Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Iteration 3/Plan Infrastructure Scalability/es
|
This is an archive for draft recommendations. Visit Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations to read the final recommendations. |
Conexión con otras recomendaciones
|
|---|
|
Esta recomendación propone planificación para escalar la infraestructura del movimiento de manera continuada para conocer las necesidades de los agentes del movimiento con el objetivo de garantizar la sostenibilidad. Esto está respaldado por las recomendaciones ‘Coordinación entre agentes’, ‘Evalur, iterar, adaptar’, ‘Igualdad en la toma de decisiones’ e ‘Innovar en el conocimiento libre’. |
Debemos crear un ecosistema fluido para que nuestra infraestructura sirva a nuestras necesidades a medida que crecemos. En este sentido, para lograr un cambio significativo, la planificación de la posibilidad de ampliar la infraestructura requiere considerar la gestión y evaluación de riesgos, asegurar espacios de toma de decisiones inclusivos y permitir la coordinación, establecer protocolos y roles y responsabilidades, e invertir recursos suficientes en la implementación.
Por qué
|
|---|
|
Mientras el Movimiento ha crecido orgánicamente en muchas áreas, tenemos que reconocer los retos que podrían generar cuellos de botella a la hora de conseguir el objetivo de nuestra dirección estratégica[1]. Cualquier plan estructurado de escalabilidad requiere un amplio proceso iterativo para evaluar la infraestructura actual, comunicar sus necesidades, y tomar decisiones para planear y ejecutar las soluciones para preparar el futuro[2]. En un entorno basado en el voluntariado y descentralizado como es Wikimedia, la comunicación es probablemente la parte más central de este proceso para (1) dejar que los compañeros evalúen y expresen sus necesidades como editores, y (2) para hacerles conscientes de la importancia de los cambios requiridos para escalabilidad. A día de hoy muchos de los cambios significativos tienden a alargarse y demorarse en el tiempo por una falta de cohesión y capacidad de expansión que afecta a la calidad resultante[3]. Esta falta de coordinación se debe a la distancia entre voluntarios, colaboradores técnicos, y desarrolladores a la hora de dar apoyo comunitario y por la falta de capacidades de comunicación adecuadas que permitan trabajar juntos. In addition, the changes needed to modify our systems for scale are often misunderstood or rejected because of insufficient coordination or a lack thereof[4] attributable to inadequate or deficient communication channels[4]. Redressing challenges and reconciliation is often stagnant or progresses upwards at a crawling pace[5]. In addition, lack of training affects our ability to scale utilizing volunteer contributors and partners. Today this results in technical contributors often at their own discretion in terms of maintenance and upgradation of their tools[6] and both users and partners can experience technology (e.g., GLAM tools) as a barrier rather than a bridge[7]. Even though communication plays an essential role in the upscaling Wikimedia infrastructure, one must also consider the importance of inclusivity in these conversations[8]. Scaling often requires weighing or leveraging for various outcomes, for example, our global goals to give access to knowledge to as many individuals as possible (quantity) may have a different strategic purpose than our goals of being more inclusive and provide beneficial services to under- and unrepresented groups (quality)[9] Finally, considering the necessity of planning for the evaluation of the infrastructure’s scalability, we must consider the limiting consequences of not adequately allocating resources for risk assessment and implementing adequate solutions. In Wikimedia, this currently happens in a bureaucratic structure that fails to consider variances of scale are important for growth adequately.[10] |
Cómo
|
|---|
|
To ensure that we continually plan for scalability, we propose to iteratively evaluate the current infrastructure, communicate its needs between stakeholders, and make decisions to execute the solutions to prepare for the future[11]. We recommend an approach based on several actions. We must create dedicated teams or Movement entities to analyze our infrastructures with a focus on optimization and risk assessment to ensure the scalability and sustainability of the Movement. The analysis of our infrastructures must include a complex set of criteria, such as resource distribution and legal protection for handling risk in limited geographies[12], investment in modern and efficient developer tooling to support community and other developer capacities[13], cutting-edge technologies to build content partnerships[14], and decisions on whether platform improvements could come from external sources or partners[15]. We must ensure that every stakeholder is represented in the decision-making that affects them. We need governance structures that are inclusive, usable, accessible, in a multilingual and friendly environment, which handles disruptions and toxic behavior and adheres to ethical as well as privacy and security protocols[16]. We propose investing in solutions for supporting community discussions and participatory decision-making on technology and systemic enhancements to be fine-tuned by constructive and inclusive debate, as well as consensus-building at scale, taking into consideration the diversity of our communities and those not present in them yet.[17] We must improve the communication and coordination spaces aimed at different stakeholders as they are essential to continue planning and implementing solutions to improve infrastructure scalability. These spaces need to provide a good user experience to serve users from different cultures and diversities in various ways that they have deemed meet their needs. We must ensure that our platforms, practices, and policies have better support structures that promote work ease in routine processes and align with modern practices.[18] To adequately provide structural support in communication and coordination, we need three spaces for different stakeholders involved in the infrastructure planning, development, and use to ensure that they are connected to follow the process of iteratively making the infrastructure scalable. One space (1) for the diverse segments of the Movement that are dealing with key areas for scalability and thus need to be closely coordinated, ie. technology infrastructure, governance, and resource distribution (both with each other and with the communities/partners they serve in order to assess the risk, plan, and generate the solution, make decisions for implementation, and complete the final development); another space (2) for partnerships and people working on specific content areas (GLAM and others) that require specific tools needing updating and upscaling to produce content; and a third space (3) for opening the Movement to include external and third-parties who may use our software to other purposes and expand it with new functionalities and capacities valuable to us[19]. Such third-party partnerships and developers can also support and make way for working on modern technologies, as in Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and others, as deemed necessary[20]. These communication spaces, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, will also make evident support systems for mentoring and training, as well as organized code review and other processes, such as documentation writing.[21] We must make all processes regarding infrastructure development transparent to engage more stakeholders in them. This needs to be complemented with an investment in the necessary skills peers require to understand the issues that relate to scalability. Engaging community members in product roadmaps will assist in establishing a wide consensus to meet the goals of our Movement. Transparency and skill development regarding the rationale behind decision-making also offer windows of opportunity to upscale or downscale as per the learning/findings[22]. Such actions would also impact large scale content partnerships, where tools and technological solutions have relied heavily upon the individual mastery of skills.[23] |
- Crear equipos específicos o entidades del Movimiento dedicadas a analizar nuestras infraestructuras con un enfoque en la optimización y la evaluación de riesgos para asegurar la escalabilidad y la sostenibilidad del Movimiento. [24]
- Crear espacios de apoyo estructural con reglas de compromiso claras para abordar las necesidades en materia de tecnología, gobernanza y distribución de recursos; asociaciones y otros colaboradores; y desarrolladores externos. [25]
- Invertir en soluciones y procesos de comunicación para apoyar los debates comunitarios, la toma de decisiones participativa y la creación de consenso a escala. [26]
- Adoptar un plan que defina las funciones, responsabilidades y prácticas para incorporar, capacitar, supervisar y retener a los colaboradores técnicos en diversas capacidades.[27]
- Diseñar un proceso que facilite la comunicación entre los promotores y otros contribuidores técnicos para establecer redes, coordinar la innovación, y proporcionar y obtener apoyo, así como tener un aporte en las decisiones y la asignación de recursos que afectan a las comunidades. [28]