What do we agree on?
Fragment of a discussion from Talk:Task force/Strategy
Rated by: Gain/Cost/Feasibility?
I think it could be a good idea to evaluate the recommendations on these or some similar criterias now.
Maybe on the following criterias.
- Gain: How large impact will the strategy have?
- Cost: How much money will it cost?
- Required volunteer effort: How much volunteer effort is needed to be put into this strategy?
- Volunteer support: How many volunteers are likely to support this strategy. For example MediaWiki development might have high potential gain, low cost and low volunteer effort, while the strategy still gets complicated because there is a restricted amount of volunteers that are able to contribute.
- Feasibility: Is there any other obstacles that makes the strategy hard to implement.
Or may be in the first run just split them into two groups: those which can be realized within the framework of existing WMF-wide policies and those which may require changes in the policies.
Some things we should be thinking about for long-term strategy:
- what are the major opportunities and risks?
- what is the short-term and sustaining/long-term cost? (in effort, funds, partnerships, &c)
- how much of the implementation is known? are there incremental measures of success?
- what is the overall time-frame? (and will the effect be felt forever, or will it be eclipsed later?)
- will the desired result happen anyway, but perhaps more slowly, without this strategy?
- I'm not sure that 'cost' and 'volunteer effort' need to be separated too strongly.
- I wouldn't place too high a value on what estimates for 'volunteer support' -- and while we may estimate that within the current active community, there are 1000 happy users for every member of the current group of active editors [and they are willing to help with strategy, as evidenced by the flood of support we got after the first site notice!]
Sj