Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:48:50 +0000
From: Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com>
And all this 'movement strategy' stuff is what
we're supposed to be
having discussions about? About what's supposed to happen in the next
fifteen years?
Correct. A discussion and possibly a wish list....but let me get the
official version before I assert this. BTW, I'm supposed to be only a
coordinator, not a spokesperson :) So I will try to answer as best as I
understand but it's jmo.
Why? How?! How are any of us within Wikimedia even
remotely qualified to
say what Wikimedia's role should be in a future world when we have no
idea what that future world is going to look like even in five years,
let alone fifteen?
You are absolutely right. I would not even venture a guess as to what
happens beyond 5 minutes, let alone five years. At the same time, I put
*some* credence in the adage "Plan like you'll live forever, execute like
you'll die in [insert a suitable quantum of time]." If we don't plan a
wireframe, we can't build the structure. I don't think this exercise aims
to detail every aspect of Wikipedia in the Future World, rather an outline
of where do we, as stakeholders in this movement, want to take it. As an
aside, readers are stakeholders too.
> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 04:00:57 +0000
From: Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com>
Thank you for the kind words (and link), but I am just
totally lost at
this point, and Abhay went ahead and did it all on his own regardless.
Multiple coordinators are ok too! I would welcome you (or anyone else) to
either add yourself as one or even take over from me :-) I stepped in
quickly when I saw that the second cycle is about to start and I'd hate for
us (WMoCO) to lose an opportunity at voicing our opinions, should we choose
to take it.
Was there something wrong with the previous approach
of just figuring
out what the movement role is as we go, letting it evolve as the world
itself does?
I think this question is better directed at the originators of this
exercise rather than the lowly note-taker :-D I'll add my opinion
nevertheless.
Honestly, if we haven't tried more than one thing, how can we say if there
is/was anything wrong with it? This could be an attempt at invigorating how
the movement shapes itself. It could also be a conscious attempt at
building out a roadmap for the future. It could be any number of things but
I do not want to guess the intent beyond what's stated. However, I very
much doubt that once created, this "roadmap" or "strategy" will
become
sacrosanct, not to be touched for another 15 years. That said, it is very
much something that *I* would like to add to my vision of the movement's
future - We are agile enough to continuously evaluate out approach and
direction and change course as needed, rather than at pre-defined intervals
(15 years, 5 years, etc.).
I am glad you brought these points up. A couple of them were lurking (in a
different form, perhaps) in my mind as well. Writing this email
clarified things just a little in my mind.
In a way, we have already kicked off the discussion. "Why have this
discussion?" is a valid opening argument. It either validates the exercise
or obviates it. I'm hope we go the former route.
At the end, let me reiterate that although I have my opinions as a
stakeholder, I'm a messenger/scribe in my role as the Discussion
Coordinator (DC). I will read through the DC training material as soon as
available and present it to all.
Regards,
Abhay