Topic on Talk:Platform Evolution/Goals

This seems like a fair representation of what we know today. This more abstract take is appropriate. I like the emphasis on clarifying who we're building for and what we're planning to build. In product we tend to think in the looser space of themes and problems-to-be-solved, so there's always a degree of uncertainty about what exactly we'll need, with better certainty for nearer term things. Identification of the product-market pairs is important so that the platform can be re-oriented accordingly.

The section on "Increase our technical capabilities to achieve our strategy" speaks most directly to product-market pairs from a technologist point of view. These items seem like pretty good bets. I would like to add a couple things: (1) we're not sure about the exact sequencing of this work and how the product as experienced by content cultivating communities and reusers will look. For example, although I think there's fairly universal agreement that globalization of things like templates and gadgets is a good thing, timeline and types of constructs and requirements needed to be built and enforced are still open matters (being more direct: this might be a good time to pause and consider if we want to figure out a migration path to something that better scales to the expectations of new technical and non-technical users). (2) I would recommend having a piece that speaks to ensuring it's possible to measure reuse and distribution so that we know the impact we're having - solid partnerships and relationships are important, and it's also prudent to ensure quantitative assessment of impact is possible...where possible.

Thanks Adam, this is really good and helpful feedback! To try to answer your questions:

1) You rightly point out that we don't know the solution for many of these outcomes. That may be the current system, or something entirely new. We are trying to stay solution agnostic and focusing on bringing better tooling to everyone. And migration paths should be part of any plans that we make :) Do you think we need to add anything else to make this clear?

2) We do think measurement is important to ensure progress for any of these outcomes - we wrote them in language that allows us to think about measurement. So while we are referencing measurement implicitly, we don't specifically call out establishing measurement as a practice. Do you think we should add a new outcome along the lines of "Increase the visibility of the impact of technical changes"? And we can talk about investing in quantitative and qualitative ways to measure the effects of our work?

Re: #1, I think in this high level framing it's okay, understanding that the ongoing mid-term planning will shape the verbiage further.

Re #2, I do think an outcome for measurement is appropriate - that is to say for both observability and analytic purposes.

Thanks for the input… will add an outcome for that!