Talk:2012 Five Year Plan/Fourth draft

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • This needs a copy-edit. I corrected a few of my pet peeves, but I'm assuming "draft" means "nowhere near being published beyond this wiki". Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


Introduction



The Plan


Programmes and Activities


GLAM work

  • Local GLAM activities are supported by staff with good attendances attracting new volunteers and partners.
    • Is this not already the case? And frankly, there is a limit to how useful London-based staff can be in organising a GLAM event in, say Coventry. Local volunteers are much more useful in organising relatively small events with local institution than remotely based staff (or remotely based volunteers for that matter). We should be aiming to build volunteer bases (something I've been doing in Coventry and the North West for a while), so that the local Wikipedia community can organise events and take ownership of the partnerships spawned from them. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
There are things that a central office can help with and I hope we are doing so already even fromLondon. In reality we need string local volunteer lead bases. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(How do you quantify 'trusted partner'? Haven't we already done that? Why is Bristol City FC mentioned here? 20 local partnerships should be a 1-year objective. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (BST))

Bristol City - to see if anyone noticed :) But why not? An editathon on a Saturday morning before kick off? There are at least 100 pages that could do with a brush-up.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(These aren't SMART goals - in particular they aren't quantifiable. As currently written, they're already done. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (BST))

SMART targets go in when we have deceided the overall plan. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(There are so many thing missing from this that I'm not sure where to start. Possibly try N partnerships per year, M documents released under a free license, N articles improved - and keep going from there? Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (BST))

Working with Higher Education

  • Discussion of education outreach posts started for inclusion in 2013-14 budget
    • Discussion with whom? New staff positions should be the result of community initiatives, not top-down directives, and we need to think carefully about what we want done before we hire people to do it; I get more of an impression of "ooh, we can do more here, let's hire someone to coordinate it" with this and with other posts that have proposed elsewhere. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This cane from within the community - I am not an empire builder. I once had 9,000 staff under me. Been there , done that, madse 10% redundant. Not too much fun. There will be pressure for new staff and it will come from two directions. Firstly the community and its representatives on the board seeking to do more and achieve more. Secondly it will come from staff who have reached capacity and need more help. At the moment it is ALL coming from the first of these. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
      • With regard to coordination posts, the only one that I have been leading with is the Scotland coordinator in partnership with Museums Galleries Scotland. When I work on that sort of partnering detail, it is not as a Trustee but as a GLAM volunteer and is done with the help and hard work of many others in our community who are part of our GLAM network. Your impression of the work of the board or their involvement in these matters seems off beam, the board do not randomly issue "top-down directives", even though they have responsibility for monitoring budget and value of outcomes. It is our history of growth that has resulted in the majority of (but not all) active trustees wearing a second hat of leading programme involvement and the same trustees often take proposals for new large projects to the board, as indeed do other volunteers (John C. and Robin for outreach in Wales is a good example). For the time being I doubt this would change much, particularly considering how trustees are elected by the membership primarily based on their knowledge and experience from delivering our mission, and members might be far less happy if the only trustees running for the board were committee bureaucrats because they were obliged to stay hands-off from projects; were it a choice between continuing my life enhancing work with GLAMs or the personal hassle and administrative pain of being a trustee, I would drop being a trustee in a heartbeat. We could discuss a little further at GLAMcamp London/2012 rather than by text. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I look forward to discussing it with you next week, but it was the farthest thing from my intention to criticise the work you and others have put into coordinating projects—I was merely suggesting that before we decide to create a paid position, we carefully assess what we want the occupant of the post to deliver, rather than decide we need a coordinator and work out what precisely they are to coordinate once they're in-post. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • To be establishing working relationships directly with the student community through Wikisocs, Campus Ambassadors and Freshers Fairs.
    • Leaving aside that details of our contacts at the universities with which we were doing exactly this last year seem to have disappeared into thin air since being transferred to the office, we need to do more than just throw resources at students and hope they become Wikipedians. We need to actually educate them on Wikipedia and support them through the beginning of their editing 'careers'. Something like camps ambassadors would be a good way of coordinating efforts with a particular university, but they need a different title so that we can be completely separate in the minds of the community from the problems of the US and Indian education programs. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it was sad that this has not been followed up. The truth is that a key volunteer became ill and things slipped. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Editing Wikis becoming integrated into some university curricula in line with US practice.
  • Campus Ambassadors becoming standard in majority of UK universities. Some appointed through sabbatical posts.
  • At least 100 trainers are available throughout the country able to offer a broad range of training from newbie sessions to specialist professional training in partner organisations.
    • This is my major reservation about the Train the Trainers programme, and something that makes me nervous about taking part in it. We must not assume that only people who have gone through this programme can deliver training. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course not but we need to support people who want to share training. Let's see how it works out. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Other education Projects


Technical Innovations


Members and Volunteers


Membership

  • To have 1000 members
    • Is this following our historical growth rate? Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2012 (BST)
  • To have established regional groups and special interest uses
    • I'm not sure we actually want this - would be better to keep membership cohesive on a national basis. Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2012 (BST)
Five year target
  • To have 2000 members
    • Note that Andrew Turvey's estimates were much higher than this. Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2012 (BST)
  • To have quarterly member's meetings to actively debate topics and issues.
    • Needs consideration of our online nature. Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2012 (BST)

Membership communications

Creating regular and informative methods of informing our membership and supporters about our activities.

One year target

A full evaluation of the current means of communications has been carried out and their efficacy measured and analysed. Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Redundant channels are removed and successful channels re-inforced through greater variety and a more timely approach to the publication of information.

This will follow the above --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2012 (BST)

A quarterly enewlstter is established for supporters and members with news. Regular emails are sent drawing attention to events and activities. A lively member's fora is fostered.

I'm currently working on draft templates for this using MailChimp --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2012 (BST)
  • A lively members' forum has become established encouraging input to and feedback on WMUK's work
  • Members feel complete ownership of WMUK with regular member meetings throughout the UK and offer feedback that has influence on activities.
    • We don't need meetings open exclusively to members; the board and staff should be actively seeking community input through existing meetups and online fora. The rest should already be the case, and in cases where it's not, making it so should be a 'right now' target. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimeets

  • There are regular Wikimeets established within 20 miles of 90% of the population.
    • I still think this is unrealistic and unnecessary. In every major population centre is both achievable and desirable but there is considerable overlap between communities in different parts of the country and we should try to encourage people to get to know as broad-a-section of the community as possible. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer support

  • Useful equipment is available through the office.
    • This is a good thing to have, but if it's all concentrated in one location it's a logistical nightmare to get it to events elsewhere. Having it in multiple locations should be part of the one-year target, not a separate three-year target. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Go for it. What equipment and where? We need to plan 2013-14 budget now.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Annual Conference

  • At least 150 members and supporters attend the annual conference. That the conference offers a wide range of speakers, workshops and activities.
    • From ~30 to at least 150? In one year? I don't think that's realistic, and much as I hate to admit it, it's even less relaistic because next year's conference is almost certain to be outside London
It was 60 this year. If we make it attractive enough people will come.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Management and Governance

The Wikimedia UK Board

One year target
  • All trustees have received training in their role as a charity trustee.
  • That each meeting of the board includes an opportunities for feedback from the membership and wider community.
  • That two-year terms are providing sufficient stability for the chapter to operate flawlessly over the course of the AGM and the bringing-up-to-speed of new trustees
Three year target
  • All trustees have developed specialist roles within the board and gained the appropriate expertise.
    • Do we want specialist roles? If so, do we want those to be developed by existing trustees or to have been recognised in new trustees? If the former, do we want to provide training opportunities for trustees and potential trustees? Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (BST)
  • That the community are familiar with the board and its operations and feel able to contribute to significant debates.
    • I'd hope that we were there already. If we're not, then we need to figure out what needs to be done to get to that state - and have those things as our goals. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (BST)
Five year target
  • The trustees have all become accomplished.
    • What does this mean? Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (BST)
      • Indeed. There should be renewal. Six years maximum terms??? LoopZilla (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I've yet to find a convincing argument for term limits for trustees. But perhaps that's because I'd probably be the first to be affected by them? Mike Peel (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That the board has the full confidence of the community and competition for places is intense.
    • This implies that the board currently doesn't have that confidence, and that there isn't a strong competition for places - which our last AGM would appear to disagree with... Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (BST)
      • If the trustees don't have the full confidence of the community, they shouldn't (and considering we've just had an AGM, likely wouldn't) be trustees. A lack of confidence in the board, if there is such or such arises in the future, is something that should be addressed immediately, not in five years' time. These look like targets for a charity much earlier in its history. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That the WMUK board sets the standard for chapter boards and influences others.
    • How does this relate to smaller chapters that haven't yet reached WMUK's level of maturity? Providing guidance and encouragement for the development of other chapters would be a much better goal to aim for. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (BST)

Governance benchmarking


Staff and office

  • A base outside London should be a higher priority, and the location(s) should be chosen based on practicality not a desire to be seen to be inclusive of all UK nations. Using the West Midlands as an example, Birmingham is comparable in population to the whole of Northern Ireland, the West Midlands county has roughly the same population as Wales, and the West Midlands region is almost equally populous to the whole of Scotland. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Publications and merchandising

  • All publications are coherent and well produced and available through wikis and in other appropriate formats.
Stuff from WMDE and the Foundation Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

External relations


UK organisations


Expert outreach


Press and media


The PR industry

One year target

To work with the PR trade bodies to develop codes of good practice for the industry with regard to Wikipedia. Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2012 (BST)

To support training is offered based on good practice guidelines.

Three year target

To monitor the code of practice and pick up on breaches.

To have supported the international development of the code of practice.

Five year target

That the issue of inappropriate PR editing has ceased to be a problem in the UK.

A good aspiration! --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2012 (BST)
But not a realistic one. And I speak here as an experienced, slightly cynical OTRS agent. We might be able to eliminate almost al inappropriate editing from PR agencies, because there are only so many of them, and, through education (and some carrots and sticks), we can probably get them to understand Wikipedia. But a huge amount of OTRS emails come from marketing departments of companies and from agents directly employed by their client, and most of those result from them having tried to do something inappropriate and having been slapped down from it. I don't think it will ever go away completely, and I'm not sure it's WMUK's place to make it. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

International Links


Finances

Fundraising

  • I don't know anything about fundraising, so forgive me for asking, but where has the idea of 50% growth each year come from? Has it been plucked from thin air or has somebody sat down and evaluated that we can actually raise that kind of money? Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's important to decrease our dependence on the WMF fundraiser, but that's the source of the overwhelming majority of our income and I don't see anything here that suggests how we're going to raise such significant funds elsewhere. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Financial Management


Reporting and Accountability


My comments above may seem a little negative, but they're offered as constructive criticism. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fund raising

Shouldn't we have separate targets for fundraising via the Wikipedia fundraiser and fundraising independent of the WMF? --Filceolaire (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We were just discussing this at the Board and decided that, actually, we needed to make the fundraising targets *less* specific as there was too much about uncertainty in the future fundraising environment. However, you'll note we have a target to decrease our overall reliance on the annual fundraiser. The Land (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Five_Year_Plan/Fourth_draft&oldid=25346"