Open main menu

Grants talk:APG/FDC recommendations/2015-2016 round 2

Contents

WMF annual plan general commentsEdit

TyposEdit

Thanks so much to the FDC for all your hard work. I want to correct a bad link from the annual plan which may have led to confusion for you. The Instagram link in the Communications section is not to our official account, but to a random selection of photos tagged with the Wikimedia Foundation as a location. Our verified Instagram account has specific goals: To show a large audience what Commons has to offer; to demonstrate best practices by sharing only PD and CC0 photos; and to display a global representation of cultures. I fear our mistake suggested we wish to promote the WMF on that account rather than the movement. That is not the case. Thanks again. JElder (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @JElder (WMF): Thanks for pointing out/correcting that it was a bad link to instagram - it did look rather odd! The comments from the FDC here were wider than that single link, however. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you @JElder (WMF): for being so rapid in responding to the comments of the FDC, both at the specific and at the more general level as they pertain to your area of work. For the team to have read, and acted up, a practical point within this document within only a couple of hours of its posting (I see that the link mentioned has now been updated in the Annual Plan by GVarnum-WMF) is testament to the team's conscientiousness :-) Thank you! Wittylama (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Wittylama, it is my personal opinion that everyone would benefit from seeing that section amended soon, though. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth - the factual errors to both the Instagram and Twitter links in the section: Communications - Program 5, Goal 1, Objective 1 are now fixed by GVarnum-WMF) - (Diff). All now point to the "official" @Wikipedia account consistently. To respond to Elitre (WMF); I understand the desire to update the recommendation document to acknowledge that a particular factual error has now been fixed (and therefore that the specific question of the URLs has been addressed) - either with a strikethrough, a footnote etc. But, on the other hand, this is a 'fixed' document - it's not something that gets updated over time.

Some kind of response document can be produced later (in fact - the revised WMF annual plan after the FDC and community review IS precisely that kind of document), and that document could, if the WMF wishes, include a explanation of what was changed as a result of the various comments (on the new plan's talkpage for example). That would be the good place, if desired, to address the more substantive points. Sincerely, Wittylama (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OtherEdit

Hi, to expand on what Liam has said: in my professional reporting/audit work it is assumed that such an assessment may be afterwards responded by the assessed in a little bit iterative process, where only final conclusions [agreed and disagreed] are presented.
Unfortunately, the current FDC framework has little place for it, mostly because it is a committee, deliberating on proposals from all over the world, gathering for a main session twice a year and rapidly reporting the outcomes in the end of these very gatherings. Of course we may take some learning points about this process for the future and look for a good way to address it, albeit substantial expansion of this framework would result in more work to be done, esp. by the FDC members and the supporting staff (but not only), and some longer dedicated time - which may be difficult to ask for.
Having written it, the suggestions and feedback are IMHO welcomed.
Best, aegis maelstrom δ 16:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Completely agreed with Aegis Maelstrom. Obviously the process for creating the WMF annual plan was not ideal (as acknowledged in our report) but so too was the process for FDC deliberation upon that plan... this was the first time we've done a review of the whole WMF plan and, although I think we successfully demonstrated that the scope was within our abilities, the process can be improved. In the end, what we've built is a sort of 'layered' report, with overall comments (primarily directed at the Board itself) at the top in prose, then departmental-level comments also in prose, and then (in the 'appendix') program/goal-specific comments in bullet-point form. Roughly, the lower the comment is on the document, the more specific that comment is. As I said as a comment to The Signpost report today - "It's a delicate balance between being too high-level to be useful, and too low-level that's just 'bikeshedding'. So, further down the report to the WMF, the more specific the feedback becomes... I hope our main feedback to the Board doesn't get lost: namely that our chief recommendation is that the Board undertakes a proper externally run review of itself (including but not limited to the scope we specified) and that it does this before a permanent ED is appointed." Wittylama (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Without coming off as defensive because my program in particular got called out, I want to walk through how some of this analysis reads.

  1. First-off, FDC did an incredible, commendable, thorough, specific, and tough/fair job. I'm impressed with the scale of the task you tackled.
  2. However, to quibble, FDC questioned the unexplained, low Q2 metrics for Wikipedia Library and other Community Engagment teams it mentioned...
  3. Q2 KPI disappointments are very much explicable: The conflict with Lila hit its peak internally for staff in Q2 whereas community didn't feel its force until Q3. Q2 was the quarter of the dreadful November all-staff meeting, our depressing engagement survey, collective staff statements to the Board, James Heilmans' removal, and Christmas break. It was also the first 3 months of the new PC&L reorg under Rosemary. All of that is 'out there', in our QR reports or other news forums, but the context goes missing and leaves the impression that there is a deeper flaw somewhere or just ignorance. We know really well what happened in Q2 and the demoralizing and distracting effect it had on staff (albeit not equally for everyone).
  4. Year-over-year metrics for TWL and CR are actually quite strong, a conclusion that wouldn't follow for a casual reader of this report.
  5. Metrics are cyclical or variable for many teams. Whether that is unpredictability for publisher partners who respond (or don't respond) to our outreach emails, or the number of Grants that come through at a given time, our programs do not necessarily expect to meet single targets, because in many cases our targets are dependent on a number of factors out of our control. You can rebut that we should pick better KPIs, but the problem is deeper than picking the perfect one and calibrating it more precisely.
  6. No single metric can ever tell the story of performance and growth (unless you're just racing against a clock perhaps). KPIs are not helpful when isolated, and taken out of context--that's equally true for our grantees, and for us as an organization.
  7. I really appreciate the broader thrust of this narrative about core governance reform, combined with more locally targeted findings. It's just a natural feature on a multi-faceted analysis that each facet brings new room for interpretation (or misinterpretation).
  8. Finally, I really do think often about how the Wikipedia Library can be better and more effective, but that internal quest is rarely captured in a KPI, even though I like the pretense they give of telling us how good a job we are doing. Life is more rich and complicated than that, thank god ;)
--On behalf of just my own opinion. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jake Ocaasi (WMF), I agree with you that KPIs were quite misleading for this round and it is unfortunate to have called out Wiki Library because it is a genarel feeling of the movement that it is a very good program. As stated elsewhere, it is our hope that staff will not read this as a prescriptive recommendation and be compelled to write a report eg about KPIs, but rather to think about what can be done to correct this. I trust no harm was done, as none was intended.--Thuvack (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Please provide an alternative assessment method for the trends of this project then, if you feel those KPIs were not representative at this round. Nemo 21:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest to look at this document and feedback in perspective. It is not an audit, neither a requirement what WMF Must do. It is a feedback to the Draft budget. And as the draft budget was agreed upon by WMF C-level managers, the feedback should primary be seen as directed to them. They then should act by looking through the feedback and look into if and what could/should be revised in the budget, and in this process mistakes/misunderstandings in this document will be sorted out. I have seen other comments in this feedback that I see as unrealistic and/or probably based on misunderstanings but this does not change my view that this is an excellent document with extremly valuable comments. The same way as we write articles in Wikipedia together (and adjust & correct what other have written) this document should be seen as part of a process to define the WMF budget. And we should praise the full tranparancy even as we see that some minor mistakes are found. And the transparancy gives the opportunity to comment upon "mistakes" just as you have done very well here. Anders Wennersten (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to note: this is feedback on the WMF draft annual plan, not the WMF budget, as we didn't get sufficient information to evaluate the WMF budget (hence why we said "It has not been possible to review the WMF’s financial budget in detail, since such a detailed budget was not presented in this round.") Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation response to FDC's recommendations on WMF annual planEdit

GeneralEdit

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)

Dear Members of the FDC,

I want to express the Foundation’s appreciation at the extensive time and effort you have given to reviewing our Annual Plan. The process of preparation, alignment with movement planning cycles and requirements, and feedback from individual community members, affiliates, and the FDC has been undeniably useful and informative to our work.
We have been reviewing all of your comments to respond, and, when appropriate, have modified the Annual Plan. There were a number of comments that were general to all Foundation programs, and this response is in regards to those specifically. For department- or team-specific comments, the departments and teams are responding here, addressing their specific Program/Goal/Objective as necessary.

Warm regards,

Katherine Maher
Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

GovernanceEdit

The governance processes, procedures, policies, and practices that led to the challenges over late 2015 and early 2016 should be adequately reviewed to prevent recurrence and facilitate improvements. The FDC acknowledges that the WMF Board has confirmed that it is reviewing governance processes. The FDC does not believe that an internal or self-review will provide the independent and professional insights that an externally managed, broadly defined, review of its governance practices will provide. In particular, an internal review is unlikely to be as effective, thorough, or disinterested enough to produce optimal results, and will lack the credibility throughout the broad Wikimedia community that would be attached to an expert independent review.

As part of its 2015–16 Round 1 recommendations, the FDC "recommend[ed] that an external assessment is made of the various constituent parts of the WMF in order to gain external insights into improvements that could be made." The FDC feels compelled to reassert that such external assessment of WMF governance is strongly recommended. ….

The FDC also recommends that this external review be conducted, that the results be received, and main points acted upon in a timely manner, before the permanent WMF Executive Director is appointed.

The Wikimedia Foundation has taken this suggestion under advisement, and following discussion with the Board of Trustees during the May 2016 Board meeting, we are looking into a possible external governance review. Under the guidance of the Board, the Foundation is compiling a list of possible third parties that could conduct such a review. Any final decision whether to proceed will rest with the Foundation’s Board of Trustees. The recommended scope and timing– before a permanent Executive Director is hired – is also noted. The Board intends to further discuss this recommendation during their June 2016 meeting.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)


StrategyEdit

The previous Wikimedia 2011–15 strategic plan has now expired. A short-term strategic plan has been developed, upon which this annual plan has been based. The lack of clarity in strategic direction since 2014 has caused significant waste of time, money, talent, goodwill, and momentum.

Under the current transition leadership, the FDC expects to see a stable and actionable WMF strategy developed with active participation and buy-in of stakeholders throughout the Wikimedia movement. This notably includes the volunteer Wikimedia community and affiliate organizations. The wider movement's support (however that might be defined) is both a desirable and a necessary factor for the strategy's success.

The new Wikimedia Foundation strategy, introduced on April 1 2016, is intended to guide the Foundation’s efforts for 18-24 months. The Foundation recognizes this plan is intentionally limited in duration and scope. It is intended to take the Foundation through the FY2016-2017 Annual Plan, and offer continuity and guidance to the permanent Executive Director in their preparation of the FY2017-2018 Annual Plan.

Although the process that led to the development of this strategy was not as extensive as the process that defined the 2011-2015 movement strategic plan, its development included a series of consultative efforts to develop focus areas, prioritize strategic approaches, and define strategic priorities. It engaged community and stakeholders in multiple consultations over the course of nine months of development.

The Foundation agrees with the FDC that the strategic plan for our work in the coming 18 months does not supplant the need for a movement strategy. The expiration of the 2011-2015 strategy, the growth and evolution of our movement, and changes in global connectivity and knowledge seeking all underscore the need for our movement to develop a united vision for our future.

A truly successful movement vision must be developed with active engagement and support from stakeholders throughout the movement. It should include and engage our diverse strengths: the projects and the knowledge they contain, our global community of contributors, our network of affiliates, and our deep well of supporters. It must be aspirational in line with our movement vision, while grounded in clear logic and well-scoped goals that inspire effective and measurable plans of action.

The Foundation views FY2016-2017 as an opportunity to scope the development of such a movement strategy. We will conduct discovery into the needs, resources, stakeholders, timelines, and other variables necessary to develop a successful strategy, with the intention that strategy development process would occur under the tenure of a permanent Executive Director.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)


Financials and staffingEdit

It has not been possible to review the WMF’s financial budget in detail, since such a detailed budget was not presented in this round. The same applies to detailed breakdowns of staff time and costs. The FDC understands that this is a challenge for the WMF to assemble, but the FDC hopes that this can be addressed over the coming year, and a substantially improved plan presented for the next proposal from the WMF. The WMF, as the largest and oldest organization within the Wikimedia movement, should strive to act as a role model for other organizations in terms of fiscal responsibility.

The Foundation’s process for developing an Annual Plan continues to evolve. Starting in January 2016, our new Chief Financial Officer, Jaime Villagomez, worked with departments across the Foundation to meet our scheduled deadlines, with improved information sharing, resource allocation, and accountability. During this process, we identified the need to improve our ability to prepare more detailed breakdowns of resourcing by department and program, on a budget and staffing basis. We are already actively reviewing previously provided FDC feedback and our systems and procedures in order to improve this process for the next round of planning, in order to more effectively prepare and provide more discrete financial reporting. The Foundation is committed to serving as a model for the other movement organizations and a catalyst to encourage all movement partners to attain these high standards.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)


The FDC notes that while staff numbers are only increasing by 5 FTE in the forthcoming financial year, in the last 3 months of this year the plan is to hire 15 people - which sounds like a rush to fill positions before the year end, after a year with significant staff turnover. The FDC encourages the WMF to not rush hires, particularly given that C-level staff positions need to be filled. It is also not clear whether staffing matches the stated goals in this annual plan or in the strategic plan as a whole.

The Wikimedia Foundation might want to evaluate how the size of its staff and its staffing structure are organized in order to meet set goals. Finally, the FDC points out that the rationale for the new staff is missing from this proposal.

The Talent and Culture department has been working through normal processes to fill open positions as they occur, as well as fill planned positions in the current Annual Plan. These processes follow the established procedures in place.

We have slightly higher-than-average open headcounts for the close of this FY2015-2016 year. This is the result of being slightly behind schedule in hiring for planned open positions, due to a slowdown in recruiting during the transition that occurred in Q3 of FY2015-2016, as well as normal staff turnover. From the perspective of the Foundation and affected teams, it is critical to fill these positions in a timely fashion in order to ensure effective coverage and support for normal operating functions.

For the open executive roles (Chief Technology Officer, VP of Talent and Culture, and Chief Community Engagement Officer) recruitment plans are underway, starting with the CTO position. The Board has established an Executive Director search committee and will be recommending the process and timing to complete the recruitment and selection of a new Executive Director.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)

In short you say "no" to the suggestion that hiring be slowed down until the new executives are hired. Ok, could be said with less words. Nemo 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I may be misreading, but this seems to suggest that staff losses and gaps in staffing are due to "normal turnover" and not an exodus of disillusioned employees and executives. Is it really accurate to say that what occurred was normal attrition, and any gaps are due to a de facto hiring freeze? Nathan T 02:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Overall comments on programsEdit

One of the common themes arising from the FDC’s deliberation about each part of the annual plan is a desire for the WMF to view its actions as leveraging a network effect utilising the resources of the global movement. This comment is equally applicable to the projects of fundraising, communications, partnerships, community tech, et cetera. Each part of the WMF is encouraged to see itself as an important component of equivalent activities happening around the world, and not just working in isolation. Until that is in place, the WMF will not effectively leverage lessons learned in the wider movement, its organizational memory will remain under-utilised, and targets will be far less achievable.

The Foundation acknowledges and accepts this feedback. It appropriately raises the question of how the Foundation should continue to evolve alongside our maturing movement, and how we might improve collaboration and distribution of critical movement functions. We developed our FY2016-2017 Annual Plan based on the 2016-2018 strategy, which focused on the unique capacity the Foundation has within the movement to scale programs and projects. This was a useful lens for focusing the Foundation’s resources for scalable impact, however we could do more to better integrate these efforts within a broad framework of movement goals.

Many Foundation teams work closely with community stakeholders, including the Community Engagement, Product, Legal, and Communications departments. Improving how we share and communicate our work, resources, and lessons learned is part of the Foundation’s plan for the upcoming year. However, we do not currently have an active process to ensure that movement (including affiliate) work is communicated and integrated as part of our roadmap and programs. Building better systems for better communications, more shared institutional knowledge, and best practices should be a key component of any broader movement strategy, and incorporated into future Foundation planning. For FY2016-2017, we intend to consider this feedback as we conduct consultations and jointly develop better systems for sharing movement resources.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)


In terms of the Annual Plan itself, the FDC thanks all teams of the WMF for responding quickly and thoroughly to all comments raised during the public consultation period. The additions and adjustments that were made were greatly appreciated. However, a more consistent summarization and layering of information would make the annual plan more understandable. For example, due to the structure of the plan, the inputs (e.g., resources) are often unclear and the outputs of many programs do not have targets. Furthermore, it is often hard to understand what is operational and what is programmatic, especially in the technology section.

The proposal includes most of the activities carried out by the Wikimedia Foundation, including both the operational work and the development of new projects or programs (programmatic activity). The FDC appreciates the mention of operational work (for example, maintaining servers, APIs, etc.), which is vital for the continuing existence of our projects but is usually invisible to the broad community. However, in the context of an application, it is difficult for the FDC to evaluate this mixture of the two types of activities. It is suggested in the future to summarize the operational activities and their ongoing metrics, focusing more on explaining, setting goals and targets for the programmatic activities.

The Foundation’s Annual Plan structure was developed to showcase programs by department, layering information from the general (descriptions about the departments) to more granular (details about specific objectives). For the revision, we are including more detailed information, such as how many people work on each team (e.g., staffing resources) in our revised version presented for Board approval and finalization.

Our Annual Plan for this year takes on new areas of work, for which outputs (targets) are often listed as “establishing a baseline” or completing the intended work. In the year to come, we will improve our ability to set SMART goals/objectives for programs, using this planning experience to develop better future measurement criteria, as well as refine our regular interim targets (Quarterly Goals) as we collect more relevant information throughout the year.

As a U.S. based non-profit organization, operating under 501(c)(3) status, all of the Foundation’s work in Product and Technology is defined as programmatic, as it directly relates to advancing our mission. This designation may differ from how FDC differentiates these efforts. We look forward to discussing this further with FDC in the upcoming year and aligning around common terminology.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)


Many aspects of this annual plan are repetitious, with cross departmental goals appearing several times only phrased differently. The FDC acknowledges the time constraints of this annual planning process, but this fact, as well as the differing levels of detail in budgeting and goal-setting, indicate the fractured nature of inter-departmental communication and planning. The FDC does not wish to see operational-level detail, but where there have at least been clear key performance indicators stated this information is helpful. Frequently there were no metrics and therefore no baselines for this year against which achievements can be measured.

To expedite the development of the Foundation’s Annual plan within the deadlines posed by the FDC process, we made a decision to build the Annual Plan on a department-by-department basis, with itemized lists of relevant programs. This decision has led to some repetition, as certain programs, goals, or objectives are interdependent among departments. However, this should not be understood as a lack of coordination, but instead as the result of deliberate cross-functional planning. The practical outcome is communication and collaboration across departments, as is often noted by the different teams listed by each program goal or objective.

We feel strongly that this interdependency is a strength within the Foundation’s programmatic planning, and are committed to further integration of programs across departments in years to come. In order to make these deliberate interdependencies clearer in for FY2016-2017, we are updating the descriptions of two key programs, Research and New Readers. These updates will include an overview of all research capacities at the Foundation and how they connect.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)


Risks were well articulated, however they are not linked to programs, nor are they actionable.

The Risk Assessment presented as an accompaniment the Annual Plan was completed through consultation with departmental leadership and the executive team. The mitigating strategies described under each risk are reflected in the organizational priorities, objectives, and/or plans described or budgeted under the Annual Plan.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)


It is not clear whether the New Readers projects is the Foundation’s new approach for emerging communities (the formerly called "Global South"). The link between "emerging countries support" and the New Readers project needs to be clarified.

The Foundation and movement have long been challenged by how to best describe our efforts to identify, support, and engage communities and readers outside of wealthy, well-connected areas of the globe. Different terms and projects have been conflated or confused. We have recently clarified our efforts in these areas, with the intention that the terminology and the approaches are useful and meet the needs of their intended audiences. For further reference:

  • Global South: This term is being phased out, as it does not accurately describe a correlation among geography, community health, or awareness and usage of the Wikimedia projects.
  • New Readers: The New Readers project is a cross-departmental project focused on increasing the number of readers in geographic areas with “low awareness and usage” of the Wikimedia projects, relative to their potential popularity. This effort considers the community presence in these areas, but is focused on readership over contributions.
  • Emerging Communities: This Emerging Communities initiative focuses on developing contributor communities through capacity development, within the Resources team. It defines communities primarily by the actual current size and capacity of the Wikimedia contributor community in each country, language, or project, rather than socio-economic or geographic factors. More details about the “emerging communities” definition and criteria will be posted in June.

Although the New Readers project and support for Emerging Communities are separate efforts, each draws on the relevant research, expertise, and information sharing from the other program.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)


The FDC appreciates the learning, analysis and research done in many parts of the organization. It is important that the learning process go beyond data collection and analysis and into action plans, implementation, and re-evaluation.

The efforts of the Research team, and various other embedded research and analytics capacities, are critical to the programmatic efforts of Foundation. We use these insights, findings, and indicators to inform the design, release, and evaluation of the new features, and the development of new programs and initiatives. This is part of a continuous, iterative effort to ensure our programmatic goals and objectives are linked to measurable findings. To better explain these linkages, we have added a section before the department initiatives to illustrate the research framework. The Research group has also added the goal of building a Research microsite, to better share the findings and applications of their efforts.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of Katherine (WMF)

Community EngagementEdit

Program 1: Develop community leadership and mentorship (PC&L)Edit

The FDC would like to encourage WMF to focus the definition of a "community leader" in consultation with the community in order to ensure that the process of identifying these is accepted movement wide. As well as formalise the Peer Leadership Academy with clear access points..

We agree absolutely and can respond that this has already begun through in-person consultations and will continue at Wikimania and be followed in quarter one with online sharing out the preliminary findings and online input strategies. The access points for the academy model will follow from these consultations as well as in consultation with the Affiliations Committee. -- JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 2 (Support & Safety) - Training modulesEdit

The focus on training, for example the harassment training, has a huge benefit for the community if delivered. However, it needs to be coordinated and synchronised with similar work being carried out by others (e.g., Wikimedia Nederlands). It is good to see support to groups that are not specific to languages or projects, for example the Stewards meeting this past year. Also, the FDC points out that hosting on new platforms (if this is what is intended for the training platform) can result in fragmentation of knowledge and narrowing of the participating community, and may not be as effective as hosting on wikis.

Thanks FDC for looking at this, for your support, and for the suggestions. We have reached out to Wikimedia Nederland on this issue, and will be reaching out every other group which we know of to be working in this area. We will prioritize making sure we are aware and working with of current movement initiatives at Wikimania this year as well. With regards to where the modules are hosted, Meta is quite likely to be the delivery mechanism of choice for most of our training modules, but we wanted to give the functionaries themselves an opportunity to help determine this rather than making a top down decision. There may be occasions when functionary groups have other locations for specific content which will work better - for instance if there are privacy concerns. But wholeheartedly agree that these need to be accessible, prominent, and open to the appropriate audiences/communities. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Using Meta is good. Even better if you can successfully integrate with existing categories and main namespace pages. Nemo 22:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 3: Develop capacity-building tools and resources for core Wikimedia programs (PC&L)Edit

"While the need to have the one Wikimedia resource center has always existed, the FDC is concerned that this will not be successful if it is not properly resourced from within. There is a risk of duplication with existing resources that could dilute impact.

Importantly, PC&L teams will play the research and strategy coordination role in this collaborative project. This project is not a highly resourced investment for any one team, but a cross-team coordination of various ongoing efforts. Most basically to generate a shared single access point and to iterate on shared curation strategies and templates to make resource navigation and maintenance more effecient and effective through user experience research and improvements through intentional design. --JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 4: Allocate resources to effective community-led projectsEdit

The Community Resources team thanks the FDC for the detailed review of the WMF's plan. We have several comments and responses we'd like to share. KLove (WMF) (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  • "The FDC believes that it is important to balance the need for accountability to donor and the support to the grant applicant. Grant applicants ought to feel that the quality of their eventual program has been improved and helped as a result of the application process itself."
    • We agree, and that is indeed one of the purposes of the proposal review process.
  • "The recent restructuring of the grants processes makes a lot of sense, however there may be duplication of effort with WMF grants and chapter grants. The FDC recommends more clarification be provided on scope and requirements for each grant in consultation with the community at large."
    • We understand your suggestion to launch Rapid grants in consultation with affiliates who run their own grant programs, and agree we should clarify what is available to individuals applying for these funds. Sometimes applicants may be unaware of the funds available in their own country through their affiliate. Our team is discussing where we could clarify this on Meta and are looking into other coordination possibilities. Thanks for the suggestion!
  • "It must be made clear in a timely manner to the grant applicant what the requirements are for each grant type in order to avoid confusions that sometimes arise, such as was seen in WMFR application."
    • We understand this point, and agree that we will all learn from that experience. We will look to clarify the exception outlined in the FDC Framework to outline that a global / international movement event would need 75% international participation (e.g. WMCon or Hackathon).
  • "It would be useful to clarify how much budget is available for each grant program by month or quarter in order to dispel any confusion about the availability of funds throughout the financial year."
    • We already report our grants spend and track various indicators on a quarterly basis, shared in our quarterly reviews and on Meta. We will be happy to add data around grants budget left.

Let us know if you have any follow up questions! KLove (WMF) (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 5: Give more support to GLAM partnerships (PC&L)Edit

“There is real need for better communication to the average Wikipedian about what GLAM is and how it fits into the broader projects, however this program seemed vague and lacks metrics.It is good that GLAM becomes a stakeholder in engineering development. Programs capacity & Learning (PC&L) has been good at aggregating the good things about GLAM and the value of GLAM, but has not communicated this information more broadly; and finding issued communications is sometimes difficult.The FDC encourages WMF to think about how to support community work with GLAM institutions in countries that don't have chapters (or aren’t the US), in order to improve support that can be extended to these areas in the future.” -FDC

Thank you for the feedback on our GLAM initiative, and the opportunity for me to respond and clarify. First on the need for more clear metrics. We have identified a couple of key metrics already:

  • Identify 6 new models of GLAM work that have not been documented, and
  • Successfully respond to requests from community members and outside organizations within a month (see description in the supplemental materials).

However, much of the work in the first and second quarter of the new fiscal year will be spent identifying the variety and prevalence of problems that GLAM-Wiki practitioners face and how we might lend support to solutions. To ensure that we are responding to community needs, we will first be doing structured consultations on technical needs (GLAM Objective 1) and evaluation of the existing documentation and materials (per the first goal in the supplemental materials).

We plan to create KPIs within the first two quarters and other metrics that respond to this community dictated variety of needs and the services that our lead for this project can offer.

In response to the need for better non-Chapter/Affiliate GLAM work ("This project intends to improve documentation and skill development processes to improve support for a wider range of our community members, including those not currently support by chapters"). We have made this intention more explicit:

  • By adding clarification to Objective 2: By the end of FY16-17, identify existing GLAM-Wiki leadership development strategies, and curriculum within existing GLAM-WIKI communities, and develop “best practices” for training new GLAM-Wiki Leaders within currently unsupported communities, especially communities without affiliate support.
  • By adding a bullet to our supplemental plan: Aggregate and make accessible for new practitioners the best practices for developing GLAM-Wiki partnerships and activities which can be implemented with limited or no affiliate support.

I hope these clarifications and additions are helpful. We’re open to further refining based on more dialogue. Best, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 6: Support Affiliations Committee and Affilaite Partnerships (PC&L)Edit

It would be good to see increased support to Affcom to address tough issues (for example, when to close a chapter/affiliate), however this support and advice must be offered in a measured manner to avoid unintended consequences such as demoralising entire communities. A similar support program should be explored for Langcom.

The protocol for handling noncompliance is set-up to assume good faith and base decisions on the facts at hand and affiliate strengths to work with them to help get back into compliance. In addition, AffCom will play an increased role in proactive and responsive mentoring support to affiliates facing challenges to help early before the issues become insurmountable. We have no scope or resources to provide support to LangCom. Perhaps success with AffCom support might indicate support for expanding the staff support model in the future? --JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 7 (Technical Collaboration)Edit

Hi, about the FDC feedback on WMF - Community Engagement - Program 7:

There needs to be clear guidance from WMF on the state of affiliate tool development and whether/when WMF will assume support of tools developed by affiliates.

Our proposal for Program 7 focuses on improving the collaboration between WMF Product teams (in the role of developers) and our wiki communities (in the role of users), because we believe addressing this relationship is a top priority. You are right that there is no clear guidance for software projects promoted by affiliates, neither a long term maintenance plan. So far the tactics played have consisted in a general encouragement in the decentralization of software development among volunteers and affiliates, avoiding the expectation that the WMF should be the only software powerhouse for the whole movement.

I think there is room for starting a discussion about the guidance and maintenance plan for software developed outside of the WMF during the next fiscal year, and the Technical Collaboration team could drive that discussion together with the Product and Technology departments. However, I don't see this activity displacing our top goals proposed in the Annual Plan. Would it be an acceptable answer to say that your feedback is appropriate, we will take action to start that conversation, but we will still keep our Program 7 goals as they are now?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Qgil, the recommendations are feedback, not requirements, so the FDC, outside of the round meetings, can't give direct answers to "what\if" questions. The FDC gave his overlook on the programs according to the given data and by his knowledge. The FDC is not aim to prioritize programs, but we think a more clear guidelines should be developed. We see more and more chapters leading software projects (see WMFR's program to work with VLC) and we think a collaborative work which will involve the WMF's expertise - will benefit both sides. --Itzike (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Understood, Itzike. Thank you very much for going through all this documentation and providing us feedback. I will notify here any progress done on your recommendation.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 9 (Community Resources) - Inspire CampaignEdit

The FDC believes that investing time and money into innovation within the movement is valuable. However the inspire campaign seems to be too frequent to see actual impact in between. One campaign seems the right number per year.

However, it seems like a thematically designed grant program; the process and support is the same; and this seems to put a limitation on other grant applicants who are not interested in the inspire campaign; these applications could be processed in parallel with the inspire campaign.

Thanks for your comments on Inspire Campaigns, FDC members. As the person in charge of running these programs, I'd like to clarify a few aspects of Inspire Campaigns and how they have changed since the first one from 2015 on the gender gap. First, campaigns are no longer run as a thematic grant program. Based on feedback from project contributors and those involved in our grant programs, we departed from this approach for the most recent Inspire Campaign run in March 2016 focused on improving content curation & review processes. This means that:

  • There is no separate set of funds dedicated to funding proposals associated with Inspire Campaigns,
  • There is no unique committee dedicated to reviewing proposals associated with Inspire Campaigns, and consequently...
  • ...all grant proposals are reviewed by the same grant committee, whether they are associated with Inspire Campaigns or not, which means all proposals evaluated on the same criteria.

On this basis, I'd like to emphasize that applications from stemming from Inspire Campaigns or IdeaLab are indeed processed in parallel and offered equal opportunity for support. The main purpose of these campaigns is to draw attention to prominent issues affecting our movement and encourage idea-building and collaboration from community members. For ideas that could use funding, as with any other proposal, we endeavor to guide applicants to an appropriate WMF or affiliate grant program.

I'm also curious about the recommendation to decrease the proposed two campaigns each year to one campaign. Could you clarify the rationale behind this? It's not clear to me why impact must be demonstrated between campaigns given that grants stemming from these campaigns take some time to complete and report on, sometimes more than a year, depending on the nature of the grant. I'd also like to note that there is little cost to running campaigns; there are no regular expenses for travel, contractors, or merchandise associated with each campaign. Having two campaigns each year also allows us to be more responsive to current issues affecting Wikimedia projects and their contributors; campaigns can help facilitate discussions around movement-wide issues and help propel some of them toward funding much faster if we conducted two per year rather than just one. I think there are some real benefits and little risk to running two Inspire Campaigns per year rather than just one. Thanks for your consideration, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I see this program to be in an early phase of maturement and perceive it for now to manily be interested to get in contact with people being experts in the English language, ie manily on enwp, I support the FDC feedback. Fewer campaigns enable them to be more worked through, and that proper follow up can be done (also include reach of the campaign), and by this become better in impact.Anders Wennersten (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 10 (Support & Safety Goal 1 Obj. 2/ PC&L Goal 2, Obj. 1)Edit

This program is vague and needs more clarification, in particular in the area of survey support and follow-up surveys.

In terms of Goal 1, Objective 2: The Support and Safety team has for some years now conducted surveys of some groups it supports, including for instance of the Ombudsman Commission, generally around the question of what we can do to improve support. These have largely been ad hoc, and we have long wanted to systemize this outreach to make sure that we have insight into what we are doing well and what we can do better. For our part in this we're hoping to create a more systematic, and regular, process of polling our the teams we work with the most to ensure we're doing what we need to do (and hopefully always getting better, not worse). Jalexander--WMF 00:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

In terms of Goal 2, Objective 1: Learning and evaluation team members are working to develop a new system using surveys that gathers information and input from different communities the WMF serves. The plan will include quarterly and annual surveys which will be coordinated across teams and include identified accountability goals and measures. These surveys will inform annual planning for the following fiscal year. Note that *survey support* to communities falls under Program 1, Objective 3, as part of building leadership capacity as outlined in our supplemental plan's logic models. -- JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 11 (Support & Safety)Edit

The work done by this team, seems to be obscure to the community at large and more can be done to make it more visible. For instance, emergency@ contact address might not be well-enough socialized amongst the different communities. This should be integrated into functionaries training in program 2.

The idea of putting this into the training we're already going to make is a good one. We will work with the functionary groups to make sure that clear procedures regarding emergency situations are represented in the training materials. We tried incorporating it in the contact us list more prominently once, but to be honest it's a delicate system and that proved to be a bad idea. Several trolls have attempted to break it by aggressively trolling it and shut down our ability to respond. That's still occasionally an issue but is currently manageable and we are always looking for good ways to socialize this appropriately and make sure that the right people know how to reach out and if anyone (whether the FDC or others) have ideas we'd love to hear them. Jalexander--WMF 00:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

LegalEdit

Program 1 (Trademarks)Edit

While there appears to be reasonable support for large movement entities (chapters/thematic organizations), the level of support and flexibility for smaller recognised affiliates is not well defined.

We offer support to anyone who reaches out to us about the trademarks, whether they represent user groups, chapters, entities unaffiliated with the Wikimedia movement, or only themselves. Often, all we need to do to help is provide a link to appropriate the section of our open trademark policy that allows them to use the marks without needing to get a license or by signing and sending in a quick license. When a more extensive license is required, we work with all requestors to ensure their use is consistent with our mission and our trademark policy. --Charles M. Roslof (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 4 (Public Policy)Edit

The work being done in the Public Policy Portal is not well known outside of a limited number of movement partners. The FDC believes that there is significant interest in this subject area and it would benefit from greater visibility, which in turn is likely to result in greater participation in discussion and formulation of opinion.

This point is well taken—we can do more to encourage participation in public policy activities and publicize what we’re already doing. We’re having internal discussions about making the portal more interactive and promoting the public policy mailing list. We encourage anyone interested in participating in Wikimedia-related policy discussions to join that list. --Charles M. Roslof (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Interactive... like a wiki? Nemo 22:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 5 (Transparency)Edit

The FDC is pleased to see that the legal department is actively trying to have an high level of transparency, despite the constraints of various types of privilege. Its Biannual Transparency report is a good example. The FDC encourages the Legal Department to review the information that was provided to FDC privately, as the committee feels that some of the information provided (e.g., some more detailed descriptions of the team’s activities) would assist the Wikimedia community in understanding the value of the programs and services provided.

We always strive to strike the right balance between sharing our activities publicly and protecting the Foundation. We will see what we can do to be more public about our workflows, beyond what we already share in our biannual transparency reports and quarterly review presentations. --Charles M. Roslof (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-Program (Board Support)Edit

The Legal team’s work with the Board of Trustees is briefly described in the non-program discussion of the Annual Plan. The FDC encourages the Legal Department to publish more information about the support that it does (and, in some cases, does not) provide to the Board of Trustees, particularly in terms of trustee candidate vetting, trustee selection, and trustee orientation.

The Legal Department maintains the Board Handbook and, through the Board Secretary, provides regular advice on legal matters to the Board of Trustees. The Handbook provides Trustees with background information on the Wikimedia movement and communities as well as descriptions of their duties and responsibilities as members of the Board. For new Board members, we conduct annual governance training at Wikimania and, coordinating with HR, run a standard background check (similar to the screening for regular employees). Unless the Board Governance Committee requests additional advice or assistance, the Legal Department is usually not otherwise directly involved in selecting or vetting Trustee candidates. The Handbook contains more detail on the Trustee appointment process, including the changes to the process that the Board made in January with respect to background checks and orientation. --Charles M. Roslof (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

CommunicationsEdit

The answers here include input from the entire team

Program 2 Make our brand more consistent, relatable, and more easily understoodEdit

While goal 2 seems to be outward-focused, the objectives seem to be much more inward-focused than appropriate.

I appreciate this feedback. The first objective, the annual report, while including typical organization financial and other information, has long been an opportunity for the Wikimedia Foundation to share the values of the movement and work of the community. In the last two years we have created moved that document online a format that reachers a wider audience.

Part of the work that appears internally-focused is the act of building the department's capacity to do the more outward-focused objectives. And some of that externally focused effort is described in programs 4 and 5.

Only some of our specific core projects are described in the annual plan. This year we are very excited to learn more about the needs of the community, including our affiliates (who currently do a great deal of movement communications), and to do brand work that supports the entire movement. We will also be developing campaigns with departments across the organization in response to what we learn about new readers.

Our focus on awareness and perception of the movement’s brands in the world are part of the Communication department’s efforts toward the strategic priority of reach. --Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved online? When was it ever offline(-only)? Nemo 22:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Right. They have been on Meta. Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 4 Increase awareness and product adoption among specific audience segmentsEdit

It is unclear how and if "content distribution" using social media will indeed be effective, taking into consideration that it is still unclear who are the audience segment and if social media is the right platform to reach to them.

That is very perceptive and exactly right. The work described in the annual plan is strategic, and by definition has an unclear outcome. We are working with audience segments all the time in social media, targeting questions and messages to specific regions, for instance. Through our process we will write a hypothesis based on experience, take baseline metrics, and finally test our assumptions - ultimately helping us determine which methods are the most effective for our unique needs.

And we are well on our way here. In response to “it is still unclear who are the audience segment and if social media is the right platform to reach to them,” we do know important information about underserved audience segments via or social media, and how we are reaching them. On Facebook, 2,165,879 of our fans are in key reach nations of Nigeria, India, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt and Indonesia. And we can drill down much further: In the past month, 11,679 men in India between 18-24 engaged (liked, shared or commented) with our Facebook content on a mobile phone.

On Pinterest, 11,115,198 women saw our content in the past month. Our Pinterest audience is 68% women, that’s in line with the overall Pinterest audience, but highly unusual for the Wikimedia movement. Wiki Women in Red and other prominent women Wikimedians have already started Pinterest boards as “guest hosts.” We will continue to improve methods to communicate this information and how it impacts our overall objectives.

The audiences for some of our media plans will be further determined by the earlier work described in Program 3, Identify and build understanding of new audiences. We will outline a logic model based on user profiles and other information found during the research phase. If things do not work, we will try other best practices and ideas until we find the best fits. --Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Female visits are not uncommon: our visitors are mostly evenly split. Female participation is lacking. Please instead offer statistics on engagement/participation. Nemo 22:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Program 5 Grow and improve audience and engagement on the Wikimedia Foundation’s digital channelsEdit

Quantitative not qualitative goals are presented. Just increasing the numbers of followers on social media doesn’t really matter. It is more important to measure the reach and the engagement on social media, in a way that really reflect the quality of the posts.

It is unclear why the WMF need to promote the WMF instagram account rather than the Wikipedia brand.

The FDC urges the WMF to clarify the difference and the resources allocated to promote the movements brand vs. the foundation brand. It is sometimes unclear in both the annual plan, and daily practice, whether WMF-operated social media is promoting the organization or the movement.

As noted previously, two mistakes linking to social media accounts related to the Foundation rather than the overall Wikipedia brand and movement may have caused some confusion. Again, we apologize for these linking errors and any mistaken understanding they may have caused. In the past few months we have added two verified accounts (Instagram and Pinterest) with the Wikipedia brand, and are working on another (Weibo). At the same time, we removed Wikimedia Foundation from the design of the blog. The only verified social media account we currently maintain for the Wikimedia Foundation are Twitter accounts, and @Wikipedia is the predominant account there.

It may be important to note that one-half of one of the nine social media objectives was to grow accounts, and that growth is both steady and organic. “Engage through social media” is its own objective with its own metric. But we did want to provide something measurable along the lines of SMART goals. It would be easy to have a goal of quality posts. And we do want that. But we also want to grow our audience so we have a bigger stage for all parts of the movement. We will also be looking at developing measurable objectives that better match our overall goals, but that may require a departure from the SMART goals format requested by the FDC. Feedback on going outside of the goals format would be greatly appreciated.

An answer we provided to the talk page of the annual plan also speaks to our qualitative goals. --Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Heather (WMF), it's a clear social media rule - increasing number of followers is a nice to have, but more focus should be on the reach and the engagement of people to the content. The Wikipedia page on facebook have more than 5M likes. It will be great if he will have 10M likes - but that not really mean the brand will increase his awareness. As a page with a million likes can have more reach and engagement than a 10M one. The FDC is looking forward to see a real quality metrics of influence and impact rather than followers numbers. --Itzike (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Goal 1 objective 2

The FDC encourage the WMF to collaborate with other chapters and community members who already done that in the past.

We agree that collaboration with the community - including movement affiliates, editors, developers, and others - is an important way to test and strengthen our efforts, and increase our chances for success. The annual plan was written before the conference in Berlin, but since that time we have established a number of these pathways, including the Wikimedia Foundation social media huddle group on Facebook. That group now has 163 people from dozens of countries contributing ideas for our social media, including how to post about Wiki Loves Earth and Photo of the Year, how to give and get permission to post photos from Commons, and how to recruit and empower “guest hosts” on Pinterest. Anyone is welcome to join this group, which is closed to provide privacy.

We recognize that a weakness in our plan was not fully conveying our sincere desire to work with and learn from the community. That was, in part, because we were not yet sure what that work would look like as we are still having conversations with the community, and building our capacity in response to those conversations. These conversations have been formative over the past couple of years in helping us determine the composition of our staff, and we believe will be formative over the upcoming years in helping us develop our plans and strategies. --Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Measuring activity of a proprietary group is useless if you don't compare to what the activity was or would have been on a standard, open, libre solution such as a mailing list or a wiki. Nemo 22:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
We still have the ComCom and social media lists, Communications and social media on Meta, and hope that people participate with us there as well. Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Goal 2 objective 3

It is not clear to what extent the WMF is distributing their materials via commons as well as social media channels.

The Communications department regularly releases video, and recently in a new format designed specifically for success on social media and for easier sharing. We always upload these videos to Wikimedia Commons as well. We plan to work on our pages on Meta to make this work more obvious, but we are open to any other suggestions.

Recent examples of distributed video include: a video of the Jerusalem hackathon and a companion piece on a WikiArabia tech meetup.

We have also created a new Commons category for photos and animations pinned to Pinterest so people can see what we have curated without having a Pinterest account. --Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Strategic partnershipsEdit

The value of the WMF coordinating major partnerships with external organization is potentially high, and in some circumstances the WMF is the only movement entity able to negotiate and formally agree to long term relationships. However, the scope of "a strategic partnership" has never been described, nor how this area interacts with other WMF departments, making it difficult to know what work should, and should not be undertaken. Also, the relationship of WMF’s outreach to external organizations has not been clarified when there is a pre-existing movement partner in that space.

There are a number of departments at the Wikimedia Foundation that work on partnerships. The strategic partnerships team is primarily focused on partnerships with tech companies and mobile providers, and hardware manufacturers. In the event that there is a pre-existing movement partner in that space, we hope to collaborate together to leverage the work and relationship or to decide together who it makes most sense to drive the partnership forward.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of the WMF Strategic Partnerships team


Finally, and most importantly, having one team responsible for both "corporate donations" (receiving money) and content-deals (e.g., pre-loading apps onto smartphones) mixes two very different kinds of relationships that are often kept very separate within the non-profit/charitable field. Corporate donations and content deals are both valid, but should not be coordinated by the same people at the same time.

The Strategic Partnerships teams coordinates our conversations with potential partners. We usually don’t know until the we have had several discussions with a partner how we might work together to provide value to the Wikimedia Foundation. We serve as a central place for coordination and bring in the appropriate teams at the foundation based on what type of partnership is being discussed.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of the WMF Strategic Partnerships team


Program 2: Carefully grow Wikipedia ZeroEdit

It is unclear whether conducting phone surveys would be an efficient of time; and might be more appropriate to outsource this activity, or use other survey techniques.

Our phone surveys have been outsourced to VotoMobile, a global phone survey company based in Ghana. They have handled the language translations and recordings, and conducted the phone surveys under our direction. The results were anonymized and provided to us. The results of these surveys are available on our Meta page.

We chose to use phone surveys as the most cost effective means to get quantitative data on the awareness and perception of Wikipedia, along with understanding what barriers are preventing or inhibiting Wikipedia usage. Using a non-Wiki based survey in countries allows us to get both people who do not use Wikipedia, as well as those who do.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of the WMF Strategic Partnerships team


The FDC is pleased to see community involvement integrated to this project, as it helps build sustainability of the movement "on the ground" beyond the Wikipedia Zero program itself. The FDC would also like to see a longer term plan for Wikipedia Zero given that it is never intended to be a permanent solution to problems.

Our goal is to provide Wikipedia Zero until data costs become affordable, so people can have access to knowledge in places where Wikipedia awareness and usage is low. While working on Wikipedia Zero over the last four years, we have identified key barriers that go beyond affordability. Lack of Wikipedia awareness, infrastructure limitations, low digital literacy, and gender inequality are some of the issues we face when trying to expand awareness and access to Wikimedia content. These barriers require expanding the scope of our partnerships as our long term plan.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of the WMF Strategic Partnerships team


Program 3: Increase reach through new types of partnershipsEdit

It is unclear what a "new type of partnership" is, and therefore how it should be resourced or measured.

The Global Reach team will focus on 4 different types of partnerships:

  • Local governments
  • Nonprofits organizations
  • Educational institutions
  • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) oriented private sector companies.

These 4 categories are broad, as there are clearly many opportunities we could explore within each. For more information about what we are currently working on, please visit the Global Reach Meta page.

We are aware that local affiliates and individuals from our communities lead many of these local partnerships and our intention is not to change that. Our team will only pursue or investigate partnerships focused on readership. When editorship becomes the focus of a partnership, we will involve the local community.

Note: This section posted by Kbrown (WMF) on behalf of the WMF Strategic Partnerships team

None of these seems new. Please drop the term "new type of partnership" given it's inconsistent with the content. Nemo 22:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Number error in WMNO recommendation text sectionEdit

Hi all. @Delphine (WMF) has just pointed out an error in the recommended amount for WMNO in the recommendation text section: while the recommendation table says NOK 1,610,000, the section says NOK 1,600,000. The correct number was NOK 1,610,000, and I've now fixed this in the WMNO section. Apologies for the error. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Return to "APG/FDC recommendations/2015-2016 round 2" page.