Talk:2012 Five Year Plan
Welcome. Again we are relying on your good nature and enthusiasm to help our board in their decision making.
Please comment below under the following sections. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
1 Five and three year plan - version six for community consultation.
I still think this is far too long and broad. Take a look at the WMF's strategy plan here. It has five specific priorities, each with a target to measure progress on that priority against. This plan has no mention of priorities at all. This is just a long list of things that it would be nice to do. It isn't going to direct our efforts in any way because there is just far too much there.
Also, please add the one year stuff back in - just because they've already been agreed doesn't mean they aren't part of the plan.
Finally, what is the intention for approving this plan? I think it needs to be approved by members, since it plans for things that will happen well after the elected terms of the current board. That means if it is simply approved by the board, then there is nothing to bind a new board to it. If it is approved me members, then it gives it a strong and continuing place within our organisation. It can, of course, be amended over time if experience shows that it isn't optimal, but those amendments should also by made by the members. Progress against the plan is one of the ways members will judge the performance of the board, so it is important that the board can't unilaterally move the goalposts. --Tango (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- The responsibility for approving the plan lies clearly with the trustees. We have of course opened it for discussion by the members, and will read their comments with great interest, and no doubt adopt many (and I hope we get many more), but in the formal & legal senses there is no doubt that it is one of the many things that the members have appointed the trustees to do, with the help of the staff. It has no very binding status, and can be changed at any time by any board that feels it is appropriate to do so; very probably it will be changed or just replaced before the 5 years are up, except in the unlikely event that the early years go entirely to plan, and nothing much changes in the world outside WMUK. The long-term elements are essentially a basis for decisions and actions we need to make now or soon, for which we need to know where we think we should be heading. Don't let's kid ourselves that our confidence level in the accuracy of what will be possible in later periods is very high; it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll make the following quick statement, but I'm not going to get into a Q&A as anyone this passionate about the topic can read http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.aspx and the other relevant CC publications for themselves, plus there is rather a lot going on in preparing for various Wikimania related meetings next week.
The trustees of Wikimedia UK have ultimate responsibility for the plan. The Charity Commission states in CC3: "Trustees have, and must accept, ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of a charity, and ensuring that it is solvent, well-run, and meeting the needs for which it has been set up." The same document states "Trustees are also responsible for setting the charity’s strategic aims, objectives and direction." Consultation with stakeholders, especially members, may be expected and part of our values, but if we get to a stage where we claim this plan is "approved by members", in practice that will still mean consultation.
It should be noted that the planning process is annual. We will not set a five year plan in concrete. If things go well, I would expect this plan to have radical revisions and for the board, as it exists at that time, to be looking another five years ahead each year. --Fæ (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of notes from me. I agree with Tom in that a high-level set of priorities would be good, but I do like the broadness of the plan, and I actually think it isn't long enough (in particular it's missing things that would make it reasonably quantifiable).
- The one-year stuff does need to be added back into this document - it hasn't been agreed and finalised, it was just decided that it could be used as a basis for the 2013 activity plan whilst this planning process continues.
- Fæ and John have replied to the approval part. I'll just add that it's not going to be practical for it to be formally approved by members - but my expectation is that members will informally approve it by leaving comments here on the things they don't approve, which can then be responded to prior to approval by the board wherever reasonable and possible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments on a previous version of the plan
I'm not sure that all of the comments made at Talk:2012 Five Year Plan/Fourth draft have been answered, or changes made to this draft? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
2 Intro
3 The plan
3.1 Programmes and activities
3.1.1 GLAM work
3.1.2 Working with Higher Education
3.1.3 Other education projects
3.1.3.1 Training the trainers
3.1.4 Working with the rest of the education sector
3.1.5 Technical Innovation
3.2 Members and Volunteers.
3.2.1 Membership
3.2.2 Membership communications
3.2.3 Wikimeets
3.2.4 Volunteer development and support
3.2.5 WikiConference UK
3.3 Management and governance
3.3.1 The Wikimedia UK Board
3.3.2 Governance benchmarking
3.3.3 Staff and office functions
3.3.4 Publications and merchandising
3.4 External relations
3.4.1 UK organisations
3.4.2 Expert Outreach
3.4.3 Press and media
3.4.4 The PR industry
3.4.5 International Links
3.5 Finances
3.5.1 Fundraising
3.5.2 Financial management
3.5.3 Reporting and Accountability
- One year target
- Add: Regular financial reports available to the board will cover all main areas in standardized formats John Byrne (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (BST)
- Our financial systems will be transparent and understandable by our community
- Odd. Better: Our financial systems will be transparent and our reporting understandable by our community John Byrne (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (BST)
- Add: We will be able, where appropriate, to produce SORP disclosure information automatically from the accounting software John Byrne (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (BST)
- Three year target
- Our financial systems are robust and are sufficient to cover 99.9% of our financial transactions without issue.
- Sounds odd. Who will bother to count this? John Byrne (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (BST)
- Add: Our financial reporting is sophisticated and provides key information for all significant areas. John Byrne (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (BST)
- Our audit will take place in a smoothly and timely manner, with a minimum of minor questions and issues being raised over our financial systems and processes.
- -"over" better than "with" I think. Same in 5 yr section. 71.163.176.79 04:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Five year target
- Our financial systems are robust and are covering all of our financial transactions.
- What does this mean; we comply with the Companies Act? Should be already true. John Byrne (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (BST)
- Our financial audit will take place in a smoothly and timely manner, with no questions and issues being raised over our financial processes.
- "minimal" better than "no"; things will keep changing as we grow, and questions can't be excluded. 71.163.176.79 04:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- All sensible (if a little detailed for what should be an overarching plan) but no objections at all. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
My counterproposal
I was asked to link to my counterproposal, since it had gotten lost. The last version written by me is here (other people edited it since then, but I don't necessarily endorse any of those edits). I still that is a better layout for our plan - starting with a small number of key priorities and then expanding on them. --Tango (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)