a good idea?
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:
- 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.
- 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...