a good idea?

you are absolutely right that there is a budget range buried in the middle of that letter (which yes, I have read before). And indeed, I should have noticed it, extrapolated to the kind of staff growth proposed on this page, and lodged a thoughtful criticism. However, I find your suggestion that this proposal has raised no eyebrows absurd -- are you seriously saying that there is anything this important within Wikimedia that someone wouldn't find fault with? You know the community better than that :) If there is not even a single complaint, I think it simply means it hasn't been discussed at all.

What I meant by provenance was that it would be nice to know where specific recommendations come from: the recommendation to grow the staff to a particular number, the budget recommendations, etc.

And I think it's disingenuous to suggest that tripling the size of the Foundation wouldn't change it. The question is whether those changes are good and appropriate for our community, which is, as you note, quite special.

I'm not suggesting that no one would find fault with it. Obviously, you do, and so I'm glad we're discussing it here. You seem to be suggesting that this goal would have created much more controversy if it were more explicit. I do not agree with that, and frankly, from the feedback on this thread, your blog post, and foundation-l, I'm not seeing that from others.

If anything, the feeling that I get from conversations here and elsewhere is that people want the Wikimedia Foundation to do a lot more than it can, it will, and in my opinion, it should. One of the motivations behind the reframing of this wiki around the Call for action and Proposals was to help people realize what they are capable of without needing Foundation approval or intervention.

I never suggested that tripling the size of the Foundation wouldn't change it. From an organizational standpoint, your questions are very valid. My suggestion was that the growth target would not shift the power equation between the Foundation and the community.

I do think that the relationship between the Foundation and the community is an ongoing challenge, one that needs to be addressed. Jan-Bart and Arne are initiating a movement roles discussion as a way to make progress with these challenges, and I hope they and others leverage this wiki to do so.

Finally, it's very fair for you to ask about the methodology for coming up with those numbers, and I'll ping Bridgespan about sharing this.

well, I for one was surpised to see all this and only noticed it because of a mention in The Signpost. However my concern doesn't lie in the rapid growth - I think we need to grow and take risks or else be left just being "that encyclopedia that was innovative in 2006". However, I do have 2 other concerns:

1. I don't see where the-people-formerly-known-as-the-community sit in this plan. Personally, I am neither an employee of the WMF nor am I a very active contributor of content to the projects (I'm not an article-writer) and as such I don't see what role I have in the movement if there is no scope for participating outside of these.

1. The foundation's professionalisation over the last few years has been great and I'm very happy with it. I do wish however that rather than the WMF investing directly in chapter-like projects, that it would invest in the development of the professionalisation of the chapters themselves so that they can do the outreach on the ground. Currently, we do not have a "rising tide lifts all boats" relationship between the WMF and Chapters and this plan doesn't seem to set out any ways to rectify that. This leaves the chapters in a position of a) not being able to support the WMF professionally and b)a parternalistic system of WMF handouts to chapters when requested.

Regarding investment in developing Chapters: That is absolutely part of the plan. And you're right, for some reason, it's not listed in Strategic Plan/Role of the WMF. I will see if we can get clarification on that.

Regarding your opportunity/role as a non-active contributor and a non-staff member. I have two thoughts. You, in particular, are in many ways the ideal example of a community member who is making a huge difference for the movement simply by doing what you do. (For people who don't know about Liam's British Museum work, see his blog.) I think this kind of work squarely falls under the second of the Strategic Plan/Movement Priorities -- improve content quality.

The fact that you, as an active contributor, look at the plan, and you don't see a role for yourself, troubles me. So I'd like to explore how we could make this better.

One way would be to create a page called Strategic Plan/Movement Roles. This was the original intention. It didn't happen because this page has to be written by members of the movement (which happened with the Strategic Plan/Movement Priorities page, and for whatever reason, we've had difficulty getting people contributing to a movement roles discussion on this wiki. I allude to this a bit in my comment above about Jan-Bart and Arne's initiative.

But that doesn't mean it can't happen. Would you and others (Phoebe, perhaps) be willing to take a crack at such a page?

If the active investment in the professional development of the chapters is indeed part of the plan - I would love to see that explained more as to how the WMF plans to do that. I see that "growing and thriving chapters" is a key indicator in "Goal: Increase Participation" so that's great :-)

As for the issue of allowing (nay - encouraging) people to engage in more ways than the writing of content... perhaps it is inevitable that that will become harder. I do feel that I personally am lucky to have found a niche in the wikiverse at this time in its development. 5 years ago I would not be able to do what I'm doing today because Wikipedia wasn't as famous then. 5 years from now in the future I wouldn't be able to do what I'm doing now because the organisational infrastructure will be more solid - meaning joe-wikipedian couldn't just go off and talk with a museum without approval from someone "official". It's only right now in 2010 that I am able to do what I'm doing - not before or after. So, I suppose it's inevitable that as we professionalise we will also lose the ability for the outreach-amateurs like me to do things. It's just the way it's going to be. I think it's necessary that we become more professional but we should at least provide ways of allowing people who are not professionals (but nevertheless interested) to develop their skills.

I understand I may be sounding contradictory here - on the one hand I'm arguing for active support of chapter professionalisation and on the other hand I'm lamenting the loss of the ability of volunteers to just go out and do something. Not sure how to reconcile those...