Task forces burned out IMHO

I understand your frustration, and I agree that the strategy process has to be constantly updated -- not just with 5 year forecasts. But I think this was a great first step. Like Yaroslav said, a collection of proposals can never be strategy. We needed a better process than the usual "support/oppose a bunch of proposals" mechanism, and we most definitely got it. The task forces looked at the proposals, looked at the interviews, looked at the research, and picked 2-4 areas they should all focus on.

Kozuch, Randomran, Yaroslav, thanks for your words. I know I speak for Eugene as well when I say that one of the great joys of this process is working with smart people. Kozuch, I don't agree, certainly, with some of your conclusions, but I really respect the honesty and thought that you put into them.

The reality of this project as it was started was that it's funded for a finite time period. There's no question that in an ideal world strategy would be an ongoing tweak and massage. I hope that what we're creating here is a process by which the community will be able to continue to work on these things, long after the project's funding has ended.

Eugene and I have been spending some energy lately on transition planning - what should happen with this wiki, and the hundreds of ideas (proposals) that were presented. One thing we're considering and I'm going to propose here - and create a page to work on - is rebranding this space as "futurewiki" or something similar. The idea then can be that we elevate the visibility of the proposals and turn this into a space for gathering support and planning the implementation of those proposals or others that might come in later. Then, this can be a space for dreaming and solving issues, while meta can become a space for dealing with the practical implementation of them.

It's sort of a standard business practice to try to spec out the future... I don't think doing a five year plan is crazy. I do think that having some idea of where we'll be in five years is probably a good idea. From a Foundation/movement resources perspective, I think it makes sense to get together on "who's doing what, when, and how". Obviously the future gets hazy the further out you go.

So, that's my thought on the matter. :)

PS - I would ask, though, that when we discuss this stuff, we discuss ideas and issues, without using pejorative terms. I'm kind of offended by "idiotic", etc. Can we keep it to something more civil, please? :)

Thanks!

I appreciate you took time to reply. The problem of your (and Eugenes) limited timeframe is real one. Hopefully the foundation will be able to hire some staff for a permanent strategy work. All in all, the strategy of course has not been that bad in general, I just tried to point out some broader context. It is really not about "printing" some recommendations that nobody will follow then, I think it really has a broader sence.