Bug with section 8, number 36?Edit
@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).
Summary of Recommendation 5 is lacking mention of partners or partnershipsEdit
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 pageEdit
Link to discussionEdit
Change 'short title' of initiative #8Edit
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)