File talk:Shaping our programme 2014.pdf

Please comment on the paper or ask questions here. Deadline August 28th. Jon Davies CEO, Wikimedia UK.

P.S. Thanks to those at Wikimania who had already read the document and the positive comments you fed back to me. They have not been forgotten. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2014 (BST)

Comments from Mike

Hello. Thanks for sharing this document. There is a lot of good stuff here, although I'm afraid it's somewhat overshadowed by a number of very bad points. As such, here's some comments in the order that they occur in the document:

• If this document is aimed at being sharing online, then it doesn't really make sense for it to be in PDF format (which is aimed primarily at being printed out) rather than as a wiki page. Having it as a PDF impedes access, both in terms of the number of links/applications needed to access it, and possibly also for accessibility reasons.

• "The board was occupied with many issues and not concerned with questioning the programme" - I find that to be an odd statement, given how many questions were being asked by the board about the work of the chapter! Yes, there were many other questions also being asked, but saying it didn't question the statement is clearly wrong.

The point I am making is that we were too focused on the detail and not the programme as a whole, how it shaped up as a total programme. And this is completely understandable and, as I say, common to all growing chapters.Indeed common to the majority of new organisations.

• It is very concerning that the reasons given for why WMUK should exist don't match up with the objects of the charity, nor the stated mission/values/strategic goals of the organisation! Also, saying "We believe we can make good arguments for our existence" but not actually giving those reasons (beyond an abstract list that doesn't go into substance) is rather pointless.

This is a complicated matrix with many different levels of understandings.This document, even at 30 pages cannot go into all the detail. It is not a reference book. It is intended for the community to discuss the future direction of the chapter based on their special experience and knowledge. There are iinks to our strategic goals etc in it. I also want it to describe the external environment which may not be familiar to everyone.

• "WMUK has achieved a lot in the last two and a half years." - WMUK has existed for 5.5 years now, why are the first 3 years being ignored?

We must never forget this but I write from the perspective of what I know. This is a document that is aimed at developing the entity that began to emerge in October 2011 when I started. The German chapter produced a book celebrating its history, perhaps we coud do something similar?

• I am absolutely gobsmacked to read a statement saying that Wikimedia UK has been inhibited by "An Animal Farm culture of ‘Volunteers good, staff bad’." That is an outrageous statement to make. I'd like you to provide evidence to back that statement up, please, or to apologise for it.

It is a strong statement but one I believe was true. Just as I would not try and deny your genuine feelings I think you should accept that there have been instances where the work of the chapter and its development was held back by not trusting staff to do their jobs and a culture of micromanagement. For the evidence start with the Hudson review and the Amida Situational review. Happily we made a lot of progress very quickly and this is now in the past.

• It's odd to see the FDC staff's comments quoted rather than the FDC's comments in the last round. I suspect that's because the FDC's comments were rather more critical?

AGF please - I used that statement because it was concise and referred to the generality of the programme. I also thought it was fair. In this exercise please point to our deficiencies as we need to address them.

• "The staff represent our largest cost and biggest asset." No, volunteers are (or should be) your biggest asset... However, "There have been constant criticisms that they do not represent real Wikimedians" {{citation needed}}... But as has been pointed out numerous times before, they would be much better off if they were supporting volunteers to do more, rather than "attempting to cover too much".

Biggest cost - yes but of course the whole community is our asset.

• "Getting the best from staff needs sufficient management support time and we don’t have this." Yes, I agree. Remember when I was pushing for the equivalent of an assistant manager/deputy?
• At this point, TBH I ran out of motivation to read further. I skimmed ahead looking for your proposals, but I couldn't find them. I also couldn't find the link to them in the contents page. At the very least, that should indicate that you need to clearly set them out in brief earlier in the document!

Eleven Point Plan has some specifics. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2014 (BST)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (BST)

Comments from an editor

I happened to read the annual report. There seemed to be a re-writing of history. Michael Maggs praised Chris Keating for sorting out the governance and other issues, like you say above, as if it was the dark ages before that LoopZilla (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2014 (BST)

I think that's a touch unfair. Chris while Chair, although obviously not single-handedly, steered the charity through some pretty difficult times, including the governance reviews. I thought it was appropriate that Michael acknowledged this and if it had been overlooked would likely to have been seen as revisionist and opaque. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2014 (BST)