Talk:2012 Activity Plan/Extended Reach programme

Diversity

Specifically within the scope of this budget of 10,000 pounds (2013_Activity_Plan#Extended_Reach_programme) is mentioned outreach for:

1. women
2. any minority ethnic
3. LGBT
4. linguistic
5. or other community in the UK, which might not otherwise be funded

I would like to see the outcomes of this budget line reported against these criteria, unambiguously (i.e. by breaking down the £10,000 spent against these categories), at the end of the planning year. I believe we can point to outcomes for women (Girl Geeks, Ada Lovelace day), linguistic (100+ languages in GLAM editathons), ethnic (Welsh is probably the best example) but I know of no funded delivered outcomes or scholarships for LGBT events (ever) and apart from Wales, I am unsure what other outcomes would address "minority ethnic" or "other community". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

<Pedantry>

1. I think Ada and Girl Geeks events were last financial year; but obviously if we repeat these they could be included.
2. Black History Month edit-a-thon could be seen to outreach for minority ethnic participation - I would hope to see something similar or more with a Wikimedian In Residence at the Equano Centre expanding this.
3. I understood this budget line as supporting projects suggested by the community - not charity staff. What do we do if no one comes forward with specific suggestions for outreach activities for LGBT groups? Or is it the case that Trustees expect staff to deliver a balanced approach to outreach, and therefore staff to fill the gaps if the community doesn't?

</Pedantry>

Meanwhile, on the specific lack of LGBT outreach, I can suggest some possibilities:

• Linking up with Manchester, Leeds, Brighton or London Pride for example could be easy win - perhaps focusing on documenting the events through pictures and uploading (though, from my experience at Leeds pride, people were more focused on drinking and dancing in the evening than file sharing *shrugs*)
• We could look into an edit-a-thon connected with this London archive or this Manchester archive and see if we could match it with a preview piece in some of the LGBT press to increase engagement?
• We could even stretch ourselves and get stuck into outreach work NOT involving Wikipedia/Commons - why not encourage/facilitate collaboration on the LGBT guide to travel on Wikivoyage?

I'd be happy to help as a volunteer with any of these suggestions or something entirely different - would emailing the LGBT list to ask for ideas be a good start? Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of raising this section was to ensure expectations for end of year reporting on this budget line were clarified (per defined "success criteria"), rather than intending to adapt or change the associated programme of activities which should have their own plans beyond this single wiki page explanation of the budget line. It would be useful if the resulting plans were linked from this page to make that clearer, for example to WIR project plans and to event coordination/planning pages and documents. With regard to some specific points:

1. Yes, only this year's activities should be counted in reported outcomes.
2. Budget lines are intended for all the charity's projects, being listed in the Activity Plan does not limit projects to those only proposed by volunteers, nor does it circumscribe the role of staff. Policies such as the Volunteer Policy naturally apply.
3. It would make sense if volunteer networks representing, or interested in, named minority groups were to take a lead in prioritizing and developing plans of activity, with staff support where necessary. If this has either failed to happen, or has happened informally or less visibly, then it would be worth documenting the reality openly; this reality should be assessed against the risks previously identified on this wiki page, which should be part of the project plans/programme.
4. My personal view as a trustee, is that if we have no volunteers for an activity then having employees both creating proposals and delivering the project content, would be seen negatively as a self-sustaining bureaucracy outside of our mission - we would and should strive to avoid that ever occurring. I would support cancelling any project, or rejecting any proposal, that appears to be created in this way, regardless of how well intentioned it appears.

Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)