wikimedia foundation quarterly report, fy 2015-16 q1 (july-september)

7/23/2019 Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report, FY 2015-16 Q1 (July-September)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wikimedia-foundation-quarterly-report-fy-2015-16-q1-july-september 1/146

Wikimedia Foundationquarterly report

July — September 2015 Q1 of the fiscal year



We are pleased to bring you the Wikimedia Foundation’s Quarterly Report for Q1 of the 2015/16 fis

comprehensive summary of how we did on the objectives defined earlier in our quarterly goal settin

are continuing to optimize the report’s format and the organization’s quarterly review process basethat we have received.

This issue includes some new pieces of information and a few format changes. Teams have been s

one key performance indicator (KPI) each - with ongoing efforts to identify the best possible metrics

estimate how much time fell into each of the three categories from the 2015 Call to Action (strength

experiment). We have reorganized the content to present all the information that is related to a part

one place (description of the goal, measures of success, how we did on achieving the objective, anlearned from working on it), and changed these slides to a cleaner, more effective layout.

As before, we are including an overview slide summarizing successes and misses across all teams

day goal setting process, the “sweet spot” is for about 75% of goals to be a success. Organization

100% of their goals are not typically setting aggressive goals.

Terry Gilbey, Chief Operating Officer

Foreword

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan#Call_to_Action_2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_performance_indicator

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews



Quarterly metrics scorecard ( beta) Participation

Active editors(5+ edits/month, July-August)

75.2k/mo -4,7% from Q4-0.7% y-o-y

New editor activation(top 5 Wikipedias) 6.1%+38% from Q4+45% y-o-y

Edits via mobile(on WP, percentage of total)

3.0% Q4: 2.0%Q1 2014-15: 1.5%

Readership

Page ViewsCrawlers excluded

15.3B/mo

Site reliability

Read uptime 99.942% -0.002% from Q4 (May-June)

y-o-y: N/A

Write uptime 99.935% -0.007% from Q4 (May-June)y-o-y: N/A

Read latencyMedian first paint time

1.1seconds

Q4: 1.3 seconds

Write latencyMedian page save time

1.0seconds

Q4: 1.6 seconds

Content

New articles 7.6k/day

Edits (in WP articles) 11.6M/mo

Fundraising

Amount raised $7.9M(missed $8M target)

On mobile 12%

http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/edits

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWMF_Infrastructure-CTO_Quarterly_Review_2015_FQ1.pdf&page=59

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWMF_Infrastructure-CTO_Quarterly_Review_2015_FQ1.pdf&page=23

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Editing_department_%E2%80%93_Quarterly_Review_slide_deck,_2016%E2%80%9316_Q1.pdf&page=19

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Editing_department_%E2%80%93_Quarterly_Review_slide_deck,_2016%E2%80%9316_Q1.pdf&page=19

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editor_model#New_editor_activation_rate

https://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions#Active_editor



department-wide Fundraising (gen.) Discovery

Learning & Eval. Online Fundraising Reading Co

Comm. Resources Fundraising Tech Collaboration

Education Major Gifts Language Eng.

Comm. Liaisons Partnerships Multimedia

Comm. Advocacy Finance Parsing

Developer Relations Administration VisualEditor

Wikipedia Library Office IT Research & Data D

Talent & Culture Team Practices Performance

Q1 2015/16: Successes/misses by team

I n

f r a s t r u c t u r e

E d i t i n g

C T O

A d v a n c e m

e n t

C o m

m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t

F i n a n c e / A d m / O I T



Q1 2015/16 objectives

133 objectives36 teams

81 successes (61%)

52 misses (39%)

Misses include anything not delivered as planned,

including “yellow” goals and those that were intentionally

revised or abandoned due to changing priorities.



Quarterly review Community Engagement

Q1 - 2015/16

For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Community Engagement departme

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement,_October_2015

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement,_October_2015

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors#Community_Engagement



Q1 - CE Department

Objective Measure of success Status

Goal 1. FOCUS: Define

overall strategy andprioritize current work intothe available resources

● Define an overall community

strategy● All projects will appear on a

community Master ProjectList

● Identify gaps and mapagainst existing capabilities

Projects on MPLmapped (informastrategy.

Strategy defined,complete all stepED (definition of emission statemen

Objective: Strategy an



Q1 - CE Department


Goal 2. STRENGTHEN

community health

● CA defines approach to

harassment on the projectswith community input andprepares Q2 broadcommunity consultation andsurveys

● Consult with community onfunding process andstructures

● Clarify membership criteriaand engagement channels forWikipedia EducationCollaborative

Successful. Deta

report.

Objective: Strengthen commu



Q1 - CE Department


Goal 3. STRENGTHEN

support of other WMFdepartments

● Liaisons effectively support

VE deployment● Liaisons effectively support

creation of productdevelopment process

● CA team develops supportframework and responseworkflow for non-engineeringteams, inc. Partnerships,Office of the ED

Product developm

was not successf

Other steps succdeliberately reprieach team).

Objective: intern



Q1 - CE Department


Goal 4. EXPERIMENT with

new community tools andapproaches

● Investigate new tools for

global ban enforcement● Resources develops pilot

plans for CommunityCapacity DevelopmentFramework (see CR Goal #4)

● Create process and roadmapfor Community Tech team

Successful. Deta

report.

Objective: Strengthen commu



Q1 - CE Department


Goal 4. EXPERIMENT with

new community tools andapproaches

● Resources develops pilot

plans for CommunityCapacity DevelopmentFramework

● Create process and roadmapfor Community Tech team

● Investigate new tools forglobal ban enforcement

Global ban enforc

experiments wereOther experimensuccessful; detaireport.

Objective: E



Q1 - CE Department


Goal 5. CORE: support

existing workflows.

● Continued support of

community needs.

Successful. Deta

report.

Obje



Quarterly review Developer Relations

Q1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: 3.5 FTETime spent: strengthen 30%, focus 10%, experiment 60%

Users of Wikimedia Web APIs N/A ( T102079 ) N/A from Q4 N/A YoY

Key performance indicator

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T102079


https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_Relations



Q1 - Developer Relations


Goal 1: EXPERIMENT

First Wikimania Hackathon fully integrated with themain program and theeditor community

Team members involved: 2

Hackathon Showcase features at

least 8 demos produced at theevent in front of a mixed audienceof developers and editors.

All newcomers and editors joiningthe hackathon get a tech savvybuddy.

23 hackathon pro

showcased on Wofficial day.

About 50% of thethe showcase haparticipated in th

All participants re

buddy got one, m22 buddy pairs.

Objective: Wikimania

Volunteer Siebrand Mazeland was a very helpful co-organizer supporting Rachel Farra

A smaller Hackathon space was available during all Wikimania, hosting small meeting

Survey: 87% of participants had a positive/very positive experience, 0% negative/ver

Lessons learned

https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hackathon/Lessons_Learned









https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hackathon





Goal 2: EXPERIMENT

Integrate the new Web APIsHub with mediawiki.org


New Web APIs bub available in

mediawiki.org with basic contentand coherent user experience.

Community process to proposeand contribute documentation.

New Web APIs h

3rd party develop

A process for condocumentation e

BUT Blueprint skin prototype, not due to lack of UX

community resist

Objective: We

S Page (previously in Engineering Community) was on loan from Reading to work on t

Volker Eckl (Reading Design) went beyond call of duty volunteering many fixes to Blue

Plan to keep writing documentation based on explicit needs from developers using ou

UX refresh priority demoted as long as UX resources are not committed.


http://devhub.wmflabs.org/wiki/API:Web_APIs_hub

http://devhub.wmflabs.org/wiki/API:Web_APIs_hub

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Web_APIs_hub/Contributing

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Web_APIs_hub/Contributing

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Web_APIs_hub





Goal 3: STRENGTHEN

Organize a Gerrit CleanupDay


All WMF developer teams join the

Day.

All patches contributed byvolunteers, and all patches from thepast 3 months have at least onereview.

All WMF develop

Gerrit participatedifferent degrees

The queue of chaany review was r(total) and 24% (l

BUT 752 change

unreviewed (wasthe past 3 month

Objective: Gerrit Cl

We committed to the goal of 100% without a calculator; we are still happy about the

Lessons learned are on their way, but first impression is that the experience was positsensibilizing our teams and our technical community about improving our code review









Goal 4: STRENGTHEN

All completed GSoC andOutreachy projects havecode merged and deployedby the end of September


All the GSoC and Outreachy interns

that pass the program in Augusthave their code reviewed anddeployed by the end of September.

From the 9 projec

the mid-term evamerged and deplfully functional anLabs as planned.

It is the first time such performanc( blog post with d

Objective: GSoC and

Hall of Fame: Jan Lebert & Cross-wiki watchlist tool, Sumit Asthana & Wikidata PageBanner Alexander Jones & Flow support in PyWikiBot, VcamX & OAuth support in PyWikiBot, Tina JNewsletter extension, Vivek Ghaisas & SmiteSpam extension, Frédéric Bolduc & Graph for V

Ankita-ks & Language Proofreading for VisualEditor, Dibya Singh & Translation Search.

Niharika Kohli (former intern, from India) started as stellar volunteer org admin and is now a cCommunity Tech team.

Frédéric Bolduc (ferdbold, from Canada) is now a contractor at the VisualEditor team.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Drafts/GSoC_2015_%26_Outreachy_10_wrap-up!


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Drafts/GSoC_2015_%26_Outreachy_10_wrap-up!







Goal 5: EXPERIMENT

Establish a framework toengage with data engineersand open dataorganizations


Publication of basic documentation

and community processes for open data engineers and organizationswilling to contribute to Wikidata.

Ongoing projects with one opendata org.

Wiki Loves Open

framework and iscollaboration withteam and commusome chapters a

BUT even if WMFPartnerships andare in talks with o

cannot count thaprojects” yet.

Objective: Wiki Loves

Sylvia Ventura (Strategic Partnerships) started promising talks with World Bank, OECDbut the requirement for CC0 licensing is the main obstacle for quick collaborations.

The involvement of Lydia Pintscher (Wikidata), Liam Wyatt (Europeana), Susanna Ånärand (volunteer developer) and Jens Ohlig (WMDE) among others has been very valua

first step in a promising direction inspired by the GLAM precedent.

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM


https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Yair_rand


https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Jens_Ohlig_(WMDE)




https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_(WMDE)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wittylama

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ytt%C3%A4j%C3%A4:Susannaanas



https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Jens_Ohlig_(WMDE)




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wittylama

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_(WMDE)


https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiki_Loves_Open_Data



Quarterly review Community Resources

Q1 - 2015/16


People supported

Global metrics from reports by

resourced initiatives this Q

39,988total individuals involved

9,188 new editors(24% of total)

9,308 activ(24% of to

Key performance indicators

Grants toGlobal South approved this Q

95grants

$328,371 61%of total #

66%of total $

+533% # from Q4

-6%$ from Q4

+2#

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources



Q1 - Community Resources


Goal 1. STRENGTHEN

Prioritize updates tofunding programs inconsultation withcommunity

Team members involved: 8(CR), 2 (L&E)

*Input gathered from at least 200

community participants viacommunity consultation*Public plan complete on meta-wikiwith milestones for rest of year*Annual plans pilot process forsmall affiliates ready for opt-in use

245 responses fr

*39% Global Souwomen, all Wikim

Outcomes report

*6 milestones, im33 actionable sug

Annual plan simp

on-track for 30 S

Objective 1: Resources Co

Success: Consultation a useful first step in building alignment. Using as a model for fPlanning to run survey questions again in future to track improvement on pain-points.

Learning: Offering a private space to give feedback + usual on-wiki discussion brougand constructive perspectives. (198 survey respondents vs 34 on-wiki)

People: Big thanks to Winifred Oliff, Chris Schilling, and Edward Galvez for ensuring hLearn more: Blog, Slides on key findings

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1h2Xc6tRW_3fu-hGDB0Pyg7xxrqhNr2bRCQYeWZ2FVZg/edit?usp=sharing

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/reimagining-wmf-grants/

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Outcomes





GOAL 2. STRENGTHEN

Maintain full coverage for Annual Plan (APG),Project and Event (PEG),Individual Engagement (IEG)grant program workflows


(CR)

*All PEG, IEG and APG

workflows are fully staffed forH1 2014/15*Meeting commitments for 10of 10 grantmaking workflowson-time

*Kacie Harold onboa

PEG during Program**PEG funded 4 new(Korea, Latvia, Tec dWikisource)

*Marti Johnson onboopen call in progrescriteria/support for s

proposals*APG round 1 grantesupport, round 2 pro

**3 APG orgs receivereview programs & otailor support

Objective 2: Maintain G

Learning: 75-95% of PO time is spent on these core workflows.





Goal 4. FOCUS

Implement CommunityCapacity Development inpartnership with emergingcommunities


At least 3-4 emerging communities

participate in frameworkdiscussions.

5 emerging comm

others) engaged interest in buildin

Scope and plan 2 pieces ofcommunity-building work forlaunch in Q2

2 communities idpilots, but still unon-wiki. Expect p

scoped in first 2 w

Objective 4: Communit

Success: Strong interest from communities in building partnerships, technical, commconflict-resolution capacities.

Miss: Planning stage, including volunteer translation of materials, continues at comm

Learning: Respecting community process more important than WMF timeline for co-c

In-person discussions in Ukraine helped forward on-wiki interest.





Goal 5. EXPERIMENT

Define open innovation(IdeaLab) team based onavailable resources


JD approved and delivered to

recruiting

Community Orga

delivered, candidhire in progress tcampaigns

Objective: Increase Open

Learning: In Resources Consultation, community ranked as #1 priorities:

● connections to others ● support for applicants

IdeaLab Community Organizer will help us provide better support in both areas.



Quarterly review Community Advocacy

Q1 - 2015/16 Approximate team size during this quarter: 6

T ime spent: stre ngthen 30%, focus 50%, experiment 20%

SLA for Trust & Safetycorrespondence: Resolving 95%of emergency@ within three hours

100% +/- 0 change from sample(100%) +/- 0 ch

SLA for public correspondence:Resolving 95% of answers@ andbusiness@ within two businessdays

97% +/- 0 change from sample(97%)

+/- 0 ch


https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CA_KPIs_-_Q1_2015.pdf

https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CA_KPIs_-_Q1_2015.pdf

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Advocacy



Q1 - Community Advocacy


Support community health

through creation of acommunity-informedharassment strategy.


● Harassment strategy project

plan complete● Plan for broad communityconsultation complete

● Community consultation andUX survey designed and outfor translation.

Quarterly objectiv

this cross-quarter

Objective: Harassment

CA held discussions at Wikimania, assembled small community workgroups, consulteorganizations, and began compiling extensive research ( one, two, three ) to begin prepand community consultation for Q3. Patrick and Kalli were instrumental in reaching oexternally to craft the consultation and survey. Their work benefitted greatly from the assistance of Edward Galvez, Abigail Ripstra and the harassment workgroup.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Online_harassment_resource_guide

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Advocacy/Citations_on_Harassment_and_Behavioral_Issues

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Advocacy/Support





Define and explore further

ideas for scalability ofglobal ban enforcement


● Investigation into computer

aided enforcement for globalbans underway. Carry out atleast three experiments forglobal ban enforcement (e.g.abusefilter)

● If tenable, requirementsdefinition complete.

Objective postpo

shifting priorities tasks.

Objective: Global ban en

Learnings: Meeting the unpredictable resourcing demands for trust & safety makes cresources for scalability experiments currently challenging. Contractor services may bachieving this important goal in future quarters, but focus has shifted to strengtheningsafety processes and policies, with an emphasis to be placed on improving efficiency

Objective: Community comm





Monitor and reach out to

community on variouscommunity fora.


● Obtain approval for channel

maintenance SLA and publishon Meta.● Staff identified public

channels 3 days a week, witha response time toappropriate conversationswithin 48 hours.

Objective supers

community hub (

Objective: Community comm

Learnings: Difficulties in identifying and determining staffing requirements for public chighlighted the need for a more centralized approach, which we are seeking to explorcommunity hub project.

C i Ad Objective: Maintai





Maintain the core.


● Execute and maintain core

workflows with 95% ofinquiries responded to within2 business days.

CA met KPIs rela

inquiry paths andworkflows in spitetransitions.

Objective: Maintai



Quarterly Review

Learning & Evaluation Q1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: … 7.5Time spent: 60% Strengthen, 20% Focus, 20% Experiment

Resource pageviews 61,354 Q4 Not yet available YoY Not y

Resource page editors 239 +99% from Q4 +149% Yo

Learning Patterns created 75 +63% from Q4 +97% YoY

Community leaders engaged 185 not applicable not applica


Q L i & E l ti

O

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Learning_%26_Evaluation/About

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Learning_%26_Evaluation/About



Q1 - Learning & Evaluation

Objective Measure of success Stat

Goal 1. FOCUSIdentify priority workflowsand processes for projectmgmt.

Staff involved: 7

● Priority research projects, workflows, KPI’sand tools mapped

● Project charter system for all projects requiringover 5 hours of staff resourcing. view example

Com

Objec

Learning: Use of the “Pixar Pitch Process” to creating the Master Project List (and resulted in a more strategic approach to prioritization of staff resourcing of members prepared a 10 minute pitch of projects with required resources and imwhich were then challenged in a collaborative process. Pixar Pitch Process

Including community voice in the retreat incredibly valuable. To be expanded in community notes process.

Q L i & E l ti

Obj ti S

http://www.fastcompany.com/3027135/lessons-learned/inside-the-pixar-braintrust

http://www.fastcompany.com/3027135/lessons-learned/inside-the-pixar-braintrust

https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheets/d/1BF3tUyF4g673IpPBJqyUBQZ3Z2dvbXdnFWk7qxprWaE/edit?usp=sharing

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2015_-_2016_Strategic_planning





Goal 2.STRENGTHENEncourage andsupport thecommunity to betterself-evaluate

Staff involved: 6.5

● 85% of Wikimania Learning Day participantsincreased skills/competency; 50 + communityconversation and consults; Virtual podcast with 200downloads. Global Podcast

● 1 new toolkit added on Photo Contests

● Central Eastern European Train the TrainerWorkshop Workshop Toolkits

● Scope community capacity development (CCD)● 5 program evaluation reports released

Wik

engexc

Rep

rececom

curr

CCD pos pilo

Objective: S

Learning: Partnering with Community Leaders is key to scale and teach best andpractices and co-author toolkits.Decision to focus on a Train the Trainer Model and Community Knowledge Stewapilot happened in Estonia. Thanks to Jaime Anstee, Amanda Bittaker, Maria CruzMember, Nikola Kalchev. Additional user testing on tools including translation re

Q L i & E l ti

Obj ti E

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/L%26E_Workshop_Kits

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Program_Toolkits/Photo_Contests_and_Events


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rqtgyFXrChFzDK6VdKZ9Ome50nhMHjr8mOAh1w054c0/edit#gid=0


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/L%26E_Workshop_Kits

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Program_Toolkits/Photo_Contests_and_Events

http://www.climerconsulting.com/episode-16-how-wikipedia-is-democratizing-innovation/

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/News/Learning_Day_for_Wikimania_Mexico/Outputs




Objective Measure of success St

Goal 3. EXPERIMENTQuantify the impact ofgrants and communityprojects.

Staff involved: 2

● Global coordination of Wikimania Scholarshipprograms: Wikimania scholarships are built intoproposals of Round 1 APG organizations

● Conduct analysis of PEG and IEG programs,measuring content-related impact and exploring& measuring qualitative impact (e.g. dev. ofpeople, programs)

C

FY A

PgWS

Objective: E

Successes & Learning:-Survey Specialist, Edward Galvez has jumped into his new role with attention to sfoundation surveys and avoiding “Community Survey Fatigue”. Edward is also doall WMF survey tools, creating a survey resource center for community and WMF.

-Scoping of a solution to fix to pain of gathering Survey Metrics by volunteers and

by Amanda Bittaker.

Q1 Learning & Evaluation

Obj ti

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Grants_Impact/Fiscal_Year_2013-14/Non-APG_Grant_Programs




Objective Measure of success Statu

Goal 4. MEASURESet-up large scale datacollection system tomeasure communityhealth and activities

Staff involved: 4

● Run Annual Evaluation Pulse Survey (Target:Increase responses by 25% to 122 completed)

● Launch Phase 1 Community Health Research witha series of internal/external interviews as part ofthe community health research. Virtualengagement strategy around topic of communityhealth (See Appendix )

● Run Wikimania Scholarship Survey

Com

withCom

Con

HealRese

ConClini

WikiSurv

2016

Objective

Successes and Learnings: Haitham Shammaa is leading the research work inhealth. This includes curating practices, research and initiatives across commu

other WMF teams.

Q1 Learning & Evaluation

Obje

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Community_Health_learning_campaign

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/#

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Community_Health_learning_campaign

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/#





Goal 5. COREContinue development ofthe online resources andtools, and tracking ofcommunity activitiesinteracting with thoseresources.

Staff involved: 7.5

● Track, monitor and increase use of EvaluationPortal and Tools (Increase by 5%)

● Strategic virtual meet-up sessions (1-2monthly)

● Strategic Communications plan(via the commsform ) and executed for all key communityresearch, tools and key communityengagement activities

Com

insethe

Obje

Success & Learning: Just in Time Video Training is important for busy volunteeteam launched “bite size videos” which review Wikimedia programs highlights in Look for future innovations in shared learning as we work to make program datamore video for Wikimedia Learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ER0YC

Communications Liaison, Maria Cruz leading both user testing of tools and explopractices in community knowledge.sharing (peer to peer learning)

https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/forms/d/1ZtLbilkBw7uc4uH95fb8tlcX56lGBeWovB426H3QlpU/viewform

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ER0YCdRDyk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ER0YCdRDyk


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SY_IctXKAzAJYuo2cVYiJsfVUvnESkCwJaHy4cjsYCM


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SY_IctXKAzAJYuo2cVYiJsfVUvnESkCwJaHy4cjsYCM



Quarterly review Wikipedia Education Program

Q1 - 2015/16


Interactions with program leaders worldwide 187 individuals in 61 countries+ 110% individuals fr+ 53% countries from


Q1 CE / Education

Objective: Maintain core & impr

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/About/Staff



Q1 - CE / Education


Maintain the core


Maintain resources, tools,mentoring, support andcommunications of educationprograms worldwide (see list of 20main workflows on office wiki page )

On track for men

and communicatTech tools requirWMF support.

Strengthen the EducationCollaborative to form thefrontline of education

mentorship, fosteringpersonal globalrelationships

Tea m membe rs involved: 2

Improve Collab model:* Better define membership criteria* Assess WMF needs and Collab

capacityStart planning meeting for fall 2015:* Determine date & location* Assess which members canattend

On track for imprCollab model and* Membership cri

* 7 new members* Launched task Phabricator:** 54 tasks create** 37 claimed** 19 completedOn track to deterlocation and atte

Objective: Maintain core & impr

Q1 CE / Education Objective: Strengthen Arab world

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Wikipedia_Education_Collaborative




https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/sprint/board/1479/query/all/

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Wikipedia_Education_Collaborative#Membership




https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Education_Program/Education_Team_Workflows



Q1 - CE / Education


Strengthen Arab worldeducation programs


* Embed program in Egypt atadministrative and professorial level* Fall pilots are ready to start(Oman, Palestine)

* Egypt: Educatio

supported throug* Oman and Paletrack

* Integrate current programmaticactivity in Jordan with newlyestablished UG

In conversation wand leaders

Objective: Strengthen Arab world

Oman: Working on building a strong pilot program by connecting three different groupsponsors, classroom professor and community members.

Jordan: Interest by different parties to join forces, but more conversation is warranted

Q1 - CE / Education

Objective: Refine data



Q1 - CE / Education


Refine data gatheringefforts to produce more,better and consistent data


At least 10 programs report metrics * 16 programs refor Wikimania ses

Objective: Refine data

Highlights from initial data gathering efforts:

● + 12,500 students● + 1,700 teachers● + 178 volunteers● + 70 universities● + 122 secondary schools● + 21 primary schools● + 5 adult schools

● + 12 Wikimedia projects● + 21 languages● + 88,000 articles created● + 1,500 articles translated● + 925 articles improved● + 4,500 files uploaded● + 283 million bytes added

Q1 - CE / Education Objective: Engagement in regiona

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pitfalls_Protocols_and_Prior_Planning_a_Panel_on_Making_the_Most_of_the_Wikipedia_Education_Program.pdf

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:AKoval_(WMF)/Wikimania_2015_Education_Session_Sandbox



Q1 - CE / Education


Regional meetings as avenue for sharingexperiences, improvinglearning and fosteringpersonal connections.


Wikimania:* Engaging sessions for 40 - 60attendees of education pre-conf* Host 4 sessions during pre-conference* Host and facilitate 2 education-related sessions at Wikimania* 70% CE booth coverage duringconference hours by Ed team

* 60 attendees to

(>90 sign-ups)* More than half vwith pre-conferen

* Almost 50% of Mexican

* Facilitated 2 edsessions

* ~75% booth co

Objective: Engagement in regiona

What we learned:

● Due to the language gap between English speakers and Spanish-only speakersexperience gap, it was hard to keep everybody equally interested. Next time: pladividing up the groups in smaller groups by experience level, and pre-plan differ

tracks, or arrange for translation.

https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme/Education_Pre_Conference



Quarterly review WIKIPEDIA LIBRARY

Q1 - 2015/16



Accounts distributed (total) 4707 +8.4% from Q4 +45% YO

Global branches (total) 11 +37% from Q4 +267% YO

Q1 - Wikipedia Library Objective : Edi

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library



Q1 Wikipedia Library


GOAL 1: STRENGTHENEnhance editor access toresearch with new majorpartners and by extendingthe reach of those accounts


1) Add 8 partners (at least 4 non-English)

2) 300 accounts distributed, 75new users

3) Add 1 new coordinatorcontacting publishers

4) Improve citation-impact dataand plan

5) Signup efficiency metrics

1) 7 partners

2) 370 accouusers

3) Added 6 cpublishers

4) Created pdependentanalytics

5) Ran metric

Objective : Edi

Quite good: picked up 7 partners at ALA conference including largest donation *ever* not reflected in partner count metric. We have most major English publishers and globstill ramping up. Can’t yet query per-user citation, our most critical performance indica

speed and more accurate metrics are our major motivators for building the Library Car

Q1 - Wikipedia Library Objective: Globa





GOAL 2: FOCUSContinue scaling the

English Library model bystarting-up unique, locally-run global branches


1) Contact with 20+ interestedlanguage leaders

2) 6 new consultations, 4 newpage setups

3) Advance activity 1 step with 8existing branches

4) Deploy TWL-lite model for 2emerging communities

5) 14 total TWL branches withpages

1) Success, ro

engagemen2) 7 consultatsetups (CatVietnamese

3) Maintainedengagemenbranches

4) Deployed o5) 11 total TW

pages

j

Wikimania was fantastic for building connections and momentum, but movement on bdevelopment was greatly delayed by long summer holidays. Expect ramp-up in Q2 w

Spanish Italian Hebrew and Dutch



Q1 - Wikipedia Library Objective: Expan





GOAL 4: FOCUSExtend our network of

influence with universities,libraries, consortia,publishers, and researchleaders


1) Present 2 talks and hostmeetup at Wikimania

2) GLAM leaders feedback onWMF role description

3) Host 3 more WMFPartnerships Brunches

4) Complete draft of WMFpartnership guideline

1) Presented 5

TWL Wikim2) Distributed

3) Held 3 succ

4) Draft postepilot ongoinnext 1-2 qu

j p

Increasingly shifting our networking role towards large scale international library netwo(International Librarians Network, IFLA, ARL, SPARC). Major wins in sending volunteerconferences; we’re planning 4-affiliate attendance at Frankfurt Book Fair and voluntee Arabic Publishing Conference. Advising WMF on Sustainable Development Goals ovelibraries network, with growing potential to collaborate with large NGOs.

Q1 - Wikipedia Library Objective: Dev



Q p y


GOAL 5: EXPERIMENTBuild for a more efficient,

robust, inter-connectedTWL platform for the future


1) Identify technical coordinatorand/or contractor

2) Begin coding library cardplatform

3) Complete alpha ‘referencetooltip literacy guide’

4) Complete {{cite archive}}template

1) Call for dev

extended: 73 to be inteOctober

2) Delayed by

3) Done, and Readershipsteps

4) Slower proreduction oproject lead

Good progress here despite miss. We had 7 very strong applications and are interviewOctober. We received excellent consultations from Asaf, Dario, and Jon Katz with regdevelopment of the Library Card Platform and mapped out a fully-featured 4-phase ro



Quarterly review

Community LiaisonsQ1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: 7 FTE (6 FT, 2 PT)Time spent: Strengthen 60%, focus 30%, experiment 10%

Individual contributors with 2+edits in product pages

Q1/J - 887Q1/A - 894Q1/S - 898

N/A from Q4 N/A YoY

Page Views Q1/J - 29,887Q1/A - 22,773Q1/S - 21,173

N/A from Q4 N/A ToY

Key performance indicators:

https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_%28Product%29/Key_performance_indicators#Reach

https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_%28Product%29/Key_performance_indicators#On-wiki_engagement





Q1 - Community Liaisons

Objective: Supporting VisualEd



Q y


Finish launch of VE to newaccount holders at enwiki


Support VE rollout to enwiki (RfC,enwiki feedback channels, triagingrequests)

Discussion at en.with consensus tout to new accoucompleted.

● Discussion did not become a formal RfC.● Learning: Announcing A/B announcement/testing/follow-up and results followe

process, which may have been helpful in holding a successful conversation.● Sherry , Erica and Nick were integral to advising on and executing discussions

discussion and launch.


Objective: Wikiman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_125#Gradually_enabling_VisualEditor_for_new_accounts



Q y


Complete Wikimania

session with new ideas forcommunity collaboration inproduct development


● Community roundtable at

Wikimania● Follow up report and

conversation on-wiki● Ideas are realistic possibilities

within product developmentmethodology

* Roundtable inclcommunity memuploaded.

* 2 users engageonwiki, one of whevent.

● Did not meet objective due to low turnout in on-wiki conversation.● Learning: Immediate posting (prior to end of Wikimania) and more promotion

online may have increased engagement in conversation.● Requested during session were more clearer communication channels with Fo

prioritization inclusion, recruitment of more volunteers to help, and consideringlocalization whenever possible.


Objective: Adding Tech/News to

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_%28Product%29/Wikimania_2015




Adoption of Tech/News intoCommunity Liaison tasks


Intake of Guillaume’s weeklyTech/News, incl. any neededmodifications/ adjustments

Completed intakefirst week of Aug

● Tech/News is translated to 15 languages weekly, has 430 individual subscriberpage subscriptions (including en.wp’s Technical Village Pump), and is featured wSignpost.

● Johan successfully adopted weekly workflow and collaborates with tens of voluwith translating and making the information accurate and accessible every week


Objective: Core

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/Latest




Maintain presence inproduct teams that CLs arecurrently assigned to


●

Active filing and updatingreporting for products thatCLs work with

● Providing designers, PMs,eng with product feedback

* 233 Phabricatofor/on behalf of te

* Teams assignedComm Tech, Rea



Q1 - Discovery Objective: Reduce zero r




Enhance the experience for

our users that search byreducing the number ofqueries that return zeroresults.


Zero results rate cut in half, from

25% to 12.5%.

No decrease in user clickthroughrate from search results.

Zero results rate

Actual human zearound 12% for fand 33% for pref( research )

● Automata, like crawlers, spiders and Wikimedia bots, account for sometimes upsearch traffic with up to 80% zero results rate, and fluctuate wildly. ( research )○ Action: need to represent this on our dashboard. Better infrastructure is n

● Created A/B test infrastructure and ran around five tests on search parameters; than the defaults.

● We’re trying something more radical: a complete replacement for prefix search. ongoing, as the new system needs a lot of validation that it supports existing us

Q1 - Discovery Objective: Production beta of Wikidata Que

https://searchdata.wmflabs.org/metrics/

https://github.com/wikimedia-research/ZeroPlusPlus/blob/master/report.pdf

https://github.com/wikimedia-research/ZeroPlusPlus/blob/master/report.pdf

http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/metrics/#kpi_zero_results




Allow users on our cluster

to run arbitrary queries onthe data contained inWikidata by deploying theWikidata Query Service.


Wikidata Query Service is deployed

and usable from within our cluster.Wikidata Query Service keeps withWikidata update stream.

Define metrics and KPIs for service.

Display metrics and KPIs on

Discovery Department dashboard.

Launched 7th Se

● Usage is ~1000 SPARQL queries per day.● What we do next is dependent on usage metrics and user input.

Q1 - Discovery Objective: Production beta of Maps T

http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/wdqs/#wdqs_usage








Allow users on our cluster

to build features usingmaps by deploying a MapsTile Service.


Wikimedia Maps Tile Service is

deployed and usable from within our cluster.

Define metrics and KPIs for service.

Display metrics and KPIs onDiscovery Department dashboard.

Launched 17th S

● Usage is on on our dashboards.● What we do next is dependent on usage metrics and user input.

Q1 - Discovery Objective: Quantitative search satisf

http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/maps/








Further our understanding

of whether our search isgiving our users relevantresults by finding,implementing, anddeploying a quantitativemetric to measure usersatisfaction with search.


Define and communicate search

satisfaction metric.Implement data collection tomeasure metric in production.

Visualise metric on DiscoveryDepartment dashboard.

Iterate until metric can be used as aKPI for Discovery Department in Q22015-16.

Launched on 30t

● Success: Public dashboarding has been a big success, very positively received● Learn: Metric needs qualitative validation and testing for further iteration.● People: Oliver and Mikhail have trained other teams and organisations on analy

dashboarding.

https://searchdata.wmflabs.org/






Quarterly review Reading

Q1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: 27 FTETime spent: strengthen 60%, focus 20%, experiment 20%

Global Pageviews (provisional*) 15.3 B -12.4% from Q4 approx. -


* cross project, across desktop/mobile, across web/apps

For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Reading department

Q1 - Reading Objective: Apps En

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading_and_Advancement,_October_2015

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WMF_Reading_Quarterly_Review_Q1_2015-16.pdf&page=28

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading




Apps:Increase engagement viaimproved link preview(Android)


10% increase in Android apppageviews + link previews:

(Full Pageviews + TextExtractsretrievals with link preview feature)>= 1.1 × (Pageviews prior to linkpreview)

Objective as stateachieved (increasbut we didn’t seeof increased engaexpecting in Prod

●

The Beta app should not be relied upon as a consistent indicator of user behavi(although the other metrics surrounding link previews are similar between beta v● Differences between Beta / Production tests indicate more opportunities for tes

improvements to user experience / better onboarding of users to this feature.● Great press after strong collaboration with Communications (see appendix for d



Q1 - Reading

Objective: MediaWi




Infrastructure:Improve MediaWiki securityand extensibility byupdating authenticationframework


Creation of a metrics dashboard totrack improvements to system.

Dashboard has b

● Implementation of AuthManager is ongoing. These are developer/sys admin facwill increase the configurability of the on-wiki authentication process.

● When work finishes in Q2 the WMF will be able to start planning follow on work auth for Stewards, password hash storage and verification service).

● Graphite infrastructure largely unowned and nearing breaking point for adding nmeasurements

● Operational monitoring in general is an ad-hoc effort by individuals and not a coby WMF teams

https://grafana.wikimedia.org/#/dashboard/db/authentication-metrics







Quarterly review Advancement Team

Q1 - 2015/16


Amount Raised $7.9 million -$3.6 million from Q1 2014 -$3.6 mill


For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Advancement department

Q1 - Advancement - Fundraising

Objective

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading_and_Advancement,_October_2015




FOCUS- Raise $6 million in

Online campaigns and $2million from Foundationsand Major Gifts

Amount raised

$2.2 million raiseGifts; $5.7 million

online team. Weunder due to movcampaign to OctoWiki Loves Monu

STRENGTHEN -Reintegrate AmazonPayments

Delivering a high functioningproduct on-time

Done

EXPERIMENT -Collaborate with theReadership Team to testthe use of banners to directtraffic to the app in Finland

# of app downloads; Learning howthis converts to active users

Done

Q1 - Online Fundraising

Other successes a




2014-15 Fundraising Report Report publicly postedDonehttps://wikimediafounda2015_Fundraising_Rep

Weekly banner tests 20% improvement from July Done

Community & WMF campaigncoordination

High quality campaigns running on thesite -- with metrics and coordinatedscheduling

We want to work witcreate a more clear looking to hire some

Test Drive ChargeBack AlertService

Test service and assess impact Done

Fraud Research Project Finding improvements on fraud filters toscale back false positives

Done & to be contin

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2014-2015_Fundraising_Report

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2014-2015_Fundraising_Report



Q1 - Advancement - Strategic Partnerships




Goal 4. EXPERIMENT -

Secure preinstall deals witha commitment to install 1million apps; Secure onedeal in the Global South

# of app preloads; Learning of howthis converts to active users (# ofsessions)

We are in procescontract for our fi

deal.

Goal 5. FOCUS -(A) Secure at least two new

Zero Rating Deals.(B) Have our app featuredby Apple, Google, and/or

Amazon in their app stores.

Number of readers covered andpageviews resulting from the deals.

Number of new app downloadswhen featured

Done.(A) The team has

new Zero rating d(B) App was featuPlay’s “Back to Sand they have no“New and Update



Quarterly review Editing Department

Q1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: 32 FTE

Time spent: strengthen 70%, focus 20%, experiment 10%

Monthly active editors on all wikis 75.2k average in Q1* -4.7% from Q4 (78.9k) -0.7% Yo

Key performance indicator (provisional metric; * – N.B. data for Q1 is for the first two months only)

For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Editing department

Q1 - Collaboration Team

Objective: F

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_October_2015

https://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors




Make Flow available tocommunities that want it,

reduce deployment burdenTeam members involved: 8

Release opt-in Beta feature forusers to enable/disable Flow on

their user talk page

Launched on MeSeptember, com

language WikipeOctober

During this quarter, we manually converted on request about 90 user talk pages on Frand Hebrew Wikipedias, Wikidata, and MediaWiki.org. To satisfy the growing user detalk pages, we released the opt-in feature, which will be enabled on wikis that want to


Objective: LQT de-d




Reduce the department’stechnical debt


Convert existing uses ofLiquidThreads to Flow, where the

community is willing

MediaWiki.org co August, se.wikim

September, pt.w

pt.wikibooks could not be converted due to a technical issue with Portuguese transla


Objectives: Tech




Align with UI standards


Convert common UI elements inFlow to use OOjs UI

Editor system rewUI, other things c

relevant.

Remove urgent blocker toOperations


Switch Flow to work with the“External Storage” cluster’scompression needs

Collaboration Teain early August, nblockers.

We were the first team to convert large, existing features to OOjs UI, instead of being the start. We learned that OOjs UI isn’t yet ready to be used on every page; trying to dperformance problems. We’re working with the Performance team to find a solution.



Q1 - Language Team Objectives: CX availability an




Engage with the translatorsto keep them translating

helped by notificationsappreciations, campaignsand article suggestions.


At least 33% of the users whopublished anything with CX, made

at least 5 translations. At least 20,000 articles arepublished using CX.

50% achieved:

✘ About 11% oftranslations✔ 20,000+ articleend of the quarte

(see appendix for

Article suggestions were made available towards the end of the

quarter in 11 Wikipedias and it is too early to be able to measure theimpact. (See image for the 1st week.)● Learning - Cannot measure the impact of features completed

late in the quarter. For Q2 we will adjust the metrics to practical sub-goals mapped to delivery schedule for features.



Q1 - Parsing Team

Obj ti M f St t

Objectives: Support VisualEdi




Fix VE blocker bugs


Zero Parsoid-related VEdeployment blocker bugs in

Phabricator

All VE blocker bu

Reduction in <no

● Monitored VE feedback page and promptly addressed Parsoid-related issues.● Promptly addressed bugs that affected VE deployment or reception.● Strong focus on addressing <nowiki> complaints (making fixes to VE code wher

○ Current status: about 1 in 100 VE edits has <nowiki> added to them (for fr,○ # edits / day with nowiki additions

■ fr: 30 → 21; it: 15 → 12; he: 8 → 4; en: 14 → 40■ fr, it, he: Noticeable reduction in # edits / day that had nowikis added■ en: Increase because of VE rollout (anecdotally, many due to use of w

mode), but it is still 1/ 100 edits that get a <nowiki>

tr

Q1 - Parsing Team

Obj ti M f St t

Objectives: Improve parsing pe




Improve parsing latency


Speed up PEG tokenizer by 25% Change in parse

✔ mean : 0.95s

✔ p95 : 3.5s →

✘ p99 : 49.5

PEG tokenizer is entire parse pipedefinitely sped up

Parsing latency:

● We forked an upstream library (pegjs) and improved its performance; deployed o● Load on Parsoid cluster depends on edit activity of templates (and can vary quit

† – Picked 3-week period before/after 22 July (when fix was deployed) to measure impsomewhat difficult to accurately correlate perf changes with deployment, because of l

Q1 - Parsing Team


Objectives: Parsoid HTML for




Reduce Parser : ParsoidHTML rendering diffs


At least 10% test pages render withpixel-perfect accuracy. (4.6% on

6/30/15) At least 75% render with"< 1% diffs" (63% on 6/30/15)

✔ 16% test pagepixel-perfect acc

✘ 63% test pag“< 1% diffs”; lot oin the other 37%

● Fixed several bugs that brought Parsoid’s rendering closer to PHP parser’s rend○ Goal did not get sustained focus -- bug fixes for VE, Flow, CX often help t

○ Q4 2014/15 work on CSS-based customization of Cite helped as well.● Worked on visual diffing infrastructure to analyze rendering differences

○ Generalized it for use in other scenarios (testing correctness of the Parsoidtesting impact of replacing Tidy in core parser with HTML5 tools)

● Insufficient work on visual diffing infrastructure towards this goal○ Lot of false positives because of rendering-irrelevant pixel shifts.○ Test set very small (~750 pages) and needs to be expanded and updated.



Q1 - VisualEditor Team


Objective: Co




Secure and build upon thefoundational work for

comprehensive mobilesupport


VisualEditor on a mobile phonesecures positive feedback in pre-

deployment user testing

Prototype found heuristic evaluati

tweaked before ftesting.

Improve stability; maintainor increase test coverage


Code coverage is maintained at orincreased from current levels.

Overall coverage75% to 76%; for 90%; for ce, from

Hiring a mobile-expertengineer


Team has a mobile-expert engineer join, to bring the engineering teamup from 3.0 to 4.0 FTE.

Our new Senior SDavid Lynch starOctober.



Quarterly review Infrastructure / CTO

Q1 - 2015/16

Approximate Infrastructure size during this quarter: 35 FTE

Approximate CTO size during this quarter: 15.5 FTE

For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Infrastructure and CTO departmen

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure_and_CTO,_October_2015



Quarterly review ANALYTICS

Q1 - 2015/16


Time spent: strengthen 75% , focus 25%

Velocity July: 151 (MoM -32%) August: 145 (MoM -4%) Septemb


https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors#Analytics



Q1 - AnalyticsObjective Measure of success Status

Objective: EVENTLOGG



j

Complete an audit ofEventLogging data.


All EL Schemas have beenreviewed, documentation has beenupdated and new datapurging/sanitizing has beenautomated.

Missed

Part of data purg

implementation is

Success:

● Reviewed status and privacy of 137 schemas.● Negotiated purging strategies with 28 schema owners.

Miss:

● We didn't get enough DBA cycles to complete the database purging/sanitizing.

Q1 - AnalyticsObjective Measure of success Status

Objective: PAGEVIEWS IN VIT



Publish daily pageviewcounts per project in VitalSigns.


"Pageviews" metric is available invital-signs.wmflabs.org, using newpageview definition and on a per-project basis.

Met

Success:

● Vital Signs graphs the new Pageview definition.● It includes “Totals” - an aggregate of all wikis.

https://vital-signs.wmflabs.org/



Quarterly review

Release EngineeringQ1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: 6 FTETime spent: strengthen 13%, focus 31%, experiment 0%,

maintenance/interrupt 56%

WMF Log Errors (open task count) 138 +31% from Q4 (105) +202% YoY (68


Q1 - Release Engineering


Objective: Reduce C

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Release_Engineering_Team



Isolate our Continuous Integrationinstances

Reduce CI wait time

Team members involved: 3(~0.8 FTE)

● Boot CI instances fromOpenStack API - T109913

● CI Instanceautomatica

● Subset of CI jobs run indisposable instances -T109914

● Python CI jconfig reporunning on instances



Objective: Reduce number of





Improve deployment tooling

Reduce number of deploytools from 3 to 2

Team members involved: 4(~1.4 FTE)

● Implement the neededfeatures in scap forRESTBase deploys - T113119

● All needed implemente

being mergreview).● Backwards● Ready to us

Cluster● Did not get

migrated by



Objective: Retire Gerrit




Migrate Gerrit to Differential


(~0.45 FTE)

● Allow repository cloning fromPhabricator - T128

● Cloning ove● via ssh still

(working w● Prototype integration with our

Continuous Integrationinfrastructure - T103127

● Conceptua● [scap3 wor

over this]





Quarterly review SERVICES

Q1 - 2015/16



REST API usage, mean req/s 216 req/s mean 31% up from 165 re


Q1 - Services


Strengthen: Mobile app service deployme

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Services



Reduce app load times andduplicated developmenteffort with an app API,

providing content and metadata suitable for app

consumption, backed by a service built by the appteam.


- App service deployed inproduction.

- Provide public REST API endpoints with documentation.

- Integration with our CDNinfrastructure.

- App service depproduction.

- Public REST APdocumented.

- Full edge cachipending format fi

- Android app is sCurrent ETA for sOctober. IOS app

● The content section API is also needed for progressive page loading in mobile wworking with the parsing and reading teams to generalize the API to work for bo

Q1 - Services


Focus: Scale RESTBase, replicate across d



Add the storage andthroughput we'll need to store more types of

content. Establish redundancy at the DC level

for site availability anddisaster recovery.


- Expand the existing cluster by atleast three new nodes.

- Set up a second RESTBasecluster in the Dallas datacenter.

- Set up ongoing replicationbetween the clusters.

- Eqiad cluster exto nine nodes.

- Added multi-DCRESTBase.

- Six-node codfwoperational, using

- Replication fullyincl. encryption fotraffic.

● Much of this work was done in cooperation with the operations team, especiallyGiunchedi. On the services side, this project was led by Eric Evans.

● Other Cassandra users (maps, analytics, possibly sessions) can reuse multi-DCincreased density thanks to multi-instance work

Q1 - Services


Objective: Make a plan for change / event p



Changes to structured data and other events need to be propagated through

storage and cache layers.Our current systems are

not very reliable,

exclusive to MediaWiki,

and don't work across

projects.We aim to make change

propagation more reliable, general, and manageablefor developers.


- Establish requirements.

- Research solutions (both existingand possible development).

- Establish a clear plan of action.

- Requirements wseveral tasks: T1

- Broad agreemeKafka in producti

- Prototyped prodestablished a plaimplementation:

1. Event bus pcommon se

change rela2. Simple chabetween se

3. (Q3) Comppropagatiodependenc




Quarterly review

TECHNICAL OPERATIONSQ1 - 2015/16


79% maintenance, 21% new

Availability 99.942% -0.002% from Q4


Q1 - TechOps


Object



Focus: Reduce missingcluster dependencies incodfw data center

Team members involved: 5,

(+ 5 from other teams)

Deploy HTTPS caches in codfw,complete successful failover of

eqiad caching traffic;Deploy RESTbase with Cassandrareplication;Deploy ElasticSearch cluster withreplicated search indexes

codfw HTTPS caproduction, succ all eqiad cache tr

RESTbase clustesuccessfully withreplication.

ElasticSearch codeployed and reastill finishing Medsearch index sup

Delays in the establishment of the new equipment leasing process severely impacted procurement and pushed availability of hardware to the last two weeks of the quarter.

Learning: We should make more explicit agreements on ETAs (with buffer time) for de

Q1 - TechOps


Objective: Mai



Strengthen: UpdateWikimedia mail systems


Upgrade Mailman to version(2.1.18) on a supported distribution

and new hardware;Upgrade OTRS Investigate OTRSupgrade to 4.0.9 and provide trialsystem for OTRS users;Enable TLS encryption for inboundand outbound e-mail

Objective was rethe quarter arouninstallation of vermade available to

Mailman was upgand migrated to a

TLS has been eninbound and outb

Early on in the quarter we established that due to high amount of dependencies uponchanging circumstances (reduced DBA capacity) and shifting priorities (fr-tech), we wto perform a full upgrade of OTRS this quarter. In collaboration with the CA team we dredefine the goal.

Learning: Migrations with a strong impact (change of functionality/use & feel) on userscareful planning and coordination with liaison teams.

Q1 - TechOps


Objectiv



Focus: Reduce our securityattack vectors

Team members involved:1+10

Implement organized packageupgrades (debdeploy);

>80% of hosts protected byfirewalls, or explicitly assessed asunwanted and not needed

debdeploy has bimplemented andsubset of cluster achieved 86% fir

860 hosts now have firewalls, and 148 have been evaluated as explicitly not needing t1176 hosts/VMs are covered, amounting to 86%.

Q1 - TechOps


Objective: Lab



Strengthen: Improvereliability of WikimediaLabs

Team members involved:

4

Meet or exceed 99.5% uptime foreach Labs infrastructure service;Remove Labs support host SPOFs;Migrate NFS to RAID10 with sharding; Audit Labs projects on NFSdependencies and support migratingoff

Cumulative avail99.742%. Redunbeen set up for Lstorage, networkdatabases. NFS migrated to RAIDshards. 134/176 projects have beindependent of N

Q1 - TechOps


Objective: Distributed Cluster En



Experiment: Evaluate andtest a new distributedcluster environment for

Tool Labs


Establish evaluation criteria forcluster solutions and perform anevaluation;Set up the selected distributedcluster environment in ToolLabs tousers to experiment with their webservices

Criteria were esta Apache Mesos awere evaluated.

Kubernetes was made available intwo Tools were mfor testing.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YkVsd8Y5wBn9fvwVQmp9Sf8K9DZCqmyJ-ew-PAOb4R4/edit?usp=sharing



Quarterly review DESIGN RESEARCH

Q1 - 2015/16



No one KPI due to challenges in quantifying qualitative research anddependencies on product teams for project work. Open to suggestions.


Q1 - Design Research Objective: Collaborate with Prod




Support human centered product design anddevelopment by including Design Research inteams' product development process.

T eam members involved: 4

Design Research projectsare completed and outputis relied upon to generate

and iterate workflows, toolsand products.

Compleresearcteams:

4 Gener1 Usabil3 heuris

First time/New Editor discovery research informed design of new editor education for visWorkflow research informed understanding of user workflows to iterate workflow tools.

Mobile contribution research (31:11) is the start of informing us how to design / build for

Link preview usability testing informed pre release iteration of link preview.

Q1 - Design ResearchObjective Measure of success Status

M d i T d i h M i

Objective:

http://slides.com/sherah/link-preview/#/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lohme26To4k

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Discovery_and_usability_for_brand_new_and_casual_editors



https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow/Community_process_workflow_interviews_(June_2015)


















Mentor non-designresearchers to do designresearch to the standards

of the Design Researchteam.


STRETCH

Two non-designers researchershave done 2 or more usability teststo the standards of the Design

Research team.

Non-designers learning to implement quality design research.

Mentoring:● May, visual

○ explo

on MWof sty

● Sherah, pro○ usabi

inspe● Both projec

of Design R

Link preview usability testing informed iteration of link preview before release.

Exploratory research for UI Standardization: Conversation on wiki and interviews on tWikimania and post Wikimania are informing UI Standardization


It t ti 12 i t i l t d

Objective

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:UX_standardization/Stories




Iterate pragmatic personasfrom information gatheredin persona interviews.


12 persona interviews completed● Interviewed● 5 failed to s

scheduled ● Continuing

complete thinterviews.

The interviews we have done so far are already informing our thinking on the new edit


G d t b f t d i D t b t i 2000

Objective: Participan



Grow database of opted-indesign researchparticipants beyond 2000.


STRETCH

Database now contains over 2000participants.

New opted-in pafrom:

●

social med● Craigslist● outreach at● other



Quarterly review

RESEARCH AND DATA Q1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter:4.5 FTE, 2 research fellows, 10 collaborators


No one KPI due to the nature of the work


Q1 - Research and DataObjective Measure of success Status

Productize revscoring and Stable version of production

Objective: Revscoring prod

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service








Productize revscoring andwiki labels

Team members involved: 1Collaborators: 9

Stable version of production-ready ORES service up andrunning on Labs

● scores cachall new revis

● 10M scores ● Fast respons

0.1-5s, hit: 0

● revscoring makes automated edit and article quality assessment available as a service to our contributors

● at scale, revscoring can effectively reduce human curation effort

by up to 93%● 4 models in production (reverted, wp10, damaging, goodfaith),6 languages (en, es, fa, fr, pt, tr)

● Improved AUC for enwiki (.82 → .90 )● early community adoption: revscores now integrated into top

semi-automated anti-vandal tool (Huggle)https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_ as_a_service


Run controlled tests of ● Complete WMF staff pilot l d

Objective: Article Recommend





https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Increasing_article_coverage








Run controlled tests ofarticle translationrecommendations


Collaborators: 2

● Complete WMF staff pilot● Complete and analyze the

results of live tests on

Wikipedia

● completed in French W

● analyzed/p● wrote and s

● Personalization is computationally expensivebut matters: we can increase contributor

activation rate by 82% over control

● Recs boost article creation rate: 78% withrandom recs and 220% with personalizedrecs, over control



Measuring value added ● Perform historical analysis on P li i l

Objective: Value-adde





https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Measuring_value-added








Measuring value added


Collaborators: 1

STRETCH

● Perform historical analysis onwho adds value to Wikipedia

Preliminary analy

Full study deferre

● Survival of content has been measured.

● The basic quality of a contribution is evidentafter a few edits/hours.



Re-train and productize ● Improve algorithm based on I t ti

Objective: Article recs imp













Re train and productizearticle recommendations

Team members involved: 2Collaborators: 2

STRETCH

● Improve algorithm based onuser feedback

● Integrate the algorithm in

ContentTranslation

● Integration ● Pivoted to s

and client o

iteration● Work stage

● Set up a public API on Labs

● Developed an instance on Labs witharticle recommendation serviceoffered for 11 language pairs.








Quarterly review

PERFORMANCEQ1 - 2015/16


Time to first paint 675ms -49% from Q4 ~ -55.73%


Q1 - Performance


Make editing Wikipedia fast. Sub-second page save time. Miss. We hit the go

Objective: Subsecond page



Make editing Wikipedia fast. Sub second page save time. Miss. We hit the goa regression in Sepout gains.

-28% reduction in p

Q1 startRegression; cause no

Q1 - Performance


Faster delivery of content to Achieve sub-900ms median first Hit Median first

Objective: Sub-900ms first



yreaders. ( T105391 ) paint time.

Hit. Median first 675ms, a 49% re




Quarterly review

SECURITY Q1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: 2 FTETime spent: strengthen <10%, focus <10%, experiment 40%

Critical and High Priority SecurityBugs

-66.6% / +15.9% from Q4 **


** - Close approximation, to the extent that phabricator allows us

Q1 - Security


Run dynamic securityPi k l i l Security team ch

Objective: Automated Dynamic

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xrahemS3-CNqDdT9hmIHJ9frr_qJvAzhtos4uA-CUDs/edit#gid=0








y yscanning tool against betaevery week.


● Pick tool to implement● Configure weekly automated

scanning from labs of beta● Record baseline scan resultsfor core and one extension

Security team chZAP for scanningare running from

security-tools.eqBaseline measurerecorded at [[mwWikimedia_SecuationScanning]].

Q1 - Security


Document and report initialKPI t i h Until we can bett

Objective: Metrics for Sec

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Security_Team/ApplicationScanning



https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheets/d/1xrahemS3-CNqDdT9hmIHJ9frr_qJvAzhtos4uA-CUDs/edit?usp=sharing



metrics for security bughandling


● KPI metric chosen● Metrics tracked monthly

Until we can bettthe subtleties of owill use the numb

High priority secuKPI [[mw:Wikimedia_Secus]]

Learning: The number of open bugs is a poor metric for overall health of an applicatiomost indicative metric that we can practically track at this time.

All metrics are tracked privately. Historically, the number of open security issues in mebeen considered private to the organization.

Quarterly review Legal Team






https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Security_Team/Metrics



https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal



Q1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: 10 FTE Humans & 1Stuffed Tiger*


KPIs set out in Appendix A

*Temporary staff this quarter: 8 legal fellows/interns.

Public Version

For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Legal department

Q1 - Legal Objective Measure of success Status

Core KPIs ● Turn-aroundd d K

Obje

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015#Legal

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors#Legal

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors#Legal



Top notch, quick legal advice andsupport on wide host of issues

constituting our 34 legal workflows.Categories include:● Transactional● Litigation● Privacy● Public Policy● Trademarks● Governance● Technology● Fundraising● Training

exceeded Kdays (99%).

●

Turn-aroundexceeded Kdays (99%).

● Core legal aoperations tof ED and C

● Board work always on ti

Q1 - Legal Objective Measure of success Status

NSA LitigationP i f l b l

No missed dates for affidavits andi Hi h li d

Remains at an eali i i b

Objective: NSA



Protection of global users:readers and contributions

motions. High quality documentsand credible showing at hearings.

litigation, but proexpected:

• All motions filedstrong WMF reseon opposition to dismiss.• Hearing held Se Alexandria, VA.• Work continuesprepare staff and

declarations.

KPI Goal Actual (no QoQ yet) YoY

Appendix A Key Performan



Contract Turnaround 95% w/i 7 days 99% YoY N/A

Legal@ Turnaround 95% w/i 7 days 99% YoY N/A

Core legal satisfaction of ED and C-levels

expectations met YoY N/A

Board Support satisfaction of Board deadlines did not meetexpectations per Boardprotocol; substantive work metexpectations

YoY N/A

Q l i



Quarterly review

Talent & CultureFQ1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: 7Time spent: strengthen 45%, focus 45%, experiment 10%

For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Talent & Culture department

FQ1 - Talent & Culture

Objective Measure of Success Status

Goal 1 FOCUSD ti PEO (f t )

-Meetings with 3 alternativesR d ti d

-Met with iWG/UpwU li it d N l

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015#Talent_.26_Culture



Domestic PEO (for temps)replacement selection


-Recommendation done Unlimited, Namely-Stay w/Upwork bu

move WMF from CGoal 2. - FOCUSProcess improvements inworkflows for ATSTeam members involved: 3

All recruiting and hiring workflowsoccur inside GreenHouse withoutexternal email approval chains

-Posting approval w-Offer approval wor

Goal 3 - FOCUS

Learning and training toolwith tracking and testingTeam members involved: 2

Tool selection & implementation

5 modules in place, including:2 Onboarding & 2 Manager

-Mindflash selected

-5 modules in placeunconscious bias, cfeedback, benefits recruiting training fo

FQ1 - Talent & Culture

Objective Measure of Success Status

Goal 4 - STRENGTHENHRIS replacement selection

-Meetings with three ADPalternatives

-Met w/Namely, WZenefits



HRIS replacement selectionTeam members involved: 5

alternatives-Recommendation done

Zenefits-Recommend Nam

-NOTE: To be revieVPHR to confirm p

Goal 5 - STRENGTHENManager interviewing &recruiting trainingTeam members involved: 3

-Deliver course material-Integrate course material intolearning tool

-3 training sessions-Materials loaded o-Video of session d

Goal 6 - STRENGTHENHire (replace) OD MgrHire (new) CoachTeam members involved: 7

Successfully fill both positions -On hold for VP of -JDs have been po-Interviewing

Quarterly review



Quarterly review

COMMUNICATIONSQ1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter:5 FTE, 4 interns, 2 volunteers


Please see the scorecard appendices of the team’s quarterly review documentation for further information.

Q1 - CommunicationsObjective Measure of success Status

Advance regionalobjectives through media

● 3 AAA broadsheets● 15+ press hits

● 17 AAA bro● 408 press h

Objective: Wikimania a

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015#Communications

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015#Communications



objectives through mediapromotion at Wikimania

MX. Raise Wikimedia profilein Latin America.

Team members involved:3 FTE, 3 contractors

● 15+ press hits● 2 major broadcast interviews

● 408 press h● 8 major bro

interviews i(x2), Ibero 9TV (x2), Ca

● 20+ other binterviews

Complete with alsuccess met. See


Build public VE rollout planand internationalized

● Executed against producttimeline

● Product pa● Campaign p

Objective: Visual

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14BmL4j__votrshg9wH0Z-1wSnvLvAB2SGq4JQgz70Xk/edit#slide=id.g5c3968e58_1_59



and internationalizedcontent marketing strategy

for user adoption andawareness

Team members involved: 3FTE

timeline● In-product messaging●

Zero negative press● Content marketing campaignfor user adoption andawareness

● Campaign pcompleted

● In-product mrevised● Zero negat● Progress o

and audien

Complete with alsuccess met.

● In-product messaging includes revised welcome message and tooltip language● 3 videos in user testing: How to Edit Wikipedia, How to Add Links and Citations

Page● Ongoing research into new editor experience to inform campaign● Campaign will leverage video, social, and more to encourage/support new edito


Create strategic messagingopportunity around 15th

● Finalize calendar for WP15activities

● Retained cr(Mule Desig

Objective: W

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1rR2vnFukYDzSm71wYK38Abngnq7KnN_Dfg6Ckaj98/edit#heading=h.sz5n1xdcsn2d





opportunity around 15thbirthday to engage new

Wikimedia stakeholdersand audiences.

Team members involved:3 FTE, 3 contractors

activities● Contract any relevant key

resources

(Mule Desig● Community

capacity bu● See the cel

the followin

Complete with alsuccess met.

● 21 community celebrations in 18 countries

planned and counting ● Campaign launch to include community-driven

announcement, influencer engagement, user-generated content, launch of microsite, digitalplatform engagement, and social promotion


Fill critical gaps in corecommunications roles.

● Recruit two planned FTEs.● Recruit fall class of 5 interns.

● 3 FTEs reta● 5 interns re

Objectiv



communications roles.

Team members involved: 4 FTE

Recruit fall class of 5 interns.● 5 interns re

Complete with al

success met.

FTEs:

● Ed Erhart - Editorial Associate - 9/1 (est. 9/1)

● Jeff Elder - Digital Communications Manager - 9/28 (est. 8/15)

● Zack McCune - Global Audience Manager - 10/12 (est. 9/15)


Timely, professional, first-rate support on core and

Evaluative chart of core workflows● See Core w

metrics (slid

Objective:



ppreactive communications

workflows.Team members involved: 4 FTE, 3 contractors

metrics (slid

Complete with al

success met.

Quarterly review



Quarterly review

Finance, Administration, OITQ1 - 2015/16

Approximate team size during this quarter: … 20Time spent: strengthen 50%, focus 40%, experiment 10%

For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Finance, Administration and Office IT dep

Q1 - Finance Objective Measure of success Status

Purchase order will be 100% of all contract orders will Project was not s

Objective: Implement Concur Purch

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015#Finance.2C_Administration.2C_Office_IT



Purchase order will beimplemented and utilized

by departments and teamsto make purchases.

100% of all contract orders willhave been processed via the

purchase order system.

Project was not sdelays in implem

Expense, which wdependency. Alshold until we hireSpecialist and finorder workflow/p

Dependency on completing Concur purchase order was not clearly identified when goprojected completion date of Q3.


Improve consistency inh i fi i l d t d

During the quarter financial data will For each month o

Objective: Financials b



having financial data readyby the 15th of the month.


be ready for input in the scorecardby the 15th of the month.

For each month ofinancial data wa

15th of the month

One of the key dependencies for meeting this object is the reconciliation of purchase on time.


Develop platform for Test group of managers will have Project was not c

Objective: Test of Adaptive



Develop platform forholding scorecard data and

making it accessible tomanagers.Team members involved: 3

Test group of managers will haveaccess to their scorecard data via

an platform other than Googlesheets.

Project was not cvendor (Adaptive

up test accounts


Obtain audit and tax Selection of a new Accounting Firm Received 9 propo

Objective: Proposals for Audit & Ta



Obtain audit and taxservices proposal for 3

years starting with FY15-16from accounting firms withnon-profit, technology, andinternational grantsexperience with globalpresence.Team members involved: 3

Selection of a new Accounting Firmthat meets our needs by October

31, 2015.

p p4 (KPMG) and 8 f

national accountglobal presence. down to 2 and wthe references prrecommending toCommittee.



Q1 - Administration Objective Measure of success Status

Improve format andrelevance of office wiki

Increase staff involvement by hoursand number of staff collaborating and

Our cross orghere. OfficeW

Objective: Office w

https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/OfficeWiki:WikiProject



information


Cross org team members: 4Community member: 1

delivering on project and number of

quality pages.Increase community involvement byone team member

Have inclusive, cross org and inputand review.

Knowledge mand Report ofsurvey and intw/overview ansteps guiding

Learnings: Cross org system of design, review, support and training tested for inclutested, successful implementation.


Create best practiceguidelines format

Complete Design standard formatfor all guidelines complete Standard format

Objective: Implement best practice



guidelines format

Team members involved: 4Cross org team members: 3

for all guidelines complete.

Prioritize guidelines needed, assignstaff to review, revise andimplement accordingly.

Draft team offsite guidance andexpense planning ready forinclusive input phase.

Example: Mobile

guidelinesSummary of draft

Draft on wiki off s

Learnings: Thoughtful, open, inclusive review and input from stakeholders & users toeducation from staff that have performed the work leads to greater adoption. All guidcontinue to be revised, improved, posted and integrated into training for all new staff


Create SLA for all servicesunder management

Design standard format for SLA Where service invrefinement have

Objective: Imple

https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Planning_and_coordinating_offsite_and_onsite_meetings

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2l3WGimYArxcyAay4ftYd3NQCDxQOGWNy41LlFXk1A/edit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eBefyCuESPOPoQGPb9IbiM8BZ2b1pCsLRZxQQY4Tiqk/edit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eBefyCuESPOPoQGPb9IbiM8BZ2b1pCsLRZxQQY4Tiqk/edit



under managementComplete list and inventory of

services, assign staff to review,implement on a timeline.

refinement have SLA have not bee

Draft will be comQ2

Due to competing priorities, transitioning of CFA as well as additional work created wwas worked on, but not complete.

Q1 - OIT Objective Measure of success Status

Setup large group video Large teams ( 25 or more) will be Large teams are

Objective: Implement B



conference solution.


able to have a video conference. video conference

With the implementation of this video conference solution, it was hoped that we woualternate video conference solution for Metrics meetings, but testing showed that thewas prefered for now.

Quarterly review



Quarterly review

Team Practices GroupQ1 - 2015/16


Positively impacting value delivered by supported teams 4.2 out of 5 ( Likert scale ) baseline metric

Positively impacting sustainability of supported teams 4.6 out of 5 ( Likert scale ) baseline metric


For more detail, see the slide deck and minutes from the quarterly review meeting of the Team Practices Group

Q1 - Team Practices GroupObjective Measure of success Status

Identify organizational painpoints for softwareengineering and

● Deliver Team Health Checksurvey to majority ofengineering teams

● 1 CE, 13 EnTPG particiR lt b

Objective: Team Hea

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015#Team_Practices_Group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Team_Practices_Group

https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Health_check_survey_results/FY2014-15_Q4



engineering andsupporting teams; fosterself-awareness of teamhealth to support continualimprovement


engineering teams● Publish results, trends,

recommendations toofficewiki

● Present findings tomanagement and keystakeholders

● Results pub●

Biggest tak○ Sensesuppoand o

○ Strugcomminvolv

○ Lack

org gbetwegoals

Q1 - Team Practices Group

Obje


Support the prioritization ofcurrent and upcoming workacross the WMF and

● All current and projectedprojects across the WMFlisted prioritized and

Scope reduced tonly projects in CE t d

https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Health_check_survey_results/FY2014-15_Q4



across the WMF, andbalancing it againstavailable resourcing.


listed, prioritized, andestimated on the MasterProject List (MPL)

● All current projects with apriority outside of the WMF’sresource capacity will have a“sunset” or “stall” plan

Engagement and

and to not includplan measures ofEngineering and Engagement projdocumented and

Q1 - Team Practices Group Objective Measure of success Status

Establish TPG vision andstrategy for FY16

Publish document outlining TPG’shigh-level vision and strategy forFY16

● Miss this qextended uabsences o

Objective: Vision an



Team members involved: 7 FY16 absences o

emergent p● Carrying ov

wikimedia foundation quarterly report, fy 2015-16 q1 (july-september)

Documents