Talk:Towards a five year plan 2013-18: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(comments)
Line 3: Line 3:
==How long should the plan be?==
==How long should the plan be?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
 
*A piece of string - failing that, 6-10 pages, with some discursive commentary or notes, or 3-4 without [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


==Should it relate to the Foundation's Strategic Priorities?==
==Should it relate to the Foundation's Strategic Priorities?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
 
*Yes [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


==Should it create its own strategic Priorities?==
==Should it create its own strategic Priorities?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
 
*Yes, absolutely [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


==How do we reconcile global and local community interests?==
==How do we reconcile global and local community interests?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
 
*Priority to local [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


==What sort of internal structure should it have, e.g. work areas, targets, success criteria, SWOT analysis etc?==
==What sort of internal structure should it have, e.g. work areas, targets, success criteria, SWOT analysis etc?==
Line 29: Line 29:
==How much depth should we look for?==
==How much depth should we look for?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
 
*Not too much [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


==What should we NOT put in?==
==What should we NOT put in?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
 
*Lots of detail [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


==Who should we consult and involve?==
==Who should we consult and involve?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
 
*Membership & community. Donors. Some other chapters. WMF probably unlikely to want to comment. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


==How should we consult and involve them?==
==How should we consult and involve them?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
 
*Ask for comments. I'd like to see some organized events with a session discussing. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


==How do we make sure it reaches the widest possible community?==
==How do we make sure it reaches the widest possible community?==
Line 49: Line 49:
==How often should it be reviewed, by whom and in what ways?==
==How often should it be reviewed, by whom and in what ways?==
:''Comments''
:''Comments''
*Annually is enough for the full 5yrs. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:42, 10 January 2013

Some starter questions:Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How long should the plan be?

Comments
  • A piece of string - failing that, 6-10 pages, with some discursive commentary or notes, or 3-4 without Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Should it relate to the Foundation's Strategic Priorities?

Comments

Should it create its own strategic Priorities?

Comments
  • Yes, absolutely Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we reconcile global and local community interests?

Comments
  • Priority to local Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What sort of internal structure should it have, e.g. work areas, targets, success criteria, SWOT analysis etc?

I would like to see the plan being placed in a context of both the Wikimedia movement (WMF) and our own strategic goals - these can be broad commitments linked to our mission and values. The plan could be broken down by operational areas; Governance, Finance, Outreach, Fundraising, Communications, Membership, Community etc and then each should have sections with SMART targets for the period. I'm not sure smaller (i.e. 1 year, 3 year) targets work as well here because there will have to be some year-to-year flexibility to accommodate the unforeseen - but the broad goal should remain)

This is much in line with the plan we've already developed, and is a conventional way of working in the HE sector - have a look at |my former employer's five year plan as an example.

The additional virtue of this is that Trustees, Staff and Volunteers can start to frame spending decisions and proposals for programmic work in the same way i.e. how to they serve the strategic goals and SMART targets within the plan. Not really rocket science, and personally speaking, I'd really appreciate having this sort of structure in which to plan the work of my role :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't equate the Wikimedia movement with the WMF! --Tango (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Apologies! ;) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How much depth should we look for?

Comments
  • Not too much Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What should we NOT put in?

Comments
  • Lots of detail Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who should we consult and involve?

Comments
  • Membership & community. Donors. Some other chapters. WMF probably unlikely to want to comment. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How should we consult and involve them?

Comments
  • Ask for comments. I'd like to see some organized events with a session discussing. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we make sure it reaches the widest possible community?

Comments


How often should it be reviewed, by whom and in what ways?

Comments
  • Annually is enough for the full 5yrs. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)