the community in
quarterly
reviews,
I don't recall that
discussion, do you have a link?
and I have some questions and comments about this
review, mostly
for Lila.
Sure! Feel free to leave them on the talk page - as community members
have already been doing with other reviews this week.
>
> However, I would like to see the notes from the "group" mentioned at
the
> end
> > of the quarterly review before I make comments, or if there is an
> > opportunity for community participation in the "group", I would like
to
participate in a community capacity, if that is ok.
(:
Well, again, I wasn't at the meeting myself, but my interpretation of
that sentence is that "to group about this" simply was a somewhat
colloquial expression meaning to have a smaller followup meeting
between staff from the Product team and from the Grantmaking team,
including Erik and possibly Lila, about the particular issue in
question - technical support for grantmaking work which would need
dedicated time from WMF software developers in the Product team. I'm
not sure what you meant by "the notes" - please be aware that not
every WMF staff meeting has a designated minute-taker - and in any case
"group" was a verb here, not a noun ;)
--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>