Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Steering Committee/Notes/2017-03-03

Community Process Steering Committee meeting

Date: 3 March, 2017

Meeting A: 8 a.m. Pacific (4 p.m. UTC) (See conversion)
Meeting B: 2 p.m. Pacific (10 p.m. UTC) (See conversion)

Committee members

Risker, Canada, Individual contributor/Former ArbCom/Functionary/Election Committee/FDC
Lucy Crompton-Reid, UK, Staff/ED of WMUK
Florence Devouard, France, Former WMF Board/WMF Adv Board/Individual contributor
Nicole Ebber, Germany, Staff of WMDE
Mykola Kozlenko, Ukraine, WMUA
Dumisani Ndubane, South Africa, WMZA/Former FDC
Sandra Rientjes, Netherlands, Staff/ED of WMNL
Kaarel Vaidla, Estonia, Former ED of WMEE
Liam Wyatt, Italy, Individual contributor/GLAM/FDC
Andrea Zanni, Italy, Wikimedia Italy, Wikisource leader

In attendance

Meeting A

Sandra, Lucy, Mykola, Nicole
Core Team: Guillaume, Suzie, Shannon, Ed
CE Support: Jaime A (facilitator), Karen B (notes)

Meeting B

Florence, Kaarel, Liam, Nicole
Core Team: Guillaume, Suzie, Shannon, Ed
CE Support: Jaime A (facilitator), Nick W (notes)

Agenda

HH:00 Welcome and Orientation: Following-up & Milestones Review
HH:10 Framing: Guided Discussion
HH:20 Track A: Advisory group and launch
HH:30 Toolkit: Guided Discussion
HH:50 Wrap-up and Next Steps

HH:00 Framing: Guided Discussion

Review and comment to talk page on framing narrative, specifically Briefing and Premises

:00 notes

Group A (time-swapped with following topic; began at 00:26)

Guillaume shares his screen to walk people through the on-wiki framing document
Briefing document has been expanded quite a bit, though it’s not complete yet. Not sure if everyone’s had time to read it yet. Introduction section, since not everyone will know what they’re looking at. [continues rundown of each section header’s description]. Please review “Our movement and ecosystem” carefully if you can. I’m not going to detail every section here, so please do read through the page on your own time (Katherine will be emailing to the movement to encourage others to, too). If you have feedback, use talk page or email Guillaume. Once content is stable, he will mark it for translation and, hopefully next week, start getting it ready for the liaisons, etc
Guillaume: Steering Committee, please review Our Movement And Ecosystem and the text about organized groups and movement growth/tensions (particularly the latter, since it may be controversial).
Guillaume: We also have the Premises page for the discussion - basic points of agreement we will all start from. This should not change once we start. Currently contains proposed premises; again, please review and share your thoughts. One important premise: if you sit out one cycle, you may have to accept the outcome of that cycle when you jump into a subsequent cycle (as opposed to re-discussing it). Also possibly controversial: you cannot argue for a thing, but against the means to implement the thing
Guillaume: Comments?
- Lucy: A couple comments - I think the Briefing has come together really well, thanks to everyone who worked on that. I was concerned it would be too block-of-text, but it’s quite visually appealing and consumable. I would add one or two lines explanation to the organized groups bit: I have trouble with some of the wording (“we strive for excellence”, etc) - those are fine, but the explanations below them seem to lack resonance (they’re beautifully written, but maybe moderate them to be less flowery so audiences feel more comfortable with them?). And then also where you’ve added the two new premises, follow the same format as you did for the others
- Guillaume: Thank you for giving feedback! I will work on those. Could you leave comments on the talk page if you haven’t already?
  - Lucy: I put comments on the toolkit but I can make some suggestions onwiki
  - Guillaume: Currently the page uses the Values text, perhaps if you could take the text of the values and edit/suggest that on the talk page of the premises?
  - Lucy: Oh, so all that language is the agreed text of the WMF Values from the process?
  - Guillaume: Mostly yes, though it’s not locked down yet - we are in the discussion period for the Values. I’m happy to discuss Values/Premises, but keep in mind that those aren’t complete yet
  - Lucy: Not sure I understand? When I click on a word in Premises, it takes me to the Values page (I didn’t notice that initially!).
  - Guillaume: I will import the Values content to the Premises page so we can potentially edit it for our needs.
    - Jaime: I think that was a very useful clarification between the Foundation Values vs. Movement Strategy Premises - Sometimes we shift audiences and need to pay careful mind to that
- Sandra: With the Premises, I think we should make a clear distinction between movement-related Premises, and strategy-process-related Premises. For Briefing, it might be worthwhile to review it with the Annual Report discussions in mind - we may need to remove the photo of the polar bear, etc to make sure this doesn’t become similarly political
  - Guillaume: Those darn polar bears and their politics!
- Mykola: For Premises, I agree with separating discussion premises from strategy premises. For Briefing, so I’m sure I understand: to whom will we be presenting this briefing? It sounds like a “guide to everything”, can we target it a bit better to what our intended audience will already know/not know?
  - Guillaume: The idea is for this briefing to fill all the different knowledge gaps different types of participants may have. So not everyone will need all of it, but most will need some of it. We do need to describe the Wikimedia Movement, as Mykola says - it’s valuable to have a few items about “what a movement is”, since we’re just one movement across many.
  - Shannon: One way I think about the briefing is to expand our thinking. That’s why some things talk about the current state of the movement, others about movements more generally: for the objective of encouraging people to think outside the box.
  - Mykola: This reads very America/US-centric, too. May not work well in emerging communities.
  - Suzie: Please tell us where you see this type of western bias in the docs, because we may not spot it all, but you’re right that it’s there!
  - Jaime: We also need to be cautious to capture movements more globally based on the variety in the level of organization/coordination and actual tactics of movements vary greatly based on the movement’s place
  - Guillaume: For suggestions like this, please make them on the talk page if you can! [Suzie: yes, and please, we appreciate any help/thoughts you can offer!]

Group B

Guillaume [repeat of group A walkthrough]
Repeat request to add to the content, or improve or request. Especially the "Our Movement And Ecosystem" section.
Guillaume: Comments?
- Florence: re: organized groups and affiliates, we might need more info about them, perhaps just a link to prevent detail overload.
  - Guillaume: There are links in some of the other sections, to subpages, but I need to create the one for this section.
  - Florence: Would it be good to have something about the gaps we've identified before, demographic gaps, coverage gaps, etc.
  - Guillaume: There is some of that towards the bottom, e.g. gender balance amongst contributors, and article content gaps, and the map of the world.
  - Florence: Mobile trends would go in content section?
  - Guillaume: There or the technology trends section.
  - Florence: I understand section 2 as being about sectors outside of us, so there are 2 different things. Trends in technology - outside and inside the movement. Perhaps we need another section in #6 about this?
  - Guillaume: Possibly, but this is all intended to be about imagining the future, and I don't want to put too much detail in before the discussions begin.
  - Kaarel: These might not be European enough, or not engaging enough. May seem to be “American” and not in a good way. Participatory discussion rules can lead to people not following them, or disagreeing due to cultural differences. But can possibly be left as they are.
  - Kaarel: Re: Our movement section and premises, it seems perhaps too English Wikipedia centered, or WMF centered. The fundraising overview doesn't include details about affiliates.
  - Guillaume: It's been hard to find information that covers the full spectrum of the movement, but this is definitely the area where we want your help.
  - Kaarel: Are we ok that these premises might feel strange in some cultures, e.g. in Estonia we use participatory discussion practice but to older demographics, this might feel strange and awkward to them - might feel the premises are too "American", and don't fit them.
  - Guillaume: We don't have to use them for all the discussions, and we don't need to require complete agreement, we just need to avoid obvious/rationale objections.
  - Suzie: Similar concerns from group A, that it might be too western-centric. Please keep the feedback and suggestions-to-fix coming.

HH:10 Welcome and Orientation: Following-up & Milestones Review

Task	Status
Weekly iteration feedback on modified toolkit and discussion coordination flow diagram	Completed
Review Audit of 2010 process with specific recommendations for 2017 process and see link to performance against actual plan goals (more detail on the complexity around this to follow)	Need to check-in: Any new comments or concerns raised from the steering committee’s review of these findings and recommendations?
Review and discuss (ideally on the talk page, but other channels are also possible): Briefing (what every participant should know) and Premises (what every participant should agree with)	Need to check-in (See agenda)
Core team to post final prototypes and plan to Meta	Shared via Metrics meeting - to be posted
Core team to take second round feedback for toolkits into second iteration for next week	Toolkit updated - still in progress

See also: Community Process Steering Committee Charter

January 20: The Committee holds the first to discuss design parameters for the two track processes (organized groups and individual contributors) and share ideas on process with the core strategy team. COMPLETE
January 27: The core strategy team shares the first draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
February 3: Post Draft #1 of process on Meta for comments; core strategy team shares the second draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
February 9: Post Draft #2 of process on Meta for comments; core strategy team shares the third draft of the two processes for discussion with the Committee and iteratively improves it based on comments.
February 13: Post Draft #3 Process on Meta
February 17: Toolkits review - Specific action targets TBD
~~February 24:~~ March 3: Toolkits review - Specific action targets TBD

:10 notes

Group A (time-swapped with previous; actually started at :00)

Jaime intro and summary of what we’re doing today. We have iterated on a number of things. We want your thoughts on the audit, etc - past learnings
Lucy: It’s interesting to me that the recommendations etc from the review of strategic processes felt really insightful and clear, but then the analysis of actual progress against targets felt more sparse.
- Suzie: yeah when I developed it I was focused on the process - which is what you saw - and then the road to map (??) was so complex that (??). There were never metrics in place for the goals, or tracking. So it became a journey of explanation rather than audit [Lucy: and how useful would that be?] Right
- Lucy: Right. As a movement now, we need to think of ways to track progress against them, or else we’ll never be able to do complete retrospectives
Sandra: One thing that struck me was that in the previous strategy process, the WMF was overwhelmed by the response. Do we have sufficient safeguards in place to keep that from happening again?
- Suzie: I think we do. Part of the funneling means that we’re not looking at as great a volume at any given time, with multiple cycles, etc. Plus we have a larger team (and extended team) to work on it. Last time it was something like two people, and they didn’t know what to expect. This time, we’re expecting high traffic and we’re geared up to handle it. We’re designing for it.
Mykola: [arrived late] Hello! [Catching up on what we’re talking about…] My main thought was the same as Sandra’s - that we should be able to manage the response we get, and not find ourselves again in an overwhelmed position.
- Jaime: I do wonder how we will respond if we get more than the thousand responses we anticipate.
  - Suzie: We have (??) for more resourcing
Nicole: in past WMF strategy processes, there was this feeling in the community that it wasn’t really a process, but rather they were presented with two questions that were already decided on, and their opinions weren’t that cared about. It gave people a feeling that their input didn’t matter. And I think this time, this process, we are doing everything we can to avoid that.
- Jaime: Yes, I see that we are designing for this end. It would be really good to do some process evaluation and actually seek to validate whether our design achieves this end.
- Suzie: We’ve made some guesses about what this might show up as. We’ve thought about a (documented) process debrief. Part of why doing the audit was difficult for me was because I had to research the history and interview people. Which, if we document as we go, wouldn’t need to be done.

Group B

Jaime intro and summary of what we’re doing today. We have iterated on a number of things. We want your thoughts on the audit, etc - past learnings
- Liam: Conclusion from 2010 process, that 5 of the 7 goals didn't have measurable targets, and/or sufficient detail, seems important. I.e. even if we did succeed, we can't measure it.
- Jamie: Agreed, the different approaches were widely variable in the definitions, measurements, and approaches to “improving quality” have been an ongoing frustration.
- Liam: Also the old ones were very Wikipedia-centric, e.g. "new articles", so we want to avoid that too.
- Jaime: This seems baked into the process, but it also seems to be another process evaluation question we should seek to validate in terms of achieving shared definitions and language.
Suzie: I'll show you the goals and metrics we're currently looking at, to make these outcomes measurable, soon.
Kaarel: We're getting from a 15 year synergy to a 5 year plan. This is where we have to be attentive. Since I entered the movement, the question around impact has been discussed. In the slides [?], there are 5 or 6 goals, around output level. [?] impact, with a logic model type of thinking. This is what WMF has pushed on affiliates, to measure metrics instead of outcomes. This is what we are working on with Outcome Mapping and getting to outcomes that matter rather than outputs level which isn't really telling the story. At the moment, we've taken good learnings from the community process group, [?].

HH:20 Track A: Advisory group and launch

Nicole will walk us through updates for Track A and plans for Advisory Group

:20 notes

Group A (moved to :13)

Nicole intro: Starting as leader of track A! I’m excited to join the team and get things going, and I’m really happy WMDE was able to help us make this happen and lend me to this process.
Nicole: Overview of our plan: Start of consultation will be 10th March, but we will be sending out emails (hopefully) today with the Track A announcement and agenda (and April 10 end date). We’re asking all organized groups to appoint a discussion coordinator who will liaise between us and the organization. DC will help organize, facilitate meetings, will create summaries of conversations. Also I will be calling for an advisory group that has a diverse group of people on it to avoid bias (e.g. Euro-bias, large-org bias). I will be reaching out to people I want on the group, and I will have the charter/timeline for this group in our notes here (above). Please review it if you have time. Everything done before WM Conference (20 March) will be used there to shape/inform discussions. Since WMC is in the middle of the cycle, it will be a main work period for this cycle. Reaching out to external facilitators for the WMCon - hopefully results to be published next week.
Jaime: Questions?
- Lucy: This sounds really good. I’m so pleased we have Nicole working on this!
- Nicole: My role was mentioned in the weekly Katherine email and the Metrics meeting, but I am also going to send emails
- Mykola: Can you please specify what you will be asking people attending WMConference to do?
  - Nicole: We hope some groups can meet and discuss pre-Con so they can bring some summaries to the conference. But you don’t have to meet beforehand if it doesn’t work out - you can still attend the conference, since it will also do strategy onboarding for groups there. Do think with your group about when the best date for your first meeting will be, though. Try to have a date decided before you come to Berlin. It’s your decision, though - flexibility!
  - Mykola: (??) Enthusiasm (??) getting it right. Affiliates can choose before or after Berlin for themselves?
    - Suzie: Yep. And where groups have had discussion before Berlin, those results will be shared out with the whole group, so everyone will have access to that in Berlin
  - Nicole: If we start with input from, say, 10 groups, and we still expect many more, we don’t narrow down the conversations at that point, but after too (see Cycle 1 timeline)
- Sandra: Question about the language coordinators - Nicole, are they your people? Who will run that?
  - Nicole: Not me. Guillaume will be managing/guiding them with support from the CE staff
  - Nicole: We need to be conscious that these coordinators only have 20 hours/week each, so they can only do so much
  - Guillaume: Some of the work will be similar (i.e. translation will be done once, and then can be used by chapters and onwiki). On a case-by-case basis, they may be able to assist in Track A as well, but that’s not their main role

Group B

Nicole intro: Starting as leader of track A! I’m excited to join the team and get things going, and I’m really happy WMDE was able to help us make this happen and lend me to this process. Will be able to spend most of my year working on this. We've been hoping and waiting for something like this for years.
Nicole: Overview of our plan: Start of consultation will be 10th March, but we will be sending out emails (hopefully) today with the Track A announcement and agenda (and April 10 end date). The main request in these, is asking all organized groups to appoint a discussion coordinator who will liaise between us and the organization before and/or immediately following WMCon. These discussion coordinators will help organize, facilitate meetings, will create summaries of conversations.
Also I will be calling for an advisory group that has a diverse group of people on it to avoid bias (e.g. Euro-bias, large-org bias). I will be reaching out to people I want on the group, and I will have the charter/timeline for this group in our notes here (above).
Please review plans for Advisory Group if you have time and share comment. Will be composed of a diverse group of roles and demographics and experiences. Everything done before WM Conference (20 March) will be used there to shape/inform discussions. Since WMC is in the middle of the cycle, it will be a main work period for this cycle. Reaching out to external facilitators for the WMCon - hopefully results to be published next week.
Suzie: Appreciation for Steering committee work thus far. Acknowledge we haven't completed the discussion guides for Cycle 2 and 3 yet, and hope we can potentially ask for some of your feedback on that, in the short-term.
- Kaarel: Very happy that Nicole is taking this role and see also a good connection to work from Chapters Dialogue.
- Florence: excited and happy to see Nicole here :)

HH:35 Toolkit: Guided Discussion

The Core team has worked to flesh out more of the strategy toolkits (Toolkit draft)

The core team is still working to refine and scaffold the information into a more simple to follow framework for getting started, implementation, and reporting on community discussions.

Review Focus 1: New additions and scaffolding

Review Focus 2: Language on what is a theme, levels of ideas and thematic direction vs. mission, etc.

Review Focus 3: Discussion Guide

:35 notes

Group A (started HH:45)

Shannon: we’re running behind on time, so: you all have a link to the toolkit. The content hasn’t changed much, just the (aesthetics?). So please look it over quickly and let us know what you think.
Suzie: We got lots of feedback/pushback about directions. I’d like to spend a couple of minutes now for you to tell us whether this all makes sense or not. The overall idea: we would have a longer-term strategic direction at the top layer (short and inspiring) and then underneath that specific focus areas (cycle 3 will get us to those), and then underneath that, the “underpinnings” (definitions of “what does that mean?”). In this first phase, since we’re working at the 15-year time horizon, things are still pretty broad. Wikimania/post-Wikimania will be when we can narrow towards 5-year goals so we can make “short term” (5 year) plans. Then Wikimania through January(ish), we’d develop priorities for the next 5 years, [...] refine [...] (??). THen the next phase would be where every org in Track A would be developing their own org strategy and annual planning based on their strategies - but since this would be in Phase 2, we’d be doing those things as a “collective whole”, utilizing a network effect
Suzie: Thoughts? Reactions?
- Sandra: Thanks for explaining that. What is the timeframe for the three layers? When will we have done them all?
  - Suzie: Phase 1 through Wikimania, Phase 2 ideally August-December/January, Phase 3 for the WMF in the 2018 Annual Planning cycle (Feb-June)/for affiliates based on their own timelines they’re already following for APing times (whenever your org is next up to do an AP, that’s when you’d jump into Phase 3). When you have a resource discussion, who gets resources now-vs-later might change. All of that will happen before individual groups develop strategy
  - Jaime: The first cycle of strategy integration into Annual Plans will be for July 2018-June 2019 fiscal year and then second Annual Planning cycle for 2019 Jan-Dec fiscal year.
  - Suzie: One of the things we’ve been talking about is: There might be some ideas that come up during Phase two about changes to timeline dates/length. So we know we still have unknowns, but that’s the current idea.
  - Sandra: And affiliates will have to think about how to change their plans to tie into the strategy.
  - Jaime: Programmatic shifts will begin earlier as they can be done more easily than other shifts that may take place on a longer transition plan as structural shifts are more complicated than just rejiggering programmatically.
- Mykola: From the Strategic Direction document, what is the difference between “direction” and “mission” - I understand direction vs vision, but not vs mission. I don’t understand how they differ. How will direction remain cohesive, given that some of [the vision statements? Premises?] exclude different parts of our movement?
  - Guillaume: Possibly, the mission is for the WMF, not the movement?
  - Jaime: But we’ve been calling it “mission” the whole time in this movement process
  - Suzie: My take is: we did struggle with that example, how it was movement-limited. Maybe we can add a fictional (layer?) to the water example [to add a mission and vision]. From our perspective, mission and vision are closer in than [argh, I lost the thread…]. Maybe we can show it in an example, so it’s more clear
- Lucy: Just to respond to Mykola - WMUK has its own strategic framework for our chapter, which is of course more straightforward than movement strategy, but we have mission, then vision, then a few strategic goals. So for us the process distinguishing mission, vision, goals was quite clear - i.e. goals involve underrepresented content, while mission doesn’t [Lucy drops offline mid-sentence]
- Jaime notes that we are running over time. Can people stay? [various answers]
- Mykola: Can we separate mission and direction, or specify that “mission of the WMF” doesn’t apply to everyone anymore, and replace it with something that does? I did some research but couldn’t find an example where it worked, because by definition every org is working on something different. I don’t want this to confuse people.
- [Lucy returns]
Jaime: We have one takeaway task for people who need to leave the meeting. Please review Nicole’s advisory group documentation and give your opinions before Monday. And feel free to exit the meeting now as you need.
Suzie: I’d like to ask you all, once we’ve developed Cycle 2, if we can reach out to you to review that (and then same for Cycle 3), because the input you’ve given us for Cycle 1 has been absolutely invaluable.
Jaime: Good collaboration, y’all!
Lucy: I don’t know if it’s helpful, Mykola, but if you want to I can email you WMUK’s strategic framework so you can see if it shows the differentiation better with a definite example
- Suzie: I’d love to see what you’ve done too!
- Suzie: THis format sort of ignores mission in favor of strategic direction (since mission, etc come back in in Phase 3). Phase 2 would have some mutually-agreed-on strategic goals.
- Lucy: Movement-wide strategy, with thousands of stakeholders, is just hard. It won’t be perfect. But I think you’re approaching it well.
Lucy: Can I ask a question? I’m in the process of updating our org risk register. Since we get WMF funding. One of the things at the back of my mind is that when Christophe and Katherine had dinner with the EDs at Wikimania last year, one of the things that came up was the role of chapters. At what point - during which phase - will you/we be looking at structures that will let us meet the strategic directions?
- Phase 2.
Jaime: Sandra? Any comment?
- Sandra: Nope, nothing at the moment. I’m working it through in my mind and will let you know if I think of anything.
Jaime: I’m really looking forward to this launch! Look forward to continuing these conversations in whatever capacity you’re willing to offer. See everyone in Berlin!
Nicole: it’s been great working with this group. A heartwarming experience - so constructive and open, even about what’s maybe not going so well!

Group B

Suzie: Strategic direction: Phase 1 will run until Wikimania. From cycle 3 discussions (refining and understanding implications of thematic clusters, perhaps 3-5 of them), the changes to 'strategic direction', will be a high-level discussion of those outcomes, with the focus areas spelled out as brief (1 word) keywords. This brings us to having a strategic direction that might have multiple components, but will help deeply articulate what is coming out of the discussions. We don't want to artificially limit.
Suzie: Phase 2: Looking at the 3-5 year goals, that we can agree upon. Different from the 2010 strategy where the outcome was so wide, without clear goals, just abstract directions. Deciding what we need to adjust for the short-term to meet those goals. We are hoping it can be accomplished between August and January. We're thinking about options now, and might include a gathering similar to WMCON, but smaller (5-60 people?). Maybe small task groups working together on different prototype models and options to present at that meeting.
Suzie: Phase 3: Once goals are set, each org/affiliate/etc, would then build their own strategy, with own specific goals and annual planning, within the regular timing cycle. Obviously if huge changes are suggested, the timelines will be determined differently.
Jaime: The first cycle of strategy integration into Annual Plans will be for July 2018-June 2019 fiscal year and then second Annual Planning cycle for 2019 Jan-Dec fiscal year. Programmatic shifts will begin earlier as they can be done more easily than other shifts that may take place on a longer transition plan as structural shifts are more complicated than just rejiggering programmatically.
- Liam: At what stage in the process would that [potential] meeting be? after the third phase? The potential summit meeting
- Suzie: If we do this, it would be in the fall, after Wikimania. We're thinking in-person, as part of phase 2, before phase 3
- Kaarel: I like the clear visuals. Question about the definitions, and when they'll be shared publicly?
- Suzie: We know they’re not ready yet; this is another area we want your feedback on before we post them.
- F: Phase 3 is only images about WMF and Affiliates. How can we represent the community in there? Very complicated, but, how can we make the editors feel like the outcome is not just about the affiliates?
- Suzie: Katherine had the same concerns earlier today. This all impacts community, and they're central to it all. We're thinking through phase 2 right now. So, after the potential summit, we would have a community consultation to share the work and find agreement that way. We do need to determine how to add them to the visualization though.
- Jaime: Depending on the directions it may also be that the end steps will have to be implemented more by individual community members, and in that case we will need their support specifically.
- Kaarel: We might be forgetting Affiliates are quite well connected to their communities, and when Affs go through planning they typically get broad community involvement. -- Perhaps in phase 4, need to look at how this new strategy movement, will be reflected in the strategies of our External partners.
  - Suzie: We're thinking about this in terms of "the bigger we", and perhaps in next summer having a goal to bring together people from inside our movement and those external to us, so that we can share goals and leverage each other to further the vision.
- Liam: Re: comments above, about Europeana, need to make sure those kind of organizations, how they can be involved in both the planning process, and the implementation process (making collaborative plans). Perhaps Track C, need to be treated a bit more like Track A?
- Suzie: Current intention: anyone outside our direct group (track A), have planned interviews under Track C, over 100, with people and potential partners. Track D plans to talk to 50-100 people.
- Liam: I think that's something they should be able to suggest for themselves, to. If there's a group that wants to be more consulted or if that's something they want to try, there should be a place they can sign up for that.
- Suzie: Yes - we can definitely have them leverage the Toolkit for discussions. For the interview list, there should be some details posted next week. Juliet is leading that work, and we'll follow-up with her. I agree that a core aim is to not leave anyone out. This would give us information before the strategic direction is set. The symposium at the end is about a bigger 'we'. So, phase 2 would still be internal, but after setting up a strategic direction, we'd start having the serious wider discussions sometime March-Aug 2018.
- Kaarel: m:Movement_roles_project/Movement_Partners
- Liam: yes Kaarel - that component of the 'movement roles' has never been elaborated. it was left deliberately undefined at the time because there was enough work to do just getting User Groups up and running :)
[questions about WMCON]

HH:55 Wrap-up and Next Steps

Final Steering Committee Related Tasks	Responsible	Target
Please add any additional comments regarding today’s agenda items, especially Briefing and Premises and Toolkit.	Committee	By Monday AM
Please review and comment on plans for Track A Advisory Group	Committee	By Monday AM