Talk:WMUK risk discussion: Difference between revisions
(centralisation) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Schisms with the foundation== | ==Schisms with the foundation== | ||
Of course schism and even forking is a risk for the organisation in various ways, but I'm not sure that the best way to present this is in terms of "Schisms with the foundation" being a separate risk in its own right. My concern is that overly focussing on the risk of that relationship failing could lead to WMUK putting that relationship above others and adopting a strategy of defaulting to support of the Foundation in its many disputes with the movement. Perhaps a better way to express describe this risk would be to simply put that the Wikimedia Foundation's centralisation agenda is a risk to the chapter? [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 09:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | Of course schism and even forking is a risk for the organisation in various ways, but I'm not sure that the best way to present this is in terms of "Schisms with the foundation" being a separate risk in its own right. My concern is that overly focussing on the risk of that relationship failing could lead to WMUK putting that relationship above others and adopting a strategy of defaulting to support of the Foundation in its many disputes with the movement. Perhaps a better way to express describe this risk would be to simply put that the Wikimedia Foundation's centralisation agenda is a risk to the chapter? [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 09:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::A very diplomatic proposal. | |||
[[User:Jon Davies WMUK|Jon Davies WMUK]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies WMUK|talk]]) 09:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:47, 24 April 2012
Welcome.
The Risk Register
Most organizations use a system of "weights" on risk, and also mitigation. So, for a financial risk, the mitigation is more income. Usually done with charts and colours. Wondered if the mitigation side of things was worth thinking about now, as well as the effects of the risk? LoopZilla (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Completely agree. This was Jon's initial top half dozen. Though I suggest it remains a simple and manageably short list, I would like to see assessments of impact (not just financial impact but other important measures such as reputation impact), likelihood, the contingency plan and residual risk (i.e. those risks that remain once the counter measure is in place). Ideally I would like to see some real churn as risks get managed and their ranking changes as a result. This way the top 5 risks for review in board meetings with the trustees (a standard part of their duties for the charity) would hopefully keep changing. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Schisms with the foundation
Of course schism and even forking is a risk for the organisation in various ways, but I'm not sure that the best way to present this is in terms of "Schisms with the foundation" being a separate risk in its own right. My concern is that overly focussing on the risk of that relationship failing could lead to WMUK putting that relationship above others and adopting a strategy of defaulting to support of the Foundation in its many disputes with the movement. Perhaps a better way to express describe this risk would be to simply put that the Wikimedia Foundation's centralisation agenda is a risk to the chapter? WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- A very diplomatic proposal.
Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)