Talk:Community Engagement (Product)/Collaboration process/Draft

Early stage draft
This might look better in table format. Considering visualization options; ideas welcome. --Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Exit path
Perhaps it's supposed to be implied, or an oversight, but the process does not appear to cover any exit path for cancelling a project after problems are identified. The draft indicates that projects can only be "kicked back to an earlier stage" for continued development when issues are raised. I hope you'll forgive me for noting that this is a painfully accurate reminder of the WMF's existing Community Engagement / Collaboration Process. Alsee (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alsee, for raising this - it's something we should be asking around towards. Kicking back a project to an earlier stage generally indicates a rethinking, recalibration, redesign of the product against the problems it intends to resolve - problems which, when the product in development is cancelled, are still oftentimes a problem. I think it's more likely that a product in development would be kicked back rather than canceled, but it's appropriate that it be considered.
 * Something else that I've also been thinking: what is an initiative or product sunsetting process when WMF or communities turn off a product that has immense code rot, is otherwise unused, or some other reason to remove a particular feature (usually *not* one in development, usually a product that is no longer being supported). We do not seem to have one. I also think that how we (when I say "we", I mean the Foundation product team in collaboration with communities) make decisions initially to implement something (deciding which projects to do and when to do them) is in need of discussion. I've raised this a bit internally, and think that when the new audience-based product verticals are more settled into their individual product development processes that a there will be much more clarity around it.
 * I created this particular page in time for the MediaWiki Developer's Summit in SF in January (you can see how the first image is actually from the Product Development process draft, and then my team moved to Community Engagement Dept then Product/Engineering was reorg'ed - lots of change in a couple of months. CE(P) process supports product development process so that communities are engaged and informed in appropriate ways, so I'm asking what these new product verticals need so we can rebuild around that. Cheers, -Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft or defunct?
The discussion above suggests that this page, although named "Draft", is in fact now defunct. please would you clarify its status? Are you basing your thinking on it still? It not, perhaps you could share the new basis for our thinking with the community, who may be in a position to help. Where will you move the discussion on to -- Community Tech, Community Engagement (Product)/Process ideas, Community Engagement (Product)/Products, Community Engagement (Product)/Product Surveys, Community engagement strategy all spring to mind. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In practical terms, this team's process can't be finalized until the newly reorganized Engineering department finalizes (or completely replaces; it's up to them) its product development processes. I doubt that they will make any significant, concrete progress on theirs until after the new fiscal year begins (because some of the re-org changes won't take place until then).  Realistically, useful progress on this page will be delayed for months.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being so frank. Is there any time planned at which you may be able to restart the process of developing processes for collaborating with the community?  Or implementing them?  Or are these indefinitely postponed?  Do you plan any activities in this area in the interim?   do you regard this as a wholly satisfactory state of affairs? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Rogol Domedonfors, we like to think that we have never completely stopped finding ways to collaborate with the communities. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to list some of your more successful ways? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rogol Domedonfors - the process has been quite iterative; a bit on-the-fly. For example, two new types of WMF product engagement, public bug triage meetings and the Papercuts survey (modified from WikiData's Paper cuts exercise), both for VisualEditor in Q3, were initiatives that were suggested and immediately implemented. Now that there are four different product verticals, there is a need to revisit the product development process overall. This page continues to be a draft, though I do see why you might wonder if it might be defunct. I have continued to raise product process as a need, as I'm able to. I've placed it on CL's team's Q1 goals - but the core dependency is still on engineering process being created or at least re-drafted.
 * In regards to your question about where the conversation should head - it makes sense that this team's process has a space on MediaWiki. As for the other pages you mention - Community Tech wouldn't be the place, as that's a different team, the Process ideas page was a brainstorm (page not started by me, and was started before this page was created), Product surveys was an initiative that *might* get some additional clarity and help from Community Tech when that team gets off the ground and if/when it is deemed in scope of their priorities process. I guess it's also fair to say that had I been making these pages now (my tenure has just passed a year at the Foundation, having come from outside the movement completely, so my learning curve is steep) - I might have made a different decision as to where some of these pages lived when I created them.
 * You mention that communities may be in a position to help. I agree, and thank you for the gentle prod. Given that you mention this - what are your ideas at this time? :) Re activities: The team is having a roundtable at Wikimania, but of course, Wikimania is not necessarily the most widespread of crowds and voices. The team is continuing to think on it. I am finally getting to my watch-list this afternoon, and I see a few more items from you, so I'll check on those and respond as appropriate. Cheers, -Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already commented at meta:Talk:Community Engagement (Product) that we need a clear, actionable, statement of what matters that the community wish to raise are, and are not, within your remit, and clear and authoritative statement of where and how such matters may be effectively raised. What we want and need, is a single, prompt, clear, accessible, agreed, authoritative, reliable, actionable statement of what these things actually are.  Within the areas of your team's responsibility we look for a process that delivers a team member who owns each issue, who is known, accountable to the community and responsible for managing each issue into a clear, agreed and constructive resolution or transition into further action as the case may be.  Is that really so much to ask? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)