Towards a five year plan 2013-18/Background material

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to: navigation, search

We are approaching our second year of full operation with a plan that will continue our expansion but points to a horizon of February 2014.

But we need to be able to look forward five years.

Attempts to do this in 2012 led to this.

This was never formally adopted but in reality we had covered a lot of ground and teased out many of the issues and when it came to the FDC bid it provided the background that we were able to use and indeed were complimented on by the Foundation.

However it was not a process that engaged enough of the community and it is certainly worth going back to zero and starting the process again.

So please add your contributions to the talk page for what should be in the plan.

Towards a five year plan 2013-18

How long should the plan be?

The consensus was the equivalent of four pages of A4. This will be manageable but not too much text! It should relate to the Foundation's Strategic Priorities

How do we reconcile global and local community interests?

There was consensus that our local interests are in harmony with the global ones. Ideally our plan should be 'Think global, act local'.

Should it create its own strategic priorities?

There is a general agreement that this should be the case. Perhaps starting with our current vision (below) and create priorities from there?

Vision

  • Free knowledge for all

Mission

  • Wikimedia UK’s mission is to help people and organisations build and preserve open knowledge to share and use freely.

Values

  • To value the contribution of volunteers
  • To encourage, involve and engage volunteers
  • To recognise that the contribution of volunteers is central to the activity of the organisation
  • To be transparent and open
  • To promote the value of free and open licences
  • To have respectful and professional working relationships internally and externally
  • To promote an open approach to learning and knowledge

What sort of internal structure should it have, e.g. work areas, targets, success criteria, SWOT analysis etc?

Many ideas were received:

The consensus was that it should be placed in a context of both the Wikimedia movement (WMF) and our own strategic goals.

The plan could be broken down by operational areas; Governance, Finance, Outreach, Fundraising, Communications, Membership, Community etc and then each should have sections with SMART targets added for the period and does not need to be pre-judged in too much detail.

How much depth should we look for?

"It should have enough detail that an external person looking at the document would understand the rationale behind the targets. The targets should, however, not be too detailed."

As said by one contributor but gauged mood of others.

Needs to have the annual plans fitting into it.

What should we NOT put in?

Not too much detail but with some SMART targets.

Who should we consult and involve?

Agreement that this should be as wide as possible. In a sense this has already begun. To include members, community, donors, fellow open knowledge organisations and contributors. Good idea to use a survey as part of this process.

How do we make sure it reaches the widest possible community? The blog, Twitter, Facebook, geonotices / talk page notices, email lists, Signpost, the village pumps of the relevant language Wikimedia projects.

How should we consult and involve them?

Some special events – for instance the March 23rd event in London will act as a trigger for more local wikimeets.

And on this page we link to the papers from the 23rd and a sitational review we carried out in March to see where trustees and staff thought we were.

How to start the process

Start contributing on the talk page!

What our long-term objectives are, and how do we build a strategy about how we can reach those goals.

Timetable

  • February 8/9th Agreed overall method
  • February/March Staff to drew up plans for enaction
  • March 23rd In-person workshops for community
  • March/April Survey published and shared with stakeholders
  • April/May Volunteer co-ordinator, staff and trustees attend wikimeets and special meetings to discuss options
  • May First draft shared on UK wiki with call for comments
  • June Second draft brought to annual conference.
  • June/July Third draft open for consultation.
  • July 13.14 Signed-off by Board

How often should it be reviewed, by whom and in what ways?

Once completed an annual review should be about right to monitor how we are progressing with a more substantial review at least 18 months before the next five year period starts. The annual plans can have more detailed targets that are monitored against the 5 year plan.

Risks

  • That we never come to a conclusion.
  • That there are too many competing ideas and the document becomes unmanageable
  • That there is no buy-in from a broad range of interests, just a small group dominate the debate.

Additional information

You don't need to read anything to contribute to this review but if you would like some background there are some key documents below.

Results from the March 2013 workshop

Developing volunteering session

Notes from the workshops on how we can develop our volunteer base.

GLAM session

Notes from the workshops on how we can work in the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums.

Education session

Notes from the workshops on how we can work in education

Other issues

Notes from the workshops on other issues, e.g. membership. trustees and transparency.

Below:

  • The introduction to the day given by Jon Davies, the Chief Executive and outlines the main themes from the situational review plus some useful information about the charity.
  • The full and detailed situational review prepared by Amida Consulting in March 2013.
  • The video recording of Jon's opening session is now available on YouTube here and Wikimedia Commons here. A recording of the final, wrap-up session is available to event attendees on request.