Talk:Wikimedia Engineering/Goals Proposal

Horizontal vs vertical table for the example
Most teams at the WMF have more than one goal per quarter (at least for now) and normally have them all listed in the same table a la: Wikimedia_Release_Engineering_Team/Goals/201516Q3. Can/Should we re-orient the example table to be in the same style as what we use now? Reverse question: Should teams start using one table per goal? Greg (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea. I've added this as an alternate layout.Trevor Parscal (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Specify Owner
Very interesting proposal, thank you. I'm advocating for the addition of the individual Owner, considering it a critical piece of information (is there an owner? if so, who?). See T124065 Add Owner column to WMF quarterly goals template.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In some sense, we already have this, as every department defines who owns the process of setting the goals and puts the name of that person on the page. Presumably, that person knows who in their team is working on which goals. What specific problem are we attempting to solve by adding this extra information? --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just dropped this suggestion. Thank you for listening and replying. :) --Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reports
Is this discussion also related to the methods and practices of periodic reporting to the community? On which see T24. Nemo 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Strengthen/Focus/Experiment?
As of right now most teams categorize their quarterly goals into one of those 3 buckets per the current WMF strategy/vision. I only mention that because right now I include that category on my team's goals (a la Wikimedia_Release_Engineering_Team/Goals/201516Q3). Should the example be updated (again :) ) to include that information? Greg (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It actually is, but it's clearly too subtle. I've made it bold - but if it's really important to break it out, we could certainly adjust the format a bit to make that work. I was actually trying to avoid goals just being a pile of multiple-choice values. I figured writing what you are doing in a sentence, such as "Focus on Y", "Strengthen X" and "Experiment with Z" would help make the focus/strengthen/experiment designation less arbitrary. We tend to say "well, this could be any of those", which I feel is a sign that you aren't being specific enough or making the right goal.Trevor Parscal (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Worth a try
Our current format creates a tension between writing an objective which outlines the high-level reason why a goal is important (e.g. "Make www.wikipedia.org a portal for exploring open content on Wikimedia sites") and outlining the specifics of what work will be done (e.g. "Run A/B tests with the intention of decreasing page bounce rate from 60% to 50%"). The new format helps alleviate this by allowing a bit more narrative to be given. I support giving this new format a try for Q4 2015/16 (April - June 2016) as an experiment; if it doesn't work out for whatever reason, or if we just decide we prefer the old system, it's nearly trivial to revert back to the old system for Q1 2016/17 (July - September 2016). --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Giving time to outcomes
Yes. I really like the idea of splitting outputs and outcomes (and is more in line with program evaluation theory!) My one suggestion is that outcomes typically take time and must always happen after the output, so I think we need to give time to share outcomes. For example - If a product is completed in one quarter, can we really expect outcomes the same quarter?? Should we report outcomes throughout the year as we complete projects? Evaluation/measuring takes time as well; so this might allow room for making time for this work. As a second example, we ask affiliates to have their Impact Report three months after their grant ends.--EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)