Hi Selena, thanks a lot for sharing, very useful.
Best Yaroslav On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 1:54 AM Selena Deckelmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I joined the Wikimedia Foundation on August 1 of last year in a newly > created role as the Chief Product and Technology Officer (CPTO). (For the > first few weeks, some of the staff called me C3PO as they got used to the > new title :) The role was created to bring both the Product and Technology > departments back under a single accountable leader for the first time since > about 2015. Like Maryana > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Chief_Executive_Officer/Maryana%E2%80%99s_Listening_Tour>, > I decided to spend the first few months of my time at Wikimedia listening > and learning. Although I come from the open source technology field, and > have worked with volunteers and communities in prior jobs, it felt > important to start here with curiosity and openness about what’s working > well and what needs to change. > > Since then, I have met one on one and in small groups with more than 360 > people, who spoke with me from 38 different countries. I also attended 22 > large and small convenings and events which included about 3,150 people. > This includes members of the Foundation’s product and technology teams, > other Foundation staff, editors, functionaries, affiliates, movement > organizers and open internet partners. I tried to approach every > conversation with curiosity, openness, and eagerness, letting go of any > preconceptions I may have had (intentionally embracing beginner’s mind > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin>) about the Foundation, the > Wikimedia projects, and communities worldwide that contribute to creating > and sharing free knowledge. I can confirm that I quickly found myself awash > in details, experiencing a firehose of information from all sides! My > husband and two young children have also learned a lot more about this > movement in the last six months than you might expect. > > To provide myself with some structure, I asked everyone the same kind of > questions about: (1) the impact our product and technology organizations > have had on the movement and/or the world in the last five years, and what > people were most proud of; (2) the current vision and strategy and if they > will take us where we need to go; and (3) the most promising opportunities > that people see in our work, and what is needed to realize that potential. > > I want to thank everyone who took the time to share with me, and I’ve > included some direct, anonymized quotes in this letter from the > conversations I had. And I want to confirm that the listening continues — I > will create more spaces in the year ahead for dedicated conversations about > some of the important topics I have highlighted below. I will also be > posting this letter to Meta. > > Pulling in the same direction: More visible and shared metrics > > On a page of the first notebook I had for my onboarding, I quoted a person > who said they just wanted "meaningful common goals." This was a theme > repeated over and over — a clear desire from everyone to do work together > that was linked by common purpose, and with all the volunteers that have > created all Wikimedia projects. I got to hear so many different voices, and > I heard the details from every side — what’s working, what hasn’t been > working for a long time — some of the problems we face are over ten years > old. People shared what’s missing, what’s extra, who’s fighting to be heard > and who’s feeling lost at sea. > > "I think there are lots of promising opportunities to incentivise people > to pay off technical debt and make our existing stack more sustainable. > Right now there are no incentives for engineers in this regard." > > "Are we really having impact?" > > How can we unite behind meaningful common goals? And which metrics matter > the most? We have so much data, but we really need lodestar > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lodestar> (or some refer to this as north > star) metrics across the whole Foundation, a system for reviewing and > reflecting on what we learn from them, and then a way to connect those > metrics with the day to day work everyone is doing. > > To get at that, we’re doing two main things — one is deepening our > understanding of volunteer activities and the health of the volunteer > communities. This will be through working closely with volunteers using > existing processes and sharing what we’re learning, as well as qualitative > and quantitative research workstreams, including reviewing existing > research of volunteer activities and typical work profiles. The other is > working to establish a set of Foundation-wide lodestar metrics. Shared > metrics help everyone understand how we’re measuring success across the > Foundation, and we’re sharing these publicly as part of our Annual Plan. > Over time, we plan to bring our measures of success for important > initiatives to communities for conversations and debate to help everyone > align what success might look like. Shared metrics and data will empower us > to make more effective and better decisions, along with collaboration with > those who are working on changes and those who may be directly affected by > them. > > What does our open source strategy look like for today’s world? > > "I strongly believe that Wikipedia will be obsolete by 2030 if we don’t > fix MediaWiki now." > > What is our open source strategy? > > We have to make some harder choices about what it means to be an > open-source organization, and shift the conversation to resolve historic > debates that prevent us from making important, strategic choices. > > Two big areas to resolve are: > > - > > What is our strategy for MediaWiki support? Today there is a tug of > war about whether we should support MediaWiki for third-party users, even > though their use cases have diverged significantly from those of Wikimedia > projects. I’m planning a MediaWiki convening in late 2023 to begin tackling > this issue. > - > > What is our strategy for third-party re-use of Wikimedia content? > There are a lot of nuances around rate limiting and updating the existing > API policies in line with our values around open access. How can we > coordinate more across the Foundation and technical volunteers to build > greater understanding and alignment? Wikimedia project content also has > become a cornerstone of artificial intelligence (AI) products. Wikipedias > have long used machine learning (ML) to improve content and detect > vandalism. How can we help support the use of ML and AI that is a public > good? We have started some conversations > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024/Draft/External_Trends/Community_call_notes> > about this but need to go further. > > > What will it take to have impact at scale? > > "Before we can think about strategy, we need to answer ‘do we want to > change this culture to work with a unified strategy, or do we want to > change the strategy methodology to work with a decentralized culture? Or > some combination thereof?’" > > What is our strategy for scaling that will allow us to have the most > impact with limited resources? > > Today we support over 750+ distinct Wikimedia projects, with over 300 of > those including language versions of Wikipedia, Wikisource, multiple > language versions of Wiktionary, and many other free knowledge projects. > > What is an efficient and responsible way to steward the limited resources > we have towards Wikipedia and/or the sister projects? And similar to the > earlier conversation about Foundation metrics – we must do this in a way > that can have an impact on our mission of bringing free knowledge to the > whole world. > > Some of the big questions that came up included consolidation of projects > and the technology underpinning them where it makes sense, and from a > prompt given to me by the Commons community – how can we think even bigger, > and question elephants in the room, which in part would be to examine the > long-standing and seemingly unquestioned assumption that MediaWiki is the > best software to solve all problems we face. And if we do solve big > problems in different ways, what does that look like? What can we learn > from projects like WikiLearn, which uses free software not made by the > Foundation, as well as people and organizations outside our movement? This > is definitely a multi-year, rich problem space to explore. > > Everyone’s relationship with English Wikipedia, including the Wikimedia > Foundation’s > > "For various reasons, the Foundation and some parts of the communities are > stuck in an uneasy relationship where the Foundation admires but fears the > communities’ power, like a beautiful but dangerous animal – the tiger might > attack you – and the communities, not least English Wikipedia, distrust the > Foundation." > > My experience so far has been that we have a very contentious relationship > with English Wikipedia. The Foundation raises most of the revenue to > support a global movement from English Wikipedia, and it’s often where > volunteers raise most of the concerns and objections to the Foundation’s > work. > > It's painfully affecting volunteers and staff that are trying to maintain > content and code, and make important improvements to all the websites, as > with the launch of Vector 2022 this year. It has made product and > engineering teams very conservative in their approach to rolling out > features, making each change take 12 or 18 months, or years!, to get > valuable features to users. And it impacts our ability to collaborate with > communities on and off English Wikipedia on big goals like knowledge equity > and the movement strategy recommendations. As Yoda noted > <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fear#L>, fear is the path to the dark > side. This is a bummer, and I’d like it to change. > > So how do we break this cycle? What I’m doing now is directly engaging. > Today, for example, I participated in an office hours session to talk about > Vector 2022. Some of the product senior leadership in the recent past have > specifically avoided talking directly with people on English Wikipedia, and > this approach will no longer be applied. Engaging human to human is the > best way I know to help resolve some of the mystery, fear and anger that > are present. However, that will absolutely not fix what’s wrong here. We > need systemic solutions. Today, there’s no way to make lasting and mutually > binding agreements with volunteers, and that isn’t a sustainable way to > create and maintain infrastructure software. My hope is that, with a more > open and direct approach to engage and also through the work of the > Movement Charter Drafting Committee, we will chart out a path for more > lasting, productive collaboration. > > Being more intentional, and also clear, in our technical support for > volunteers > > "We lack clear governance and communication for most of our tech > components, squandering a lot of the opportunities we have for more and > better participation from long-time and new volunteers." > > How can the Foundation be more intentional about our relationship with all > volunteers? > > Today we have few and incomplete policies about what volunteers can do in > technical spaces. We need to chart clearer boundaries, and move more toward > rational and practical policy instead of precedent guiding our work. > > Similarly, the technical spaces where the Foundation "stays out" have felt > ad hoc, which led to volunteers stepping in to do important work. The > Foundation needs to exhibit better accountability in maintaining essential > services (e.g. 2-factor authentication), and to be explicit about the > technical tasks that it is definitely leaving for volunteers to own. > > Finally, we really need to embrace a product development model that’s more > collaborative and efficient. This calls into question feedback tools like > RfCs, and takes into consideration movement "technology council" proposals. > What will really make us better together? I’m really interested in finding > an answer to this question. > > Three Priorities for the Coming Year > > What I have identified above are complex issues that cannot be solved in a > single year. We all need to take a multi-year view, especially in order to > define the precise issues that need to be solved more carefully. > > For now, you have seen the draft annual plan priorities for the > Foundation’s Product/Tech teams and they include: > > - *Volunteers*: We need closer connections, with a focus on making all > time spent volunteering fulfilling and productive. I will continue to talk > directly to volunteers, on-wiki and in person. I am making a shift in our > Annual Plan to support the work and improve the experience of "editors with > extended rights" (inclusive of admins, stewards, patrollers, and moderators > of all kinds, which are also known as functionaries). The work done by this > group on mis- and dis-information and on enforcing our Universal Code of > Conduct is crucial to the functioning of all Wikimedia projects. Success > requires that we are able to have metrics to guide our progress, identify > ways of measuring the health of communities, and that we do this work hand > in hand with volunteers. > - *Maintenance*: Staff and volunteers have both identified that we > have far too many unfinished technical migrations. This means that we > continue to support both old and new tools and ways of doing our technical > work. This increases the workload of everyone, without necessarily adding > features or improving our technical systems overall. Challenges include > issues with Foundation staff and volunteer community decision making, > accountability for that decision making and the best projects to pursue, > and, on the Foundation's side, a desire to not cause upset among > volunteers. As a result, we have many abandoned or poorly maintained tools. > We must be able to choose maintenance and technical migration areas for > prioritization, and then be ok with not doing work on others in order to > complete some of these big projects. For example, we have big work to do on > our data infrastructure, which is aging and made up of more than 40 > distinct and fragile systems supported by a tiny team. We also have big > work to do on MediaWiki to ensure it can support our projects for the next > 20 years. > - *Decision making*: From the very start of my time with the > Foundation, a common theme that kept coming up was the confusion that > internal teams had around decision making structures and accountability. I > heard stories about teams being indefinitely stuck, unclear decisions from > the past, and an inability to make and keep a decision. I view decision > making like lifting weights: you get good at it by doing it, incrementally > and consistently, over a long period of time. To start, I am making > decisions around the structure and organization of the Product and > Technology teams within the Foundation in order to make decision owners > more clear, direct and transparent. We’re collaborating better together > internally, and raising long-standing unresolved issues between teams in > order to resolve them, one by one. As I look ahead, clarity of decision > making and how we align our work towards our three objectives will be a > core part of how I organize teams. > > In addition, I believe that decision making and achieving lasting positive > results needs to be rooted in data. We will identify essential metrics to > evaluate progress and assess impact on the three objectives of our work. > This allows us to stay focused on our most important goals, make > adjustments as needed, and track our progress over time. > > I am committed to promoting transparent and accountable decision making at > all levels of management and individual contributor leadership. As I wrote > earlier in this letter, I also welcome ideas on how to build well-defined > processes for engaging with communities and making decisions that endure. > These changes to how we make decisions will allow us to move more quickly, > be more responsive, and create a larger impact for our goals over time. > > What’s Next > > During my listening tour, some staff asked me an "elephant in the room" > question: why should they trust me? Given the number of different > executives who have come to the Foundation and left within a year or two, > skepticism about yet another new leader is high. My answer was: I believe > the problems we face, as a Foundation and volunteers striving to bring free > knowledge to the world, are complex puzzles that cannot be solved by one > person, and I’m committed to a multi-year approach to collaboratively solve > them together. > > > Success requires more than a product roadmap. We need deep and effective > collaboration between the Foundation and all volunteers and communities, > shared ways to learn and be successful together, and constant adaptation to > changes in the internet and world, so we can solve the big puzzles we face > together. > > Trust is built over time and through consistency, so I don’t ask for trust > as I begin my work. I ask that people be open to working closely together, > learning as much as we can about the important problems we face, and that > we regularly review our work in a data-informed way. > > I would like to be direct about how difficult I know some of these topics > are, even for a discussion. But it is our job to tackle the most difficult > questions, especially where inaction due to fear has led to stagnation and > demotivation amongst both our staff and communities. This is not going to > be a quick turnaround. None of these issues will be a quick or easy fix. > Building and improving systems will be a lot of work, and will take a lot > of patience. But the payoff for solving each of these puzzles will be that > we’re able to engage more fully, and maybe even more joyfully, in our work. > > My listening tour was an invaluable opportunity to get candid information > about what exactly is working, what isn’t, and what ideas everyone has for > creating something great together. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but > I’m encouraged by the energy and enthusiasm and I know we’ll be able to > tackle this together. > > Next time you’ll hear from me is August to share the outcomes of community > discussions related to annual planning > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024>, > and where I think we’re going to have impact in the coming year. In the > meantime, I want to share a few questions that I’ll be returning to > regularly: Are there examples of big issues that we've tackled well as a > movement? Where would you suggest I draw inspiration? What's worked well? > These are the complex issues that will guide my priorities over the coming > years. What elephants am I missing? > > As I shared when I joined > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/XO27SCB2UKZ6H6YRKFZLBR4URFW2VPGW/>, > I came to work for the Wikimedia Foundation because free access to > knowledge is the most important thing I can be doing right now. Our work > empowers the people who have knowledge to share. By involving youth, women, > and underrepresented identities to contribute their unique knowledge, we > will continue our journey to share the sum of all human knowledge. And this > kind of mission cannot be accomplished by any one person alone; we are > called to – and I feel strongly committed to – collaborate and truly be in > this mission together. > > -selena > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/SD4RPMFUWT6PJANGV37OJCNPG7SWXIQJ/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/TKGW2PYTW6T5W4AJGO4JDH2RHOWSBYMA/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
