Talk:Movement Strategy/Initiatives

Bug with section 8, number 36?

@Abbad (WMF): There might be a problem with section 8, number 36 which actually has three different items bundled together? Is this intentional or a bug? Thanks. -- Fuzheado (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: Thanks for checking this! This list is pretty much a simplified version of the significantly longer, complete table. As you may observe in the full version, "initiatives" are practically clusters, with each containing several of the outcomes listed in the original recommendations. In this case, the initiative 36 is a cluster with several points intentionally bundled together. Hope this makes sense and happy to take your suggestions --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC).

@Abbad (WMF): - Thanks, I see the parallel structure in line with the former document now so that would make sense. -- Fuzheado (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary of Recommendation 5 is lacking mention of partners or partnerships

It's a bit late in the game, but I had a concern about the brief "List of initiatives" regarding number 5 "Coordinate across stakeholders." Since this brief list is at the heart of most of our prioritizing and discussions, it is important that it adequately captures the high-level view with important keywords and concepts.

After considering the 10 recommendations in the context of our user group Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network, I've found that the three initiatives (28-30) don't capture recommendation 5 very well. This recommendation Coordinate across stakeholders is really about partners and partnerships, and "partnership" is even used in the first line of the full recommendation. Later on, "partners" is mentioned five times in the body of the recommendation as the main focus.

However, the "List of initiatives" for Recommendation 5 does not even mention partners or partnerships once. I discovered this only as I was struggling to find out where partnerships were in the 45 initiatives, and only found it in the technical/API (2/15) and innovation (9/41).

I was puzzled as to where our focus on partnerships had disappeared, only to find it had not disappeared from #5, but the summary that we are using had failed to convey this effectively.

TL;DR - Recommendation #5 that has partners/partnerships mentioned 6 times in the full writeup has failed to mention partners even once in the "List of initiatives" that we are using as our overall organizational outline.

Is there a way to address this or any other shortcomings of this "List of initiatives" outline, as a correction now will do a lot of good before we launch global conversations later this month. Thanks. -- Fuzheado (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Fuzheado, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Partners and partnerships are mentioned 17 times in the complete list of initiatives. In the effort to condense the list of initiatives to something that is more accessible, the finer details were reduced, and that is where partnerships were originally highlighted. Thanks for catching that, appreciated. It was not mentioned in the original title of initiatives since recommendation 5 also touches a great deal upon internal stakeholders of the movement, third-party developers, and tech communities, as well as external partners, with the hope of improving coordination and communication spaces and capacities. We didn't want to change the number of initiatives since folks have been working with that for some time. We have now added "with partners and collaborators" to initiative 29. I don't think it's enough, but it's something. Take a look, let us know what you think. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

thanks for this page

this looks terrific. thanks for this page. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Link to discussion

Gnom inserted links to discussion which I believe is a good idea, can someone please mark those links for translation? Thank you in advance. --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 09:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Change 'short title' of initiative #8

Hi, can we change the 'short title' of initiative #8 to "Aligning our practices to support environmental sustainability"? I think that the current 'short title' is not the ideal summary of the actual text of the recommendation. --Gnom (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for the late reply (the events report was a huge priority for last week). Ideally, the text of this list would be kept as static as possible since it's being used by so many people and as a basis for large scale prioritization (both regionally and globally). However, having this list on Meta, it's considered to some degree as something that users can edit (I certainly expected contributor to edit the entire "Relevance" column in the table). There have been also minor wording edits previously as a response to feedback, particularly to initiative 30. It would be interesting, though, to see more details that clarify the need for this change and what it is based on. I'm also pinging someone who previously engaged in discussions around the initiative (please feel free to ping more people) @Ainali: --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC).

Thank you for your feedback. My thought was to find a 'short title' that is closer to the actual text of the recommendation, which reads, While we grow and become more sustainable as a Movement, we will also align our practices to support the environmental sustainability of our planet. There's simiply no mention of "initiatives" in the text of the recommendation, so that was my entire motivation. --Gnom (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't want to change the page without consulting the community first, so... could we put discuss for translate? ([[Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Discuss/Increase the Sustainability of our Movement|discuss]]) It makes no sense to keep it in English.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Felipe da Fonseca: You're right in your comment in the edit summary: these "discuss" links are outdated. I'm now removing them and updating several details in the table, to make it more relevant for the current Implementation Phase --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

@Felipe da Fonseca: The page has been updated. However, I have to note that it's not really accurate to label this link as that of a "past strategy": this link contains the text of the recommendations, which should be a guiding document of strategy until 2030. I've instead labelled your new page under the label "discuss", which seemed the best option for the moment. Once there are more pages like it, I'm happy to reconsider how to feature them in this list --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC).

Abbad (WMF) "discuss" is also not correct. Could you then put it as "Implementation"?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Abbad (WMF)--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Edited per your request --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC).

Notice of changes to the list

Since this is an important page for Movement Strategy, it's currently undergoing a few changes. Here's a brief explanation of why:

• The column of "suggested relevance" has been removed along with its accompanying reasoning. The column was added based on requests from community members that wanted some guidance regarding how to choose priority initiatives. Since the prioritization events and, altogether, the Transition, is now past; prioritization is probably a more helpful piece of information for this list.
• The links to the old discussion space have been removed. Discussions now can take place in pages of individual initiatives where there's ongoing work (example: Movement Charter). You can learn of such discussions by following the Movement Strategy Updates page.

A note for translators: For anyone who wishes to translate the page, I would kindly ask you to hold on for 24 hours until the changes are complete and the page is more stable --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC).

Steigt noch jemand durch?

Eher durch Zufall bin ich mal wieder hier gelandet und frage mich; steigt noch jemand durch? Ich nicht.

Es gibt die Ziele: okay (zu viele, aber seis drum)

es gibt die Initiativen (noch viel mehr und völlig überbordend)

dann hat man wohl gemerkt, dass es zuviel ist und man hat Cluster gebildet die priorisierten Initiativen für die globale Koordination - also man hat die Ziele dann defacto wieder reduziert in welche mit Relevanz und welche die nur fürs Papier sind. Zum Glück erhöht das auch die Übersichtlichkeit nicht im Geringsten, denn die Cluster bilden sich kreuz und quer zwischen den Zielen

Zugleich aber sind diese priorisierten Initiativen nicht etwa die mit der Priorität. Es gibt auch welche mit oberster Priorität wie bspw. der Verhaltenskodex der schon in Arbeit ist. Vielleicht soll der aber auch nicht global koordiniert werden?

Persönliches Fazit: Hier wird etwas Zusammengewürfeltes in Tabellen und Schaubilder gepresst und eine Schein-Ordnung vorgegaukelt. In Wirklichkeit ist es aber einfach nur ein chaotisches Wer hat noch nicht, wer will nochmal ...Sicherlich ^Post 07:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sicherlich, Du hast das gut zusammengefasst, wonbei es nicht wirklich um Vergaukelung geht, sondern um Vereinfachung. Der Prozess sollte aus den 45 Initiativen die Wichtige und Zusammengehörenden bündeln, um diese zuerst anzugehen und die anderen später. Dabei bleibt aber immer offen, ob sich jemand der nicht priorisierten annehmen möchte. Für die Planerstellung dazu gibt es Fördermittel für Freiwillige. --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 08:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

der nicht priorisierten annehmen möchte - also Ziele die im Zweifel keiner verfolgt 🙈 . Ziele die nicht verfolgt werden braucht man nicht. (Das ist IMO einer der Fehler der "Planung" - es gibt überhaupt keine Priorisierung sondern das "jeder macht was er will" wurde nun mit viel Aufwand und Tamtam in eine Ordnung gepresst und da kann dann jeder wieder machen was er will und kann dann immer auf das passende Ziel verweisen. Das ist an sich nicht wofür Ziele gedacht sind. Dafür braucht man keine.

Vereinfachung? Mag das jmd. eventuell nochmal überdenken? Aktuell sehe ich eine Tabelle die verschiedene Dinge mischt und damit nun wirklich nicht übersichtlich ist und die den Stufen Empfehlungen und Initiativen (mit zahlreichen Unterseiten) eine weitere Ebene hinzufügt. Das wirkt für mich alles mögliche, aber nicht wie eine Vereinfachung. ...Sicherlich ^Post 08:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Weil du nichts, woran die vielen Gruppen gearbeitet haben, einfach über Bord werfen willst. Das Ziel bleibt ja: bis 2030. Die einzelnen Akteure haben ja auch verschiedene Prioritäten, die Wikimedia Enterprise (geringere Abhängigkeit von Spenden)und der UCoC (Schluss mit Belästigungen) ist im Fokus der WMF, während für die Affiliates die Movement-Charta und der globale Rat (Machtverteilung weg von der WMF) Top-Priorität haben. Dazu kommen die Hubs (sowohl regional, wo keine Chapter sind als auch thematisch, z.B. kleine Sprachen und GLAM), auf die sich einzelne Usergruppen und Chapter fokussieren. Für WMDE ist zum Beispiel auch die Capacity Exchange (kleineren Usergroups und Chaptern Zugriff auf Skills und Ressourcen geben) sehr interessant. So gibt es halt viele Akteure und Beteiligte, da stellt sich weniger die Frage, woran die anderen arbeiten, sondern was du selbst spannend findest und worauf du Lust hättest. In der deWP gibt es eine kleine Gruppe um Conny, die die Zugänglichkeit für Blinde erhöhen möchte. Ich persönlich finde immer noch Empfehlung 7 (Strukturierung unseres Wissens fernab des ANR) super, mache da aber nichts.Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 09:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

einfach über Bord werfen willst - ich sprach nicht von einfach. Aber wenn man "alles" behält wird es halt beliebig. Am Ende hat man dann etwas erreicht was man ohne den ganzen Aufwand auch erreicht hätte. Denn jeder "priorisiert" was er möchte. ... Bzw. man erreicht weniger, weil die Zeit und anderen Ressourcen die man in den Ziel-Prozess gesteckt hat sind halt verloren ...Sicherlich ^Post 10:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ach, ich finde das, wie das KVaidla organisiert, eigentlich ganz pragmatisch. Die Leute machen lassen, und dabei gucken, dass es insgesamt vorangeht (und vor allem auch dank Abbad ausführlich dokumentiert wird). Jetzt hat sich aber ja alles umorganisiert im WMF-Global&Strategy-Team, vielleicht wird es auch neue Ansätze geben. Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 10:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Die einzelnen Tätigkeiten mögen durchaus gut sein. Kann ich nicht sagen. Nur wenn das Ergebnis von monatelanger Arbeit verschiedenster Akteure mit wiki-/online/sonstigen Meetings am Ende ist: "alles ist ein Ziel" dann ists halt so leid es mir tut verschwendete Zeit. Möglicherweise fachlich hoch kompetent und in bester Manier. Aber trotzdem verschwendet ...Sicherlich ^Post 10:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Alle Initiativen sollen angegangen werden, aber nach Interesse und Priorität, sowie sukzessive. Ist sehr viel, ist sehr langsam, ja, aber die Entschleunigung wurde auch absichtlich eingeführt, weil zu viele andere Sachen zeitgleich passierten (Brand, Boardwahlen usw) und es einige Stop!-Rufe aus den Communitys gab.Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 14:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines for board functions and governance

A translator's question. Kindly clarify the capitalization in the line: Guidelines for board functions and governance, do we read as:

• board functions as "'(WMF) Board functions"?

Does governance refer to the WMF Board? --Omotecho (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Omotecho: Not specifically the WMF Board, no. It's summarizing this piece from the Recommendations: "Establish good practice guidelines for how boards function, such as term limits, election and selection processes, and approaches to other governance questions where applicable and relevant for a community. These guidelines will need to be adapted and contextualized by each stakeholder. Boards would be held accountable for following good practices by the Global Council. For those that do not, the Global Council will create mechanisms to review and provide support." This appears to not be limited to only the WMF Board. --Yair rand (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yair rand, yes, clarified. So it depends on a community if they would appoint a board or not. FYI, For grassroots groups, we seldom have a board to an editors' community, but I could refer to those applied at ecology groups or bird watchers. Will try and find any example among ja language non-wiki non-Wikimedia communities.

Case closed for me, much appreciated. Cheers,-- Omotecho (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC) / clarified where and what I will search for. --Omotecho (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a Movement Strategy Forum

Hello everyone,

This is an invitation to all Movement Strategy participants to try out a new space for truly multilingual collaboration:  https://forum.movement-strategy.org/

Please join the Movement Strategy Forum and say "hi" to the community here.

We are starting a community review period of two months. If the community feedback is positive, the Forum will launch in August 2022 before Wikimania. If not, we will follow the feedback received, changing the proposal or closing it.

Looking forward to your first impressions!

--AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

Hello everyone,

The Movement Strategy Forum (MS Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to build community collaboration, using an inclusive multilingual platform.

The Movement Strategy is a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment to a full-time project.

Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations, and ask questions in your language.

The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal for this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just published the Community Review Report. It includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about the next steps.

We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance team

--AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Progress column

It would be good if the list of initiatives has a progress column to easy visualize the progress status of each initiative, something like this. That would help us to visualize how the implementation is going and where we need to apply more efforts. Danilo.mac talk 19:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Danilo.mac Thank you for this example! We have been "intending" to do this for a while (you can see the example in my sandbox, as it is no secret and has been around since early this year). We are yet, however, to come up with a scale of measuring "progress", which did turn out to be a bit complex. It is still something we are working on seriously, and I'm tagging here my colleague, @HEl-Youssef (WMF) who is leading this work as the Lead Strategist and who maybe interested in seeing your idea --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC).

@Abbad (WMF) and HEl-Youssef (WMF): I evaluated the progress of all initiatives. I put a section in that page where I explained the criteria I used and where I made annotations about each initiative. That is indeed a hard job, it took me more time than I expected. As I said in another topic, I am working in tasks related to the "Evaluate, Iterate and Adapt" recommendation, and evaluate the progress is part of it, I hope that page help in the decisions about next steps in Movement Strategy. That work forced me to understand the initiatives more deeply, and if I could give an opinion about where to put more effort I would suggest the "Coordinate Across Stakeholders" recommendation, I think distribute the responsibilities can help the whole Movement Strategy process walk better. Feel free to edit or move the page to the Movement Strategy namespace if you want. And any feedback to that evaluation is welcome. Danilo.mac talk 01:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

[Survey] Please provide your feedback about the Movement Strategy Forum

In the August 2022 community review report, it was mentioned that every 6 months, a survey will be conducted among users to collect qualitative data about forum use.

Therefore, in order to "evaluate, iterate, and adapt" we would greatly appreciate your feedback about the Forum. Shared below is a link to a brief questionnaire that will ask about your experience in the Forum as well as some limited demographic information.

Survey Link

Or, copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_e3Ox3phcmttc4MS

This survey is for research and evaluation purposes, and will aid the Wikimedia Foundation in assessing the Forum's impact and effectiveness. We will anonymize and aggregate results before sharing with Forum organizers and publishing to Metawiki.

This survey should take around 5 to 10 minutes of your time and will be available until 26 February, 23:59 UTC.

This survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

Thank you for your participation.

CSinha (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

[Reminder] Please provide your feedback about the Movement Strategy Forum

Please take 5-10 minutes to let us know what you think! This brief questionnaire will ask about your experience in the Forum as well as some limited demographic information. It will be available until 26 February, 23:59 UTC.

Survey Link

Or, copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_e3Ox3phcmttc4MS

This survey is for research and evaluation purposes, and will aid the Wikimedia Foundation in assessing the Forum's impact and effectiveness. We will anonymize and aggregate results before sharing with Forum organizers and publishing to Metawiki.

This survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

Thank you for your participation.

CSinha (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)