Return to article

Proposal_talk: List of proposals for 2014 planning process

Revision as of 11:04, 26 July 2013 by Whiteghost.ink (talk | contribs) (Whiteghost.ink moved page Proposal talk:2014 Annual Plan to Proposal talk:List of proposals for 2014 planning process: more accurate title for what the page contains)

Comments on the process

For example:

  • Should we start this process sooner?
  • What is our timeframe to complete the planning process?
  • What are our criteria for selection or priorisation?

General comments on the planning

My wishlist for the next year would be to:

1. Improve governance and project management
2. Consolidate our existing outreach programmes
3. Experiment with cheap, low cost (in both money and volunteer effort) projects to see if there are good ways to attract and retain new editors, and to stimulate development of new content in neglected areas
4. Deliver a more defined benefit for those who choose to join the chapter.

These are obviously just a couple of thoughts I'm throwing out to stimulate discussion - there may be other worthwhile goals to pursue. But something like "run training courses" isn't the goal we should be aiming for, the goal should be "attract new editors", and running training courses should simply be the means to that end.

Contributed by Craig

And signed, but with a proviso that these came from about thirty seconds of fevered thinking rather than days of careful contemplation :-). Lankiveil (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (EST).

Comments on specific proposals

Wheatbelt project

these are not at all loaded questions:

  • Can this be framed in specific ways that would appeal to the WMF? How exactly is it going to enrich/improve WMF websites?
  • What are the benchmarks for success (numerical if possible ... like how many editors are there from the region now, and how many would be considered a reasonable success after the funded activity?
  • This would be WP-based articles and uploads of images to Commons?
  • How many contributors would be involved, and how many WMAU members are interested in contributing/organising?
  • Indigenous content?
  • "widest range of interests", but then four thematic bullets below (which look like a good starting point).
  • "Initial funding for the appraisal and review of the scope of the project is an immediate component of the project."—I'd be more attracted to action than just funding for appraisal and review, which as applicants we'd be expected to have done the basics of already.
  • My inclination is not to ask for petrol, pensiones, and paper, unless critical to improving a WMF website (e.g. essential travel for wheatbelt project photography). Just meeting up to chinwag is increasingly regarded as a luxury.

Interested to hear more. Tony1 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2013 (EST)

Sorry for delay - an extended response will be made at


Involvement in international events

In 2013, we didn't budget any money for participation in international community events, precisely because we (the committee) were doubtful about the benefits from chinwagging relative to the costs. However, that has been interpreted by others as not engaging with the broader community, etc. In particular we had a certain amount of criticism for not being represented at the Chapters Conference. The other issue here is that, despite all the electronic means of communication, people still seem to need face-to-face meetings (and, in particular, the act of eating together) to build trust and goodwill; this is something that I have seen so many times in my years in international standards development (even though almost all the people I worked with were IT people and hence those who one might think most able to work effectively electronically). And trust/goodwill is important when it comes to getting money, so it may be that an international airfare for some carefully-chosen event (meaning "who" will be there) might be an excellent investment. So that's why it's on the list of possibilities. Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2013 (EST)

Instructional vids for editors

I like the idea of instructional vids for editors, to bypass the idea editathons and/or face-to-face edit-training events, or as a prep or post-activity reinforcing them. Might be too ambitious at this stage, though. Tony1 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (EST)

Tony1, did you mean "edit training" rather than "editathon" here? Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2013 (EST)
Before we start developing new training resources from scratch, have we made sure that we are using what is already available, such as at those here and here?
Also, I developed a corporate training video years ago - it cost upwards of $30,000 so I don't really think we are in a position to do this. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2013 (EST)
don't under estimate what we volunteers can do, with the help of the camera grant I purchased a new DSLR that also take HD video, already uploaded a few videos to Commons.... I already have the equipment to film further videos and have purchased video editing software as well as upgraded my PC to enable quicker/efficient processing of video. Dismissing an idea because it once cost $x without first seeing what the community has in available skills and resources is not good either. Gnangarra 12:41, 23 July 2013
Yes, it is true that it is not like it was in the olden days - technology has become cheaper and people more skilled! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2013 (EST)

complication

Over working the planning & Proposal process long delays can be a barrier to getting work done, already if have a project its like at least 6 months just to get funding assistance. There's nothing wrong with having these process but care needs to be taken to ensure that WMAU doesnt kill them in red tape before they get started. Personally at the moment if I cant do it with my own funds its not being done, it took less then 2 weeks for the funding for Freopedia plaques to be provided by thru third party. Gnangarra 17:00, 23 July 2013 (EST)