Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round2/Wikimedia Foundation/Proposal form
Proposal by Wikimedia Foundation to support its annual plan with Template:Usamountrequested/2013-2014 round2/Wikimedia Foundation.
Template:Summary/2013-2014 round2/Wikimedia Foundation
Please leave your comments about this proposal here on the discussion page or return to the community review page. Thank you for reviewing this proposal.
Thank you for this proposal
Thank you for submitting a complete proposal form by the proposal submission date! We realize that you put a lot of effort into creating this proposal, and many of us are looking forward to reviewing it in-depth. Wikimedia Foundation's proposal will be considered by the FDC in Round 2 2013-2014, provided Wikimedia Foundation remains eligible throughout the course of the FDC process.
Please do not make any changes to your proposal at this time without requesting those changes first here on this discussion page, so they may be reviewed and approved by staff. We will consider changes that greatly enhance the readability of your proposal or correct important factual errors or broken links, but you need not worry about making minor corrections to your proposal form if you notice them after the deadline. The FDC will be looking at the substance of your proposal rather than focusing on the language used, and so these types of minor changes are usually not needed. This is also done to ensure that any changes made to a proposal are really intended by the organization submitting the proposal. Thank you for your cooperation, as this helps keep the proposal process fair and consistent for all organizations.
Please monitor this page for questions and comments from the community, FDC members, and FDC staff. Engagement during this part of the proposal process is important, and will be considered by the FDC along with other inputs into the proposal process. Follow up questions from FDC staff should be expected early next week and community review will continue until 30 April. Staff proposal assessments will be published on 8 May 2014 and linked to from your proposal hub page.
Please contact us at any time if you have questions about your proposal or the review process. We are here to support applicants throughout the process.
Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC) (on behalf of FDC Staff)
Context material
Questions and comments from Pine
Thank you for making this proposal public. I have only spent a few minutes with this report but I like what I see so far. I apologize if I missed answers to these questions when I skimmed the report.
A general comment: I think the four "crucial initiatives" were well chosen, and I'm especially glad to see EE and Mobile as separate "crucial initiatives".
More specific questions:
Cost increases for current staff
- Can you break down the cost increases for current staff more specifically into categories for increased cost of living, merit pay, and increased benefit costs? Please also verify that increased benefit costs were included in the cost of living figure.
- The cost of living increase is 2.1% and the merit pay increase is 3%. Increase benefit cost are 0.8% which are not included in the cost of living figure. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- What is being done to keep medical costs at a reasonable level of inflation? For an organization the size of WMF I think that medical benefits would be a significant expense.
- Medical benefits are a significant expense which is budgeted at $2.6 million. The increases in medical cost are managed by our HR team, using a combination of partnering with an insurance broker to keep our cost increases as low as possible and a wellness program. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- In civil countries with more effective and less expensive healthcare systems, like Canada and Europe, such costs are included in the general state revenue. Considering WMF is an organisation with a global scope, it would be useful to have a global overview of welfare/taxation-related costs, though they're different from an accounting perspective. Concretely, it's hard to say how relevant a 2.6 M$ figure when I don't know how much is spent over taxation etc. (directly or indirectly) in other countries. --Nemo 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Medical benefits are a significant expense which is budgeted at $2.6 million. The increases in medical cost are managed by our HR team, using a combination of partnering with an insurance broker to keep our cost increases as low as possible and a wellness program. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
WMF locations
- Has there been any consideration of moving any WMF facilities to less expensive locations?
- WMF does look at lower cost locations when adding new facilities, such as a data center. Our average space cost are currently below market for San Francisco. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Garfield. Is there a strong reason for WMF to remain in San Francisco? The costs of locating there are significant. --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- The main reasons for staying in San Francisco is that this is where there is a significant concentration of engineering talent.Gbyrd (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Garfield, I understand how that makes sense if WMF was hiring thousands of engineers, but the organization has only about 200 employees, and WMF says in the Annual Plan says that locating in Silicon Valley is disadvantageous: "The job market for engineers began heating up in 2010, and continues to be extremely competitive, particularly in the Silicon Valley area." There are other places around the United States and around the world with engineering talent. There would be some disruption from moving operations, but companies successfully move on occasion and WMF did so in the past when it was smaller and the cost of locating in San Francisco was lower. I think it would make sense, especially when WMF does its next strategic plan, to think about saving millions of dollars annually by moving to a modestly priced city that still offers a good talent pool. Thanks, --Pine✉ 07:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- This issue may be better discussed in the next Strategic Plan so I'll save it for then. --Pine✉ 07:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Garfield, I understand how that makes sense if WMF was hiring thousands of engineers, but the organization has only about 200 employees, and WMF says in the Annual Plan says that locating in Silicon Valley is disadvantageous: "The job market for engineers began heating up in 2010, and continues to be extremely competitive, particularly in the Silicon Valley area." There are other places around the United States and around the world with engineering talent. There would be some disruption from moving operations, but companies successfully move on occasion and WMF did so in the past when it was smaller and the cost of locating in San Francisco was lower. I think it would make sense, especially when WMF does its next strategic plan, to think about saving millions of dollars annually by moving to a modestly priced city that still offers a good talent pool. Thanks, --Pine✉ 07:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- The main reasons for staying in San Francisco is that this is where there is a significant concentration of engineering talent.Gbyrd (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Garfield. Is there a strong reason for WMF to remain in San Francisco? The costs of locating there are significant. --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- WMF does look at lower cost locations when adding new facilities, such as a data center. Our average space cost are currently below market for San Francisco. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Travel expenses
- Has there been any consideration of reducing travel expenses for WMF employees such as by encouraging more virtual meetings?
- WMF has been adding more virtual meeting spaces, which are used frequently. As for travel cost, even with the growth in staff, we are only budgeting an 11% increase in travel cost. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Relatedly, we're still missing WMF data in Wikimania 2013/Budget. Transparency is important for community-driven activities like Wikimania to be continually self-assessed. --Nemo 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- We will work on getting this data submitted before the end of the comment period.Gbyrd (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Pine✉ 07:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- We will work on getting this data submitted before the end of the comment period.Gbyrd (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Relatedly, we're still missing WMF data in Wikimania 2013/Budget. Transparency is important for community-driven activities like Wikimania to be continually self-assessed. --Nemo 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- WMF has been adding more virtual meeting spaces, which are used frequently. As for travel cost, even with the growth in staff, we are only budgeting an 11% increase in travel cost. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Benefits of "Narrowing focus"
- What benefits have been achieved from the "narrowing focus" initiative?
- Thanks for the question. Narrowing focus came out of a realization that we were spreading ourselves too thin. We had global programs staffed by one or two people – charged with solving massive problems. It came out of a desire to do a few things very well, instead of give an inadequate amount of attention to every problem. The conversation also centered around what work should WMF take on and what work should be left to partners or to the community generally. As a result, some programs were discontinued and staff was reassigned to priority projects. It meant that we had more people working on fewer things. We have now been operating under this more narrow focus for a year and a half. It seems like we now have a better understanding of what resources it takes to have a global program or tech initiative succeed. We either fully commit those resources or we don't do it at all. We can always be better at living up this this, but I think it was an important reorientation. --Lgruwell (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Lisa. I know that fellowships transformed into IEG and the US-Canada education program spun off, and those changes seem relatively minor. Were there other changes as a result of Narrowing Focus? --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pine. The other two changes were around the Catalyst projects and a lesser emphasis on events. Here is a place where you can find more information: The presentation to the board regarding narrowing focus and Sue's notes on meta . I should also mention that recently the U.S. Education Program's work was spun out to a new nonprofit, the Wiki Education Foundation, which is in the process of obtaining its nonprofit status. --Lgruwell (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Lisa, I had forgotten about those two points. --Pine✉ 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pine. The other two changes were around the Catalyst projects and a lesser emphasis on events. Here is a place where you can find more information: The presentation to the board regarding narrowing focus and Sue's notes on meta . I should also mention that recently the U.S. Education Program's work was spun out to a new nonprofit, the Wiki Education Foundation, which is in the process of obtaining its nonprofit status. --Lgruwell (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Lisa. I know that fellowships transformed into IEG and the US-Canada education program spun off, and those changes seem relatively minor. Were there other changes as a result of Narrowing Focus? --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question. Narrowing focus came out of a realization that we were spreading ourselves too thin. We had global programs staffed by one or two people – charged with solving massive problems. It came out of a desire to do a few things very well, instead of give an inadequate amount of attention to every problem. The conversation also centered around what work should WMF take on and what work should be left to partners or to the community generally. As a result, some programs were discontinued and staff was reassigned to priority projects. It meant that we had more people working on fewer things. We have now been operating under this more narrow focus for a year and a half. It seems like we now have a better understanding of what resources it takes to have a global program or tech initiative succeed. We either fully commit those resources or we don't do it at all. We can always be better at living up this this, but I think it was an important reorientation. --Lgruwell (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Global Education program
- Where does the education program fit, since it doesn't seem to be a "cruicial initiative" even among the "non-technical movement support" initiative which includes "grants, evaluation, legal support and communications"? If the education program isn't a "crucial initiative" then should it be discontinued per the "narrowing focus" initiative?
- Here's an afterthought. Should the education program be a standalone "critical initiative"?
- The Education Program is a critical part of the newly expanded Grantmaking team, particularly as we see ourselves as supporting the movement with non-technical, non-legal resources: i.e. we're not just about distributing money, we're also about supporting the growth of community and content through ideas, tools, skills and other resources. WEP is moving towards a less hands-on model, becoming a 'facilitative hub' for different programs around the world, and being part of the Grantmaking team means we can offer end-to-end support for different activities and processes. For instance, we can support the growth of the Arabic WP community through the WEP, which in turn might generate new energy in the Arabic community for other programs and resources that can be supported through grants. This is why WEP's addition to our team is so promising, and why our targets include significant work by the Education Program. ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Pine✉ 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Education Program is a critical part of the newly expanded Grantmaking team, particularly as we see ourselves as supporting the movement with non-technical, non-legal resources: i.e. we're not just about distributing money, we're also about supporting the growth of community and content through ideas, tools, skills and other resources. WEP is moving towards a less hands-on model, becoming a 'facilitative hub' for different programs around the world, and being part of the Grantmaking team means we can offer end-to-end support for different activities and processes. For instance, we can support the growth of the Arabic WP community through the WEP, which in turn might generate new energy in the Arabic community for other programs and resources that can be supported through grants. This is why WEP's addition to our team is so promising, and why our targets include significant work by the Education Program. ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Next strategic plan
- Does WMF intend to start a new 5-year strategic planning process involving the community in 2014? How are the expenses for that budgeted?
- This question will be largely answered by the new executive director. We did not want to commit a new E.D. to a process that might not be in line with his or her thinking on strategic planning. That said, the C-Level staff and the WMF board have had conversations about whether or not a 5-year strategic plan makes sense for the WMF. There is a general feeling that a 5-year plan may be too long of a time horizon – given how quickly technology changes – and that a more iterative approach to strategic planning may be more effective. Funding for strategic planning ($300,000) is included in the Governance budget in the "Other" category. --Lgruwell (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- This question will be largely answered by the new executive director. We did not want to commit a new E.D. to a process that might not be in line with his or her thinking on strategic planning. That said, the C-Level staff and the WMF board have had conversations about whether or not a 5-year strategic plan makes sense for the WMF. There is a general feeling that a 5-year plan may be too long of a time horizon – given how quickly technology changes – and that a more iterative approach to strategic planning may be more effective. Funding for strategic planning ($300,000) is included in the Governance budget in the "Other" category. --Lgruwell (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Capacity of WMF legal employees
- I frequently hear that WMF lawyers are working at full capacity and I'm aware of one project that was cancelled apparently due to inability to budget adequate support time from Legal. Would it make sense to hire at least one more attorney or paralegal?
- Hi Pine. Thanks for your question. I'm not aware of the specifics of the case to which you refer and I unfortunately do not have recollection of it. You are right however that we are working at full capacity, often late and on weekends. That said, I think we are fine with present staffing this year, though it will be tight. The communications department is being transferred to a C-level position, so I will no longer need to spend time supervising that department, giving me more time for legal issues. Also, we are fortunate to have a privacy fellow (paid for by Georgetown U Law Center) and another fellow hired this year who will give us additional support. We lost a wonderful in-house pro-bono attorney when she took a General Counsel position, and she gave us great support. We will miss her and her expertise. That said, I do not expect us to do many community consultations this year since most of the work is done (terms of use, privacy policy, and trademark policy); these consultations have traditionally involved time-intensive efforts for the lawyers. So overall - in light of the shift in my responsibilities and the unlikelihood of the need for more intensive consultations - I am hopeful that our present team size will be able to address the priority legal work this coming fiscal year. Thanks again for your interest. Geoffbrigham (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Geoff. --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pine. Thanks for your question. I'm not aware of the specifics of the case to which you refer and I unfortunately do not have recollection of it. You are right however that we are working at full capacity, often late and on weekends. That said, I think we are fine with present staffing this year, though it will be tight. The communications department is being transferred to a C-level position, so I will no longer need to spend time supervising that department, giving me more time for legal issues. Also, we are fortunate to have a privacy fellow (paid for by Georgetown U Law Center) and another fellow hired this year who will give us additional support. We lost a wonderful in-house pro-bono attorney when she took a General Counsel position, and she gave us great support. We will miss her and her expertise. That said, I do not expect us to do many community consultations this year since most of the work is done (terms of use, privacy policy, and trademark policy); these consultations have traditionally involved time-intensive efforts for the lawyers. So overall - in light of the shift in my responsibilities and the unlikelihood of the need for more intensive consultations - I am hopeful that our present team size will be able to address the priority legal work this coming fiscal year. Thanks again for your interest. Geoffbrigham (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Individual Engagement Grants program
- IEG's budget is expanded significantly to $500,000 in this proposal. IEG's annual spend has been much lower in the past. How does WMF intend to expand the number or budget of proposals that are successful in earning funding recommendations from IEGCom?
- Hi Pine, thanks for asking about this. This budget is not for IEG alone, but for all our individual grants, apart from scholarships ($200,000) - the $500,000 includes IEG, the Travel and Participation Support program (which we intend to redesign this coming year) and other grants campaigns to increase the participation of, and support to, individual contributors. In IEG's case, we're considering the grants spend across two rounds in the same fiscal year as well as potential extensions (we budgeted slightly differently last year because of the pilot round), but are essentially sticking to the spend we know is feasible given our experience with the last two rounds (i.e. two rounds of a $150,000 each and 2 rounds of potential extensions of $50,000 each; this comes up to $400,000). We've put aside $50,000 for Travel and Participation Support (we run this in partnership with WMDE and WMCH; our contribution towards this is staying steady), and another $50,000 for potential grants campaigns we run this next year as an experiment around supporting individuals at scale through micro-resources and micro-grants. We're looking forward to thinking about this more intensively with you in the following months :-) ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Anasuya. Under the new annual plan will IEG be allowed to access product and engineering resources, and will Generation Wikipedia move forward? --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- We've been working with the product and engineering teams already in a number of ways, and will continue to do so in the coming year, including on datasources and tools for self-assessment. In terms of IEG, though, it will continue to be difficult to give grants this year towards projects that need integration (which is why we encourage the creation or improvement of gadgets), because of tech's stretched capacities. Re Generation Wikipedia, I'm not sure it's appropriate to comment on a specific grant in discussing our overall plan goals; as with any proposal that might have current challenges around implementation, if the proposal leaders continue to be interested in the idea, we can re-assess down the line. ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Pine✉ 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- We've been working with the product and engineering teams already in a number of ways, and will continue to do so in the coming year, including on datasources and tools for self-assessment. In terms of IEG, though, it will continue to be difficult to give grants this year towards projects that need integration (which is why we encourage the creation or improvement of gadgets), because of tech's stretched capacities. Re Generation Wikipedia, I'm not sure it's appropriate to comment on a specific grant in discussing our overall plan goals; as with any proposal that might have current challenges around implementation, if the proposal leaders continue to be interested in the idea, we can re-assess down the line. ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Anasuya. Under the new annual plan will IEG be allowed to access product and engineering resources, and will Generation Wikipedia move forward? --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pine, thanks for asking about this. This budget is not for IEG alone, but for all our individual grants, apart from scholarships ($200,000) - the $500,000 includes IEG, the Travel and Participation Support program (which we intend to redesign this coming year) and other grants campaigns to increase the participation of, and support to, individual contributors. In IEG's case, we're considering the grants spend across two rounds in the same fiscal year as well as potential extensions (we budgeted slightly differently last year because of the pilot round), but are essentially sticking to the spend we know is feasible given our experience with the last two rounds (i.e. two rounds of a $150,000 each and 2 rounds of potential extensions of $50,000 each; this comes up to $400,000). We've put aside $50,000 for Travel and Participation Support (we run this in partnership with WMDE and WMCH; our contribution towards this is staying steady), and another $50,000 for potential grants campaigns we run this next year as an experiment around supporting individuals at scale through micro-resources and micro-grants. We're looking forward to thinking about this more intensively with you in the following months :-) ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Rate of WMF spending growth
- Could you explain how it's reasonable for WMF's spending growth rate to be significantly exceeding the growth rate of active editors?
- WMF is only one of many movement entities working on this issue. A portion of our budget is for spending on the retention and growth of active editors, but it is not a measure that I see applies to our overall budget. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think of the situation like this: WMF's costs are increasing at a faster rate than the rate at which its user base is growing. This would be similar to a cell phone developer's costs increasing while the number of phones it sells is flat or decreasing. That is a problem if it is allowed to persist and suggests a need for greater cost efficiency or growth in sales that is at least the same rate as the growth in costs. I would be interested in WMF's thoughts. --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- As most of the growth is in engineering, to use your framing, we are making investments in the future of the Wikimedia projects. For example, for us not to invest in mobile would limit the accessibility for both viewing content and contributing content in the future. So I agree that we need to be mindful of cost and rate of growth, but we do need to make the investments needed to make sure we can meet the needs of both our current and future readers and editors. Gbyrd (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. --Pine✉ 07:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- As most of the growth is in engineering, to use your framing, we are making investments in the future of the Wikimedia projects. For example, for us not to invest in mobile would limit the accessibility for both viewing content and contributing content in the future. So I agree that we need to be mindful of cost and rate of growth, but we do need to make the investments needed to make sure we can meet the needs of both our current and future readers and editors. Gbyrd (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think of the situation like this: WMF's costs are increasing at a faster rate than the rate at which its user base is growing. This would be similar to a cell phone developer's costs increasing while the number of phones it sells is flat or decreasing. That is a problem if it is allowed to persist and suggests a need for greater cost efficiency or growth in sales that is at least the same rate as the growth in costs. I would be interested in WMF's thoughts. --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- WMF is only one of many movement entities working on this issue. A portion of our budget is for spending on the retention and growth of active editors, but it is not a measure that I see applies to our overall budget. Gbyrd (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
New software engineers
- Could you be more specific about what the 14 new Software Engineers will do?
- Yeah, to a point. Our work in eng/prod overall is very iterative, of course, and the below is subject to internal and external feedback, real world experience and the final budget amount. At a high level, we're not currently planning to build a whole new development team (at the scale of the Flow or VisualEditor team). Here are a few goals that have informed the plan:
- We're considering a small (roughly 2 person) effort focused on mapping-related infrastructure which is a shared need for lots of projects, esp. mobile. This would be similar to our current search infrastructure effort (also a 2 person effort), delivering the basics (e.g. robust, scalable OpenStreetMap tiling service) but not yet a huge amount of new functionality, rather, enabling other teams to then leverage this in building features/products (e.g. a map-based "nearby" view for mobile). Underlying hypothesis here is that with the shift to mobile overall, we'll want to leverage geo-related functionality more consistently across the board as part of new contributory funnels. We also know it's high on the community's wishlist.
- We're planning to get more of our teams ready for multi-device development while maintaining the current high velocity of the mobile team. This likely will translate to significantly adding to the mobile team's bench strength overall so that experienced experts from the team can spend more time with teams like VisualEditor, Flow, etc. to get those products to be fully mobile-ready. In addition, we're also intending to increase the size of the iOS and Android app teams to 3 engineers each, respectively, as we are making a small bet that apps can play a bigger role in editing and reading than they do today. The apps will relaunch in a few weeks, so that'll give us some good early indicators of whether that's a good bet to make.
- We're intending to put more effort towards a service-oriented architecture for our technology platform. This means building out dedicated services for new needs (e.g. a URL-to-citation service for VisualEditor) and potentially taking parts of MediaWiki today and more loosely coupling them to the core application. In the long term, this shift (which will have lots of implications across the board) will enable us to build new functionality more quickly, by reducing the degree to which the MediaWiki core application has to be modified to deliver it.
- We'll augment existing teams with stronger operations support, which sometimes has been a bottleneck in the past.
- We're considering a dedicated effort to overhaul the API documentation, with an eye to a parallel development/documentation effort (probably including a clean-up/redesign of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php ).
- We're considering two ScrumMaster hires to reduce the need for engineers to spend time on process-related responsibilities. We'll likely experiment with giving this shape in a small group dedicated to improving team practices.
- We're likely going to add an engineer to the existing work on admin tools.
- HTH, --Eloquence (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Eloquence, that sounds good to me, especially with regards to Mobile. --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, to a point. Our work in eng/prod overall is very iterative, of course, and the below is subject to internal and external feedback, real world experience and the final budget amount. At a high level, we're not currently planning to build a whole new development team (at the scale of the Flow or VisualEditor team). Here are a few goals that have informed the plan:
Code review
- I have heard that code review is a bottleneck. What is being done to address this?
- Hi, we have put a significant effort in retrieving and visualizing data from our code review queues, in order to know where are the bottlenecks. See how long is the review queue over time and specific data of each repository of wikitech:Key Wikimedia software projects. The intake of patches to be reviewed keeps being high, the general queue keeps growing, but the median time to review patches is decreasing. An interesting combination that we are looking at. These new graphs will help us finding pockets of old patches with inactive reviews, repositories where reviews take significantly longer to be resolved, and therefore teams that either need to change something in their processes or simply need help digesting the volume of contributions they are getting. Analyzing these bottlenecks and proposing a plan to address them is one of the main goals of the Engineering Community Team.--Qgil (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Quim. --Pine✉ 07:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, we have put a significant effort in retrieving and visualizing data from our code review queues, in order to know where are the bottlenecks. See how long is the review queue over time and specific data of each repository of wikitech:Key Wikimedia software projects. The intake of patches to be reviewed keeps being high, the general queue keeps growing, but the median time to review patches is decreasing. An interesting combination that we are looking at. These new graphs will help us finding pockets of old patches with inactive reviews, repositories where reviews take significantly longer to be resolved, and therefore teams that either need to change something in their processes or simply need help digesting the volume of contributions they are getting. Analyzing these bottlenecks and proposing a plan to address them is one of the main goals of the Engineering Community Team.--Qgil (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Endowment
- I have heard talk about starting an endowment for WMF. This isn't discussed in the Annual Plan. Will there be any serious planning for an endowment in the 2014-2015 time frame?
- Hi Pine- We have done some initial research on what an endowment would entail and presented that to the board. We advised the board that we should have this conversation in the context of the next strategic planning process, so that we could have a broad conversation about it. --Lgruwell (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. --Pine✉ 07:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Merit pay budget
- I would like to ask a further question about the merit pay budget, and this isn't intended as a critique so I am trying to be careful with how I word this question. I think WMF's selection and performance management philosophy for employees is to pick employees who are internally motivated for the WMF mission and then mostly assume good faith. If above-median compensation isn't one of the reasons that people work for WMF and it isn't a big motivator to perform well for employees who are already internally motivated, then what is the reason for having a merit pay budget? There might be a good reason and I'd like to know what it is. Otherwise, WMF can save the time and politics of managing a merit pay budget by eliminating the merit raise process and instead adjusting annually to changes in the labor market to stay at the same compensation levels relative to the median, right? I'm not arguing for eliminating this funding, I'm just wondering if there is a more effective way to use the same compensation money. Thanks, --Pine✉ 07:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pine, according to HR the 3% across the board envelope + the cost of living increase, while modest, is one of the ways WMF signals about performance and is a consistent year-over-year mechanism in keeping with the annual review cycle for adjusting relative to the labor market and gives individual managers a small amount of flexibility of budget if they need to do any internal aligning. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, but the merit pay isn't applied 3% across the board, right? Is it a 3% maximum or a 3% average, and is it applied to employees individually or is it applied to all employees equally for the performance of the entire organization? Also, if some of the merit pay is actually being used for market adjustments then I think this budget should be clearly labeled as a combination of merit pay and market adjustments. --Pine✉ 07:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- The 3% creates funding to provide adjustments to compensation as needed, whatever the reason. "Merit" is the language we use at WMF for this type of funding.Gbyrd (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, but the merit pay isn't applied 3% across the board, right? Is it a 3% maximum or a 3% average, and is it applied to employees individually or is it applied to all employees equally for the performance of the entire organization? Also, if some of the merit pay is actually being used for market adjustments then I think this budget should be clearly labeled as a combination of merit pay and market adjustments. --Pine✉ 07:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pine, according to HR the 3% across the board envelope + the cost of living increase, while modest, is one of the ways WMF signals about performance and is a consistent year-over-year mechanism in keeping with the annual review cycle for adjusting relative to the labor market and gives individual managers a small amount of flexibility of budget if they need to do any internal aligning. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Budget breakdown
- Merged into #Budget breakdown? below
5th floor of current building
- I have heard some discussion about WMF possibly taking the additional 5th floor. Is there a possibility of a half take instead of a full take? If it makes sense from a productivity standpoint to do a full take then that's ok, but I'm thinking that phasing in a half take this year with the option for a full take next year might make sense also. --Pine✉ 08:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pine, you may actually have read that in this document itself (it's twice mentioned in the Q&A: "the expansion to the 5th floor of our current building", "expanding the office space to take over the 5th floor to accommodate staff growth"); Sue also talked about it in the February (I think) metrics meeting.
- To help answer your question, can you explain what you mean by "phasing in a half take": sharing the floor with a second tenant, or only starting to occupy the floor during half of that fiscal year? My guess is that the building owner doesn't offer the option to rent only half of the floor (these floors have an open office structure without separating walls; with e.g. only emergency exit per floor, I could imagine that it's not possible to have two tenants on the same floor without at least a lengthy and costly reconstruction, building additional walls etc. - BTW you can find an older plan of the 5th floor at the real estate agent's website here). But you may have meant the other alternative instead.
- Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I read about this in the report and heard discussion in the March metrics meeting. I think that WMF currently has the lease on the 5th floor and subleases it with the right to force out the subtenants. Because the plan for the next year is to grow staff by about 25% while taking the entire 5th floor would increase the floor space by 50%, I'm asking if it would make sense to take over only half of the 5th floor. Small businesses frequently are clustered together in the same building on the same floor. However there might be some productivity or privacy reasons to take the entire 5th floor such as a demonstrated productivity benefit from having the 5th floor designated as a "quiet floor" with no audible telephones and minimized discussion for people who want to locate their desks there. From my point of view this decision is as much about budget as it is about productivity. --Pine✉ 07:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Our proposed annual plan is for WMF to occupy the full 5th floor, as there is no practical way of using only 50% of the floor and allowing a subtenant to use the other 50%. We are also need to reduce density on the other two floors of the building so occupancy will be more than the 25% staff growth.Gbyrd (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I read about this in the report and heard discussion in the March metrics meeting. I think that WMF currently has the lease on the 5th floor and subleases it with the right to force out the subtenants. Because the plan for the next year is to grow staff by about 25% while taking the entire 5th floor would increase the floor space by 50%, I'm asking if it would make sense to take over only half of the 5th floor. Small businesses frequently are clustered together in the same building on the same floor. However there might be some productivity or privacy reasons to take the entire 5th floor such as a demonstrated productivity benefit from having the 5th floor designated as a "quiet floor" with no audible telephones and minimized discussion for people who want to locate their desks there. From my point of view this decision is as much about budget as it is about productivity. --Pine✉ 07:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks (:
--Pine✉ original set of questions and comments ended 08:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC) and additional questions have been asked.
Role of the appendix
Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round2/Wikimedia Foundation/Proposal form/Ongoing work areas: what is this thing? Why is it a subpage of this proposal? If it's not integral part of your proposal, can you please consider moving it elsewhere? Do other entities do such a thing too? It's 100 KB and it doesn't seem to contain anything of use or that I don't know already, so I don't plan to read it unless its scope is clarified. Thanks, Nemo 18:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your question! This appendix is designed to give the FDC and other readers a better understanding of what the money will be spent for, explaining many activities that the main annual plan only mentions briefly or not at all, and providing lots of concrete data that help to get a sense of the volume of activity going on in each work area. As stated in the box on the top right of the main proposal page and on top of the appendix page itself, it is part of the Foundation's FDC proposal along with other supplementary material. The inclusion of this supplementary material was approved by FDC staff in advance - I understand that they are fine with entities including such additional content if it helps the purpose of the proposal document, and that this has already been done by other entities previously. It appears that you would strongly prefer to read everything in one page, and we could ask the FDC staff if they are OK with moving or transcluding the appendix content on the main proposal page like for the Board Q&A, but I'm not sure if this would really make it more readable and I also prefer not getting too hung up on such formal issues.
- It's interesting that you haven't read the document yet but already assume that it doesn't contain useful information. I have no doubt that you know part of it already, but I'm also certain that some of the data hasn't been published before. What's more, even the information that is already public is scattered among many, many pages on various wikis, and not everyone might have the time and inclination to read all of them, in fact I guess that there are very few people besides you and me who have done so ;)
- Regarding the size, yes, we are at several hundred kB for the proposal and appendix now, but it's also about a budget of sixty million dollars. I'd like to observe that this proposal still contains far less words per budget dollar than the other proposals, even including the appendix.
- Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, I didn't ask it to be merged/transcluded. Yes, I was gifted with a supernatural intuition for what is worth reading (there are millions books out there and only one life for me to read). Ok for the precedents; still not clear to me if the appendix is supposed to be reviewed/approved too. --Nemo 22:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Greetings, Tbayer and Nemo:
- No, I didn't ask it to be merged/transcluded. Yes, I was gifted with a supernatural intuition for what is worth reading (there are millions books out there and only one life for me to read). Ok for the precedents; still not clear to me if the appendix is supposed to be reviewed/approved too. --Nemo 22:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- We just wanted to clarify that many entities do submit supplementary documents as subpages of their FDC proposals, and that this has always been accepted as part of the proposal process. In this same round, for example, WMFR has also submitted several supplementary documents as subpages of its proposal, and these documents will be reviewed and considered by the FDC along with its proposal form. Furthermore, the FDC does also review and carefully consider documents related to each organization or its plans (such as a strategic plans or an annual plans) as part of the proposal process, whether or not those documents are included as subpages of the proposals.
- As Tbayer mentions, they did consult with FDC staff before including this large supplement to the proposal, and we did confirm that this document could be accepted as part of the proposal process. The FDC will be reviewing this supplementary document along with WMF's proposal.
- Thanks to both for the clarifications about the appendix offered here. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the supplemental documents are very welcome and helpful. In particular the larger organizations will need to have additional documents to explain the work of the organizations. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think what Nemo's getting at is that the appendix is just plain weird. Tony (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the supplemental documents are very welcome and helpful. In particular the larger organizations will need to have additional documents to explain the work of the organizations. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to both for the clarifications about the appendix offered here. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Request for minor correction edit
I'm requesting permission from the FDC staff to edit this page, in order to fix some broken links in the following pattern: [[:meta:Wikilegal|Wikilegal]] --> [[:m:Wikilegal|Wikilegal]]. (Nemo: we'd rather keep the "[[m:.." prefix in because it makes it easier to reuse the content on other wikis; also, it's not a report per se in the sense of the usual monthly and annual WMF reports about activities conducted in a certain timespan, so the category you added isn't suitable. I'll leave it to the FDC staff to categorize this page as they see fit.) Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the category is correct, it's rather the page being in the wrong place probably. ;) See above. --Nemo 22:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Tbayer: Thank you for making this request. The corrections to these links are approved, and you may go ahead and make the approved changes now. We will categorize the Appendix to show that it is part of your proposal form, just as we would do for any other supplementary proposal documents. We will apply some categories to the Appendix that are consistent with the other proposal documents. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 23:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Anders Wennersten
Thanks for a most excellent plan (even if it taken some time reading it all + appendices+talkpage above). I specially want to give you credit for your openness, where you candidly decibed the "failures" and also I really like that you stress tranparency as a key for the organisation.
Narrowing focus
I was very glad of the narrowing focus WMF have been through, but I still feel there are opportinities to further focus the work of WMF and let more acitivities of an ourtreach kind to be done by other entities (chapters). Basically I think of the EE work but also some of he evaluation activites. I beleive the chapters can be given more responsibility to run these typs of acitivies, even some of a global coordinating type.
- Can you be more specific around that, Anders? What types of editor engagement work that is currently done by WMF do you think can/should be taken on by chapters instead? Thanks, --Eloquence (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the whole budget item for EE and that part of the plan. Why not allocate that in a chapter instead of WMF.--Anders Wennersten (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I watched the metrics meeting yesterday and think I understand the current work being done by the EE team. Much of the work is heavily involved with the software so it seems properly placed with WMF for now. Perhaps in the future EE, evaluation, community advocacy work could be done in several organizations that are spun off. But I think that is pretty far done the road. My opinion is that the work was not being done by anyone until WMF added teams to do it and it came late and as was much needed. I would need see an organizations who can approach it from a global perspective better than WMF before I would like to see these areas handed off. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the whole budget item for EE and that part of the plan. Why not allocate that in a chapter instead of WMF.--Anders Wennersten (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's correct - it's primarily technical/user experience work. Note that we no longer have a "Community Department" tasked exclusively with non-technical interventions -- most of that kind of work is now done through grantmaking (stuff like the individual engagement grant in support of Wikisource, or community work by chapters and others supported by grants).--Eloquence (talk)
- This all makes me utterly confused. After reading the text in the proposal, I find that it talkes of a dedicted action area with resources supporting editing from Uni/Schools, that is just the type of work that is seen also being done by Chapter resources. In your replies you talk of this as a tool being developed in the SW developing department, which is not what I can find by reading through the text in this plan. If that is correct then I feel it must be soemting missing in the text of this proposal and wonder why it is specified as a special action areas, and not part of the general sw development efforts?--Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's correct - it's primarily technical/user experience work. Note that we no longer have a "Community Department" tasked exclusively with non-technical interventions -- most of that kind of work is now done through grantmaking (stuff like the individual engagement grant in support of Wikisource, or community work by chapters and others supported by grants).--Eloquence (talk)
- Anders Wennersten: I refer you to the "Editor Engagement" subsection of the Key programs, which makes it pretty clear that this is about engineering work, no?--Eloquence (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Anders Wennersten I'm trying to understand where you are getting confused. To me it makes sense to have EE located in Product and Engineering. I don't think chapters have the technical resources to take over this work from WMF, and WMF is in the best position to scale the benefits of EE software through all the wikis. --Pine✉ 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Event Coordinator
Well, for instance "Engineering" proposes "14 Software Engineers, 3 Ops Engineers, 2 QA Testers, 2 Scrum Masters, and 1 Event Coordinator". I'm confused how the "Event Coordinator" fits with narrowing focus. If it's a travel planning administrative position, it would be useful to change the name. A rather minor thing, but still. --Nemo 10:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Education program
Similarly, I don't understand how this fits with the alleged narrowing of focus. Rather than decrease, I see a proposed further increase of spending, with "1 Global Education Officer". The "integration of the Wikipedia Education Program and the Program Evaluation and Design teams" makes the scope of both highly unclear. It's implied that the Egypt and Brazil programs will continue (the latter executed via another org) but not what's the role of the rest: "laid the foundation for an education cooperative", what's this thing? Do you mean a w:Cooperative in the actual sense of the word i.e. a separate organisation? --Nemo 10:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Focus areas and goals
In the owerview you state to expand the numbers of readers and contributors; to make it easier to contribute from any device, especially mobile; to ensure that our sites are robust enough to meet the additional traffic we expect; and to continue supporting innovation at both the Wikimedia Foundation and in the greater Wikimedia movement. Here I fully support the last three. For the first I personalay think it is to be stuck in what is stated in our strategy and which we have learnt was unoptimal wording. I like better to get more and better content with higher quality in our projects and where more contributers is the one of many options to reaach this goal. Mainly I miss in the plan support to utilize the new "middleware" that is now availabe for article creation (manually and semiautoamtic), like Wikidata, new support for maps and usen of advanced BOTs. Also to expand our content I beleive we are not working through all oppurtinities to involve contributers outside our core reqrutimen base. Just now paid editor is a red rag, but I beleive it can also be an opportunity, if controlled the right way. There exist a large base and competence in the Glam sociaty universites etc that approaced in the right way could become new good contributers
To be done more or less of
Of the key areas, "Infrastructure", "Mobile", "Editor Engagement", "Nontechnical Movement Support". I fully support 1, 2 and 4. For nontechnical support I want to emphazize the important, exdellent and dedicated work done by WMF functions like Legal, finance and grantmaking team. It is a pleasure working with these and I find it a privillige for the movement to have these good people in place.
I would like less of (as already mentioned) acitivities outside the key acitivty areas, with efforts to delegate as much as possible of activites of outreach type to chaters, - read EE and some evaualtion activites.
I am missing (as already mentioned) acititievs related supporting contributers for the utilization of the new "middleware"techniques that have been introduced (Wikidata, Bot, Maps etc). I also think the effort described under external opportunities is (too) unambitious considering the enourmous strength in the brand name of Wikimedia/Wikipedia
Movement strategy plan
This is mentioned but in a noncommitent manner ("it all depends on new ED"). I would like this to be highlighted better and resources secured for this important work. Even if the actual set up will depend on new ED, we surely know something like this must be done, and including the learnings from last time. And would it not involve efforts covering more areas and with workgroups with proper staffing from WMF?
- Thanks for the question, Anders. We know strategy and planning will be a critical piece of our work in FY 2014-15 and have budgeted $300,000 for strategic planning in the governance budget. We just don't know what form the planning will take yet. Admittedly, we are at a somewhat awkward point in our leadership transition with this. There is a healthy tension between a responsible desire to start planning and respect for giving a new E.D. the room and trust to lead us. We are certain that strategy and planning will be important to a new E.D., though. You can expect to hear more about this and to be involved in the conversations. In the meantime, we beg for your patience during the transition. :) --Lgruwell (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is good to see there is an amount allocated, but I would have liked some more text for it in the plan, even if it will be full of reservations duee to the ED transition.Anders Wennersten (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Anders here. I think it would make sense to have this described in more detail in the budget document, including some explanation for the amount of $300,000. That seems pretty expensive and I can think of other ways to use some of that money to benefit the projects. --Pine✉ 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question, Anders. We know strategy and planning will be a critical piece of our work in FY 2014-15 and have budgeted $300,000 for strategic planning in the governance budget. We just don't know what form the planning will take yet. Admittedly, we are at a somewhat awkward point in our leadership transition with this. There is a healthy tension between a responsible desire to start planning and respect for giving a new E.D. the room and trust to lead us. We are certain that strategy and planning will be important to a new E.D., though. You can expect to hear more about this and to be involved in the conversations. In the meantime, we beg for your patience during the transition. :) --Lgruwell (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Very small detail
Table 2 mention FDC funding of $4,459,000. This is only Round 1 figures, round 2 is missing, making it confusing as all other figures covers full year.--Anders Wennersten (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question, Anders. In the proposal's FAQ, the Wikimedia Foundation noted why we put "n/a" in the Round 2 section, and I'll repeat the language here: When we synched up the WMF annual planning process with the FDC process, we did it in such a way that the FDC review period happened at the same time as the WMF Board review period -- because that's the point at which, by design and in actual practice, input has the most ability to influence how the plan develops. But the WMF needs to incorporate input and develop the final version of its plan more quickly than the FDC process allows. The FDC publishes its dollar amount recommendations 1 June, but the WMF timeline requires its plan to be finalized 6 June so it can be discussed and voted upon by the WMF Board of Trustees in time for 1 July. It's not possible (nor would it lead to the best possible outcome) to tear apart and rebuild the WMF plan in five days. That means it's not possible for the WMF timeline to incorporate both the FDC/community review period, and also a dollar amount recommendation. Therefore, after considerable discussion and reflection, the WMF has decided to synch up with the FDC review period, since that's the point at which FDC and community input can have the greatest influence on the WMF plan. JonathanCinSF (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if you are not misunderstand my point? The comment is just about a number presented i table 2, which is there for reference purpose, as it is related to 2013-2014 not the budget for 2014-2015. --Anders Wennersten (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Anders. Thanks for the follow-up. I think you mean that the $4,459,000 may only represent part of the Wikimedia Foundation's request from the previous year, and not the full year's total. WMF didn't request additional monies in round 2, so the $4,459,000 is, indeed, the full amount the FDC last allocated to us, and why that number is in the table section asking about previous FDC funding. Please let me know if this answers your question. Thanks again. JonathanCinSF (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- No the sum is what FDC allocated to other entities in Round 1, none of this went to WMF, and for the whole year a more correct figure would be around 6 MUSD. Perhaps is should be taken away completly?--Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, this page states that "Wikimedia Foundation received a funds allocation in the amount of 4,459,000 in 2012-2013 Round 1:, i.e. the same number as quoted by Jonathan above and given in Table 1 for "last year" (2012-13).
- You mention the total sum that the FDC allocated to other entities in Round 1 of 2013-14, this was $4,432,000 (according to the FDC recommendations page for that round). The two numbers are similar in size, which may explain the confusion, combined with the fact that the (current) 2013-14 round 2 is actually about 2014/15 budgets, etc. - Just jumping in here to offer these facts in the hope that they are helpful; happy to let the FDC staff or someone else with an in-depth understanding of the FDC process chime in as well.
- Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will take a try. Last year, the WMF did not put its entire budget forward for review by the FDC. We only put forward programs that were considered "non-core." The total budget of the non-core programs was $4,459,000. --Lgruwell (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. You are right, I have mixed up these two numbers. Still a little confused why figures for 201-2013 turns up here where I thoughut it would be numbers for 2013-1014, as are the top sum of 50 Million, But I leave this issue now with youir explanation.--Anders Wennersten (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- No the sum is what FDC allocated to other entities in Round 1, none of this went to WMF, and for the whole year a more correct figure would be around 6 MUSD. Perhaps is should be taken away completly?--Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Anders. Thanks for the follow-up. I think you mean that the $4,459,000 may only represent part of the Wikimedia Foundation's request from the previous year, and not the full year's total. WMF didn't request additional monies in round 2, so the $4,459,000 is, indeed, the full amount the FDC last allocated to us, and why that number is in the table section asking about previous FDC funding. Please let me know if this answers your question. Thanks again. JonathanCinSF (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if you are not misunderstand my point? The comment is just about a number presented i table 2, which is there for reference purpose, as it is related to 2013-2014 not the budget for 2014-2015. --Anders Wennersten (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Copyediting
Request to better format links table
I'm requesting permission from the FDC staff to better format the links table, which would make it more readable. Thank you. JonathanCinSF (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- This change is approved, as this will definitely make the table more readable and useful. Thanks for the request! Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- All set, thanks! (Please review the descriptions.) heather walls (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Looks great. Thank you. JonathanCinSF (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- All set, thanks! (Please review the descriptions.) heather walls (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Other ugly stuff
- -- -> –
- - -> –
- ’ -> '
- Repetition: "Annual Plan that looks ahead"
- "Upcoming year's annual plan: strengths, opportunities and threats" has three subpoints which should be h3 and three subsections which should be h4
- "Site visits.": period incorrectly bolded
- "See above re: WMF’s approach to continued iteration": unclear above where. Might mean point 5.1.4; anchor and/or precise title needed.
- "Examples of this include:" is followed by four bullets. Should be level 2 bullets, or this sentence should not be in a bullet.
- "WMF Board of Directors" is not a thing
- "FY 2013-12"?
- Does "and host" mean "and to hosting", subordinate of "Increase support to"?
- $15,627,000 + $2,930,000 != $19,254,000 (in FAQ) odder (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Odder. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy in the variance section of the FAQ’s spending-increase table. I’ve requested permission from the FDC to fix the table. JonathanCinSF (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
References/notes section
Please can the <references/> tag be moved up so that the notes appear underneath the "Staff and long-term contractors" (which is the only place where ref tags appear to be used)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. That table is very hard to read in a single tab. --Nemo 09:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Stabilize infrastructure: AWOL
Once again, one of the five pillars of the five-year plan is totally missing. The section "Infrastructure" claims to be related to that goal, but I don't see any annual goal or metric related to said strategic goal;
- in particular I'd expect to see metrics for "reduce the likelihood of outages", "caching centers" and optionally "stability and security"
- and, if possible, qualitative goals for "Manage the MediaWiki release cycle" and "clear documentation and APIs".
All of that is still current, and the first two items are particularly important. Yes, I saw that "Nontechnical Movement Support" also mentions this strategic goal but that's about "public awareness and support" and "internal capacity", of which I'm not talking here. --Nemo 15:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Bassel Khartabil
We also host meet-ups to strategize about efforts like the one to free imprisoned Syrian free culture activist Bassel Khartabil.
What? --Nemo 15:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Nemo, Thanks for your question. This paragraph is about how "We are also part of a global community of people who support and advocate for free knowledge, free culture, free software, and the free and open internet", and the meetups in support of imprisoned Syrian Creative Commons affiliate (and Wikimedian) Bassel Khartabil are mentioned as an example of the way that the Wikimedia Foundation connects with like-minded people and organizations outside of our own direct work. Occasionally, the Wikimedia Foundation hosts after-hours meet-ups at our San Francisco office, where foundation staff members and people outside the office meet in a welcoming group environment to go over subjects related to the Wikimedia community. Many of these meetings revolve around software and technology updates, as in a 10-15-13 (7 p.m.) meet-up about Flow. There are also meet-ups about areas beyond technology, as the 3-15-14 (Saturday) meeting about Bassel Khartabil and its 2013 predecessor (Friday March 15, 2013, 5pm-7pm), held jointly with Creative Commons and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, both SF-based organizations which are important in the above mentioned global community. Hosting the meet-ups at our office in San Francisco offers a convenient location for many people in the San Francisco Bay Area. Thanks again. JonathanCinSF (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please rename your account, @JonathanCinSF. odder (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Risks
Lack of assessment
Some risk statements lack any objective assessment of whether things are getting better or worse. This means that, even though you know some area is stressed, you won't notice when the stress is approaching implosion, very much like a certain expected earthquake down there. This is particularly true of the "lack or loss of community goodwill" section. Examples:
- «ensuring that we are responsive to the needs of our wider community, including those speaking our 287 languages, instead of only a small number of vocal users», but no assessment (even generic and qualitative) is included of how many users of how many languages have been involved, how many words and staff hours have been spent for each language;
- "including 45 posts in multiple languages" similarly doesn't say if this got better or worse, how many comments they received, how many reports were fully translated in how many languages, etc.;
- "170,000+ words from 1,000+ users", a single example of very little value when global evaluations are missing, moreover it's missing number of languages and communities of those users and number of languages spoken in the conversation;
- "shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent": similarly, I don't see how this risk is being tracked, both in severity (e.g. how much standard wage is raising) and ability to counter it (e.g. how many employees were "stolen" to the WMF, how many positions impossible to fill, how many made impossible by a relocation to SF requirement, ... your job to figure out).
--Nemo 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Nemo, Thanks for your question. The "lack or loss of community goodwill" section is from our risks assessment overview that talks in both general and specific terms about the challenges that the Wikimedia Foundation is facing in the year ahead. The Wikimedia Foundation makes a concerted effort to publish our materials in multiple languages, and the numbers we cite are meant to give perspective on the scope of that work. One example you cite is the proposed amendment to our Terms of Use on undisclosed paid editing, which within a week prompted 170,000+ words from 1,000+ users. The discussion, which can be seen here, generated six comments in French, 11 in German, four in Spanish, three in Swedish, one in Portuguese, and four in Japanese. Regarding our reference to 45 blog posts in multiple languages between July 2013 and January 2014: For context, we published 56 blog posts in multiple languages between January 2013 and June 2013. Among our blog posts: One requesting community input on our privacy policy, which was published in six languages (English, Japanese, Spanish, French, German and Arabic); and our post requesting community input on our trademark policy, which was published in English, Arabic, French, German, Japanese, Russian, and Spanish. So we continue to publish a high percentage of our blog posts in languages other than English. And we continue to publish them at a similar level of depth in each language. Our blog post requesting input on our privacy policy, for example, was published at about 1,300 words in English, which was about the same word count for the post's other languages. As for the "shortage of Silicon Valley technical talent" and the way this is being tracked: Part of the way we track this is in terms of time to fill a given position, benchmarking of salary rates for given roles in particular geographical contexts, and anecdotal data about where our employees get offers from, as well as where they move to when they leave the Wikimedia Foundation. We have yet to encounter an "impossible to fill" position, or "impossible to relocate" -- partly because we have a lot of remote employees, so relocation is not a requirement, and also because we have excellent immigration counsel and the United States makes immigration easier for STEM roles. JonathanCinSF (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure exactly what was meant by the reply above, but you seem to be implying that you feel you are assessing and tracking the trends of those risks. If so, can you please tell me which are getting worse and which are getting better? One word each will suffice. --Nemo 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Nemo, thanks for the follow-up. Every year in our Annual Plan, the Wikimedia Foundation assesses our targets and details the most important risks that the foundation faces in the year ahead. Such risk assessment sections are a standard feature of an organization's annual plan, but formal declarations on whether a particular risk has gotten more or less severe are not part of the format we use. However, regarding your concern that this will mean that "you won't notice when the stress is approaching implosion", be assured that the risk assessments are conducted with the intention to apply to the upcoming 2014/15 fiscal year, not just to the present time (April 2014).
- In any case, each area we detail is fluid (it may not correspond 1:1 to a risk section in last year's annual plan), and not all risks can be reduced to a statistical measurement. There are of course some quantitative risk indicators, like trends in readership and editor numbers, which are tracked on our monthly report card. As we note in the section, desktop pageviews are down. Our level of community advocacy is up. Our number of projects aimed at new editors is up. Donations have increased. We are making efforts to increase our grantmaking's programmatic impact, but this is fluid. And of course, apart from the risk assessments conducted for the annual plan, the Foundation is constantly engaged in tracking various measures and "employs multiple mechanisms to understand what the Wikimedia projects' readers and editors need and want", to quote from a different section, namely the response to the FDC's question "How do you know what the members of the community/communities your organization serves (including chapter members and broader online volunteers) need and want? How does this influence your strategic planning and decision-making?".
- Thanks again. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- On "declarations on whether a particular risk has gotten more or less severe are not part of the format we use", sure, it's precisely what I'm asking to change. It's like having a permanent point "a meteor could fall on our data centre in Ashburn" and not updating it when you know that one is approaching. I really don't see any value in those risks statements, they don't help planning in any way. --Nemo 08:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure exactly what was meant by the reply above, but you seem to be implying that you feel you are assessing and tracking the trends of those risks. If so, can you please tell me which are getting worse and which are getting better? One word each will suffice. --Nemo 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Positive change sources
"Change aversion" and "ossified platform" put all the fault of the lack of change on the community's shoulder. This focus on a top-down approach where all the good comes from the centre is inappropriate and the root of your problem. Here, too, a self-assessment is needed to see, for instance, how many users the WMF manages to involve and listen to in building "change and innovation" and in "set[ting] us up better for the future", from the smallest MediaWiki feature requests to the largest visionary ideas. --Nemo 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot but quote Nemo. --Pequod76(talk) 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Strabismus and programmatic impact
We apprehend that «resources may not be effectively achieving programmatic impact [...] strong, demonstrated impact on our mission»: this whole section doesn't explain why it's believed that this risk is only true of the grants and not of the programs conducted by the WMF directly. Consequently: "impact and learning strategy" and "impact different types of formal and informal organizations" seem to imply the WMF will not conduct such a reflection on itself; "Enabling impact through individuals and diversity" is logically disconnected from the rest of the section, as it gives for granted that one specific kind of (grant) spending has more impact than another kind. --Nemo 15:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Net neutrality
Given the potential impact of overbroad Net Neutrality laws, it's important that the principle be implemented narrowly.
I don't understand what is meant by "narrowly" here. --Nemo 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Net Neutrality laws should focus on preventing ISPs from charging websites for high speed delivery of their content. If Net Neutrality laws broadly prohibit discrimination of content, they can have unintended consequences. Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I do not agree a decision to lobby on a certain topic should be done over a grant proposal. If it came to a community decision, I am not convinced a majority would be in favour of a "narrow" definition just to save Wikipedia Zero. A narrow definition can have unindended consequences. --Dimi z (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Dimi and hope that this topic will be discussed more broadly in the movement (e.g. in context with the strategy process). --CDG (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I do not agree a decision to lobby on a certain topic should be done over a grant proposal. If it came to a community decision, I am not convinced a majority would be in favour of a "narrow" definition just to save Wikipedia Zero. A narrow definition can have unindended consequences. --Dimi z (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Nemo: *Pointing at the elephant in the room* Wikipedia Zero, [1] --Atlasowa (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Measurable results
Did someone find a single measurable goal/result proposed in this draft? I was unable to spot any, but I've not read everything yet. In particular the "Editor Engagement" doesn't seem to answer the "Please share the a) goal as well as (b) the measurable result(s)" question at all; I see a lengthy essay on the structure of wikis and then, incidentally, a mention that "The overall goal of these efforts will be to increase the number of contributors to our projects"; but no specific goals. This lack is a made worse by the complete lack of answer to points 4 and 5, which redirect "above", presumably to the section where we see unrelated measuring tools ("At the infrastructure level", "tools such as Bugzilla and Gerrit") and generic tautologies ("analytics" + "qualitative research"). --Nemo 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- There may be team-level metrics and deliverables that aren't included in this high-level report. I agree that it should be possible to link from this report down to the level of SMART criteria and there should be transparency about how those criteria are being met throughout the year. I think WMF has some dashboards that help with this and it would be good to make them transparent and accessible through the Annual Plan and the regular reports that WMF already does. I think a lot of this information already exists and the issue is mostly a matter of making it transparent and accessible. --Pine✉ 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe. However, just to make it clear, I'm looking for global measurable results for each of the proposed items, not for some arbitrary granularisation of them. --Nemo 19:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- So you would like to see high-level metrics for each of the four "critical initiatives"? It may be difficult to pick or synthesize a manageable number of metrics but I agree this is a good idea in principle. I think it is more realistic to do this at levels lower than the strategic level, although I think some important metrics that WMF currently covers in the monthly metrics meetings include active editor counts, page views, financial reserves, year to date revenues and spending versus plan, and year to date hiring and attrition versus plan. What other metrics do you think are strategically important and relevant to individual Annual Plan "critical initiatives" at a high level? --Pine✉ 07:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe. However, just to make it clear, I'm looking for global measurable results for each of the proposed items, not for some arbitrary granularisation of them. --Nemo 19:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
LCA
To make a specific example, not because it's the main area I'm interested in but only because it's mentioned in the text, about LCA we read «chief measure of success is our effectiveness in responding to our hundreds of inquiries and issues, both internally and externally». But no such measure, however approximate or qualitative, is made available. The appendix doesn't have any either (cf. #Role of the appendix). It's still better than the areas which don't mention measures/results at all. :) --Nemo 10:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think LCA has a way to track what they call incidents, how much time lapsed between the start of the incident and a staff response, the start and end times of the incidents, and the amount of staff time spent on each incident. I think it would be good to make this information public in an aggregated way with explanations for any especially time consuming incidents if they wouldn't violate user privacy. As you say this is only one example and we could come up with ways to create quantitative reports for many areas of work. However we need to balance the value of getting these statistics with the cost of employee time that it takes to produce them. I agree that there are opportunities for WMF to share more data. --Pine✉ 06:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Program Evaluation
If we're going to discuss Program Evaluation then while we're at it can someone provide a summary of what impact the Program Evaluation team has had this year? I know the team has examined some projects, created a portal on Meta, and started the learning patterns library. It would be good to know how much benefit these projects have created this year and what the plan is for that team next year, including the new evaluation officers. --Pine✉ 06:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I moved this from #Community workload and strain because that's a more general question though it comes with a specific example. --Nemo 14:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Domain names and trademarks
I note that the term "domain" appears only once. «An additional allocation of about $1.3 million to cover various legal fees (such as maintenance of our global trademark portfolio and community defense initiatives)». I'd like a comment on what portion of that spending is community-initiated, or otherwise corresponding to specific community requests, and if the increase in spending in this area is expected to produce a proportional increase in delivery of community-requested results. --Nemo 19:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Budget breakdown?
- I have a question about this table in the FAQ.
Variance from FY 13-14 Budget
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- If there are no changes other than staff increases for Infrastructure (12), Mobile (11), and EE (5), then their costs per new employee are about $35,417, $104,091, and $412,400. Please explain the wide range of costs. --Pine✉
- The information provide does not include the cost reductions in each area, only the information where we plan on increasing spending. For example, under the "Infrastructure" line item is included cost reductions of $1 million.Gbyrd (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pine, Garfield will be able to address your question after he is back from the Berlin conference next week. Thanks for your patience. Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi all. Thanks for putting together this proposal. I'm somewhat confused about the level of budget breakdown available here. For example, with Mobile, I can see in the FAQ that you're proposing an increase of $1,145,000, which you say is due to "Increases in the budget due to increase of 11 staff." However, the infrastructure budget line is increasing by much less than than and by 12 staff, so there must be other components going into this. Where can I find a breakdown of those components, please, and likewise for the other budget lines? Apologies if I've missed spotting this somewhere in the proposal. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the spending reductions that offset the spending increases are included in the FAQ Q: What does the proposed new spending consist of.Gbyrd (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion formatting
|
|---|
|
Request to fix the FAQ’s spending-increase table
I'm requesting permission from the FDC staff to fix the spending-increase table in the proposal’s FAQ section. We would like to fix the variance figures for “Non Technical Movement Support” and “Other.” Thank you. JonathanCinSF (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Community workload and strain
I would like some of the programs to include an assessment of what workload they pose on the community's shoulders. Quite often,
- integrating the new WMF hires ("on-boarding" in HR jargon);
- giving them the information they look for during their work;
- doing all the work that they ask for integration into their deliverables or that it's byproduct of their work:
all this is very time-consuming for the community and consumes a lot of community energies, which are subtracted to
- the fun volunteers have,
- things they manage to get done.
This is true of many activities but less so of the bulk of Finance, HR and Fundraising departments (which are mostly inner-facing); so I'm particularly concerned by 5 proposed positions, "3 Evaluation Officers for Program Evaluation, 2 Program Officers for Grantmaking". --Nemo 11:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Grantmaking and evaluation
Further centralisation of spending?
The four bullets at "Grantmaking runs four main grants programs" don't mention any increase in spending for any of those (though the answers to "What does the proposed new spending consist of?" and "What are the main increases in spending" have conflicting statements on the matter): correct? So the increase in spending would consist (mostly) of what listed in "Staff and long-term contractors", i.e. San Francisco staff: correct? --Nemo 12:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Multiplication of tools
At least one point in "Nontechnical Movement Support" seems to actually talk of mw:Analytics work: "Increase the number of and ease of access to at least three self-evaluation tools [...] (baseline: 1 tool developed, Wikimetrics [...])". I disagree with the addition of yet another tool (or two even), especially in a period when we see a dramatic decay of the existing ones (of all sorts). Instead I propose to focus on the two central self-assessment and motivational tools of our community, that is:
- Wikistats, which gathers all the numbers that matter about Wikimedia projects (cf. long-term questions);
- stats.grok.se, which editors use to see the impact of their work (cf. Magnus Manske's Points of view).
In general, I oppose development of any tool/platform/system/portal the need for which didn't arise from the base. Top down approaches don't work. --Nemo 12:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)