Meeting Notes/2016-01-20 Core Fraction

Old business

1. Last week: "Should we offer a summary of this discussion, and link to these notes, in the current email threads?  (Earlier decision was: No, wait another week, nothing concrete yet.)"
   1. Time for a summary yet?
      1. Yes (see below)
   2. Where is this discussion happening?
      1. "Canonical Document": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RxM7Zt7xq6grY2bkxwk-6biMgotkx_sVFyGj1a0Y__A/edit (moved to Mediawiki)
      2. "[Wmfall] Annual Plan 2016-17" https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/wmfall/2016-January/019271.html
      3. "[teampractices] Please help define the term "core work"" https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/2016-January/000968.html
   3. Why would we do this?
      1. manage conversation - yes, steer people to wiki page (but make sure it's ready)
      2. share new info - none
      3. test consensus/harmonize - too soon
      4. give sense that somebody is responsible for coordination - yes.
   4. Joel to send update to threads pointing to wiki

New business

1. Locking down the requirements for this initiative
   1. Teams can collect per-team core/strategic fraction data with team-specific definitions for per-team purposes
      1. Not required this quarter for external purposes, but is the TPG goal
   2. Teams can report identify core/strategic fraction data as part of WMF capacity planning (annual, quarterly, strategic)
      1. do roleplay of core/strategic split in Annual Planning process
      2. Timeline: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product/2016_Product_Team_Strategy
         1. Feb 3: "core work narrative plan" is due: Goal, top projects, milestones/results/impact (from FDC format); metrics; staffing; budget; dependencies.
         2. Tony collates into a presentation.
            1. no decisions made about budgeting at that point
         3. Mar 4: "Strategy work" due.
         4. review and collate
         5. review all asks.  ratios expected to be different for each department.
         6. March 31: present to FDC.
         7. budgeting happens (no SOP available; last year not a model)
      3. Implications: all core work is reviewed before any strategy work is reviewed.
         1. Could incent teams to put work important to them in "core" regardless of definition.
         2. Could a team lose budget because their work is strategic, not core?
            1. Not expected, although not completely ruled out
         3. Kevin: seems like current need is for teams to identify and forecast/plan along this distinction, not to track and report
         4. Do we (TPG) need to help teams with the definition now, or can we do that in parallel with teams preparing their core / narrative material?
   3. WMF can report aggregate, consistent core/strategy fraction data for external reporting purposes (3-4 use cases, e.g., IRS, grants, charity ratings - from fundraising)'
      1. (Future)
   4. other?
2. Discuss here to schedule for another time: how is this discussion going with WMF org?
   1. What is the core use case? Does everyone understand use cases?
   2. Can we strategize on how to get people read and respond more? Who is strongly dissagreeing? Who is not talking yet?
      1. What is the "right number" to have in different contexts?
3. We should have a TPG "socialization" meeting

Next steps

1. Joel to write up status of core / etc discussion from today (+ notes from today)
2. TPG+Wes to review write-up
3. Joel to send email
4. TPG+Wes to have "socialization" meeting to plan meetings with people 1-1 as needed to get buy-in or objections