Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Reports/Finalization Change Log (January - April 2020)

Process Overview

This document presents significant changes integrated during the finalization of Wikimedia Movement Strategy recommendations based on input provided by various Movement communities and stakeholders. It also includes an appendix listing some of the changes made to earlier drafts, i.e. the first iteration (Wikimania, August 2019) and the second iteration (September 2019). Movement Strategy has been an open and participative process from the start and developed by using feedback at different stages. This document lists how significant changes were made based on conversations with communities and other Movement stakeholders.

About 100 people from across the Movement collaborated in working groups on nine thematic areas. They caringly drafted and redrafted the recommendations over many calls and occasional in-person meetings to integrate research results and the extensive feedback received from the Movement. Then individual writers from the working groups continued to refine, merge, and improve the ideas. It is not possible to capture every edit made to 89 recommendations over months of discussions and drafting. However, this document tracks significant changes and the rationale for the final Wikimedia 2030 Strategy document. It connects back to individuals and communities that provided valuable input throughout the process, particularly in early 2020. Development of the recommendations:

2018: Nine thematic areas were identified at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin as priorities for structural and systemic changes needed to move us towards the Strategic Direction, and the pillars of Knowledge Equity and Knowledge as a Service. Nine working groups were established in June. Time and attention were dedicated to balancing representation and diversity in the Working Groups, and to set up collaborative working environments and procedures. Work began by the end of the year.
March - August 2019: Based on the initial scope, conversations, and research, the Working Groups developed the first draft of the recommendations, which were presented to the Movement around Wikimania 2019. Broad reaching conversations were also conducted to identify needs and priorities from online communities and affiliate groups.
September 2019: Informed by online feedback and in-person discussions, the Working Groups developed the second iteration of the recommendations, 89 in total. A brief summary of these changes are presented in the appendix of this document.
December 2019: At an in-person meeting, writers consolidated the 89 recommendations into one set of 13 by identifying overlapping functions. The consolidation involved merging ideas rather than changing content (a table capturing the mergers).
January - February 2020: An open conversation with Movement stakeholders took place from January to February 2020 to help refine and finalize the recommendations (a summary of the input collected during this period).
March 2020: The extensive feedback was integrated into the recommendations at a final in-person meeting. The detailed change log follows in this document.
April 2020: The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees reviewed the recommendations once more following an earlier review in February, and requested some final revisions. After discussions, the revisions were integrated and the recommendations finalized.
May 2020: The final recommendations are shared with the Movement to start conversations to transition to implementation.

Finalization of the Recommendations

The feedback collected from the 2020 Movement conversations was discussed and integrated into the recommendations at an in-person meeting from March 10 to 12, 2020. With the backdrop of an unfolding global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the small integration group made optimal use of the time together, and virtually thereafter, to refine and finalize the recommendations for the Movement. The document was then editorially reviewed for language and consistency. Concurrently, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees had a final look at the recommendations following up on their earlier review in February. They requested clarity and revisions on four topics across three recommendations: API (recs 1 and 2), use of trademarks (rec 4), use of Movement funds (rec 4), and Global Council’s charter (rec 4).

Some writers considered this a logical step; that the Board, as the sponsor of the process and given its legal and fiduciary responsibilities based on U.S. non-profit law, requests clarity and further revision for the final product as a follow-up to their earlier review. The Board is the authority that called for a strategy to be developed for the Movement in the first place and supported the radically open and Movement-owned process. However, for some writers, the level of concern and request for revision was better suited for implementation discussions and not for a strategy document. This highlighted fundamental power imbalances that exist in our Movement, which the Strategic Direction and the recommendations are specifically intended to address. For these writers, the integration meeting was an equal consolidation of all feedback provided by the Movement and further requests must be discussed after publishing the recommendations. In this context, some writers felt that they were being asked to negotiate, something that was outside of their mandate. Others found the final suggestions improving the document overall and ensuring complex ideas became more clear and implementable.

Opinions and reactions amongst the writers were not homogenous. Everyone strived to find solutions and in the end, the final call as to what changes would be made, if any, was left with the writers. After multiple discussions, changes were incorporated to reflect the requests and at the same time, maintain the integrity of the process and the recommendations. The journey of Movement Strategy has not been easy. The Movement Strategy Core Team intends on documenting lessons learnt in maneuvering many challenges with the unwavering support and good will of the Movement, volunteer writers, Strategy Liaisons, Working Groups, communities, and staff and Board members of affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation. The journey of the recommendations is nowhere near finished. With the completion of this phase and the finalization of the recommendations, we can now transition to implementation and figure out how to collaboratively and with accountability to each other implement the changes that our Movement needs to become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge.

Overall Changes

Below are changes introduced and integrated into the Movement Strategy recommendations based on feedback received during conversations with the Movement from January to March 2020. Feedback was received from online communities, volunteers, and staff and board members of affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation to help finalize the recommendations. Thank you!

Changes

Reworked the document as a whole to:
1. Be more concise and clear about the ideas presented (reducing the number of pages to almost half);
2. Add clarity and reduce repetition;
3. Use language that is easier to understand and to translate;
4. Surface key ideas and make them more explicit.
Added language regarding the implementation phase in the “Intro”, clarifying that:
1. This is not a strategic plan; it is a strategic document with recommendations outlining key aspects of change in specific areas identified for our Movement’s growth, health and diversification;
2. Prioritizing and sequencing the changes will happen during implementation;
3. Implementation will continue to be consultative and adaptive. There will be modifications in the implementation of the recommendations depending on organization, community, and project contexts.
Made public policy and advocacy more visible in the document.
Reworked the language to recognize Wikimedia communities; volunteers and online communities in particular.
1. Mention of volunteers and online communities for added clarity where relevant.
2. Overall condensing of the document has made this recognition more visible.
3. Explicit mention of women and the gender gap in our movement and underrepresented communities.

Rationale

The feedback from the January-March 2020 community conversations indicated that the language of the document was difficult to read and translate. Core ideas were found to be vague and hard to surface, sometimes lost all together and not explicit.
There was confusion in the communities about what this document was - strategy recommendations - and not policy or at the level of implementation yet.
Advocacy was significantly absent from the document although it is both distinct and crosscutting as a thematic area. Advocacy has widespread implications and can set Wikimedia as the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge.
In the first version of the recommendations (August 2019), feedback indicated that online communities felt not explicitly addressed compared to the organized part of the Movement. Effort was made to be explicit where applicable and to create a better sense of togetherness as Movement Strategy is a product by the Movement for the whole Movement and not just one part of another.

Principles

Changes

Work on overall clarity and conciseness of Principles:
1. Reduced the 13 Principles to 10;
2. Reduced the content body of the principles to 1 paragraph each.
Moved the Principle of “People-Centeredness” to the top.
Merged the Principle of “Self-management” with “Subsidiarity”
Renamed “Inclusive Community Development” to “Inclusivity” and merged with “Participatory Decision-Making.”
Merged “Transparency & Openness” with “Accountability”. Framed transparency as a requirement for collaboration and added explicit language around accountability.
Added content around ‘localisation’ to the “Contextualization & Adaptability.”

Rationale

The length and tone of the Principles were varying in the first document and sometimes the key points were lost. They have been framed as guiding beliefs on which the recommendations are built, and they will guide the implementation.
The Principle of “People-centeredness” was identified as a core part of the overall change narrative of the recommendations. It was therefore moved to be the first principle in the list, providing an implicit framework for the rest of the document.
An important aspect of “Self-management” in context was already related to the “Subsidiarity” Principle (as well as “Equity and Empowerment”).
The title “Inclusive Community Development” was too specific of a framing for a Principle. Its merger with “Participatory Decision-Making” (mainly about the inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making) highlights the inclusive aspects in the principle of participation.
Accountability can only be achieved when processes have been made explicit, transparent, and open, and hence the merger.
Localisation of software, tools and gadgets play a big role in the adaptability of projects, with a direct impact on utility and performance. Localisation efforts also serve as a bridge for involvement and assessment of impact of various initiatives.
The final principles are: people-centredness; safety and security; inclusivity and participatory decision-making; equity and empowerment; subsidiarity and self-management; contextualization; collaboration and cooperation; transparency and accountability; efficiency; and resilience. These interconnected principles speak to what it takes for our Movement to become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge.

Recommendations

Increase the Sustainability of our Movement

Changes

Renamed from “Promote Sustainability and Resilience”
Increased clarity around revenue generation:
Improved language around third-party developers;
Added consultancy and merchandising to be more specific;
Changed the “research global fundraising strategy” to a more direct “increase/diversify global revenue streams”.
Increased clarity around resource allocation to directly support the growth of communities, particularly emerging and marginalized ones.
Inserted a clear statement to avoid any confusion with paid editing.
Dropped the language of “unrestricted funding” as it created confusion.
Removed “Brand awareness”, replacing it with a more overarching point that we need to increase the global awareness of our Movement to ensure sustainability. Not to be confused with the Wikimedia Foundation Movement Brand project.
API not to be presented as a specific outcome but as one of the emerging streams for revenue generation with emphasis reiterated on Movement values, integrity, and financial independence while co-developing with partners.
Added a statement regarding the sustainability of the Movement tied with our commitment towards the environment and the sustainability of our planet.

Rationale

The recommendation was changed in order to recognise multiple ways of making our Movement sustainable. Opportunities of generating revenue, initiatives to support community engagement and practices of sustainability towards the environment have been included in this version of the recommendation.
In the original documents titles were seen as “fluffy” and perhaps unrealistic. They have been made more specific and clear.
Re: API, there was no consensus in the community on whether it would be a good measure, although there is recognition of its reality and applicability in the ecosystem of technology and large data users of Wikimedia projects, like Google. One position was in favor as long as it was aimed only at large and commercial users of our content. It was also noted that initiatives around API needed more clarity. Another position was totally against it as it may be the start of commercialization of the Wikimedia project.
For API, request was to refine and clarify the existing language around the development of enterprise-level API (with relevant partners) and the recognition of its value for multiple uses (including innovation in free knowledge and use of data returns).

Improve User Experience

Changes

Added references to experiences for a wide range of devices and interfaces and testing with diverse profiles and broad representation of users.
Surfaced lack of documentation as a barrier for both newcomers and more experienced users.
Explained how we need to do more research and more specific product updates by testing UX with different user profiles, accessibility guidelines, and by collaborating with communities.
Added a positive aspect of utilizing API development for UX purposes.
Made explicit lack of technical infrastructure and other technical barriers holding people back from contributing and consuming knowledge.
Added the need to improve communication channels between developers and communities, facilitating impactful collaboration.

Rationale

This recommendation was quite positively received in community feedback and effort was made to make it more clear and implementable.
This recommendation incorporated changes that will help in the retention of new editors and better usability and accessibility of our projects.
Working with API based projects will help in better projection of the data created by the Movement. It will lead to increased and improved attribution practices and perhaps a surge in the number of Knowledge Consumers across our projects.
Testing UX with different user profiles will surface the problems facing emerging communities. Increased compatibility with accessibility guidelines will encourage participation, engagement and retention.

Provide for Safety and Inclusion

Changes

Renamed to “Provide for Safety and Inclusion”, to highlight the aspect of inclusivity, and to include content from the previous recommendation Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities.
Reworked the language around the Code of Conduct, highlighting that it will be drafted with communities through an inclusive process.
Added the aspect of advocating for the legal and regulatory frameworks.
Clearly surfaced conflict management, “harassment” and “vandalism,” and future communities.
Word “guarantee” removed from the recommendation and replaced by language of providing.
Added reference to future communities and eliminating the gender gap.

Rationale

There is insufficient difference between the words “security” and “safety” to use both, indistinguishable in some languages as was gathered from the feedback.
It is essential that all initiatives around community health and safety be developed in close collaboration with communities.
“Advocacy” as a concept and a former thematic area needed to be better covered, especially in times of increased censorship and misinformation.
It is important to be more explicit about different aspects of safety. Communities had shared that the previous iteration needed to be more explicit and active about the harassment that happens in our Movement, and not only imply it.
Communities had shared that only providing frameworks or means for security would be incomplete without contextualized and relevant training.
It is not possible to guarantee support, but to provide frameworks and resourcing to open up for opportunities to get support.
There was a request from communities to highlight new editors, especially when it comes to our Codes of Conduct, safety and behaviour.

Ensure Equity in Decision-Making

Changes

Clarified the language around hubs, highlighting both thematic and regional roles. Added a framework for evaluating the impact, success and interconnected nature of the hubs.
Provided better articulation for the role of the Movement Charter, how it is developed, and how it includes policies for entities in the Movement.
For the Global Council a temporary committee representative of the Movement would be set up to both serve as the interim Global Council and play a leadership role in oversight of Movement Strategy. The Movement Charter would be part of this interim structure’s mandate to complete.
Clarified the relationship between the Global Council and the Wikimedia Foundation, including its Board of Trustees and its legal and fiduciary responsibility for Movement resources and oversight.
Elaborated the responsibilities of the Global Council, including overseeing the Movement Strategy implementation, enforcing accountability for equitable disbursement of funds and use of Movement brand and marks.
Elaborated the guidelines on Pathways to Decision-making roles (e.g. term limits).
Mentioned ‘decentralized power structures’ as a crucial aspect of the recommended distributed models of power-sharing and resource allocation. Even though the term decentralization itself is not unanimous in definition.
Add the idea of boosting the local agency and impact of the communities by altering our resource allocation system. Also, increased clarity around the role of the Global Council and hubs in ensuring participatory resource allocation.
"Use of trademarks" became "appropriate use of Movement branding and marks" as a responsibility of the Global Council to enforce accountability for all Movement organizations.
New changes relating to funds disbursement recommend that the Wikimedia Foundation immediately increases overall funding and other resources for the Movement for implementing the recommendations (including regional and thematic hubs) with the added caveat that in the near future, the Movement should play a guiding role in resource allocation (as to be defined in the Movement Charter).

Rationale

Writers have added transparency and independence where possible and selected “transfer” of power vs. delegation regarding the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the (interim) Global Council.
The interim Global Council would identify with the Board which areas of responsibility can be legally transferred. In cases where this would not be possible, social contracts would be established similar to the guidance provided by other existing entities.
The original intention in this recommendation was: Movement Charter first, then the Global Council. As the Movement Charter will need consultation with the Movement, the process of establishing it can be lengthy. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in their final review requested an interim solution: that an interim Global Council be set up to move the process forward and later dissolve when the Movement Charter is finalized.
Implementation of Movement strategy recommendations should not be the burden/responsibility of any one affiliate across the Movement. Hence, the (interim) Global Council as a representative body for the Movement would oversee this.
There are a few examples of ‘hubs’ already in usage across our Movement. It was essential to differentiate between these existing efforts and the proposed structures. It was also requested to make explicit regional and thematic hubs and the ideas behind them.
Clarity was offered and ideas made more condensed to present the Movement Charter and the Global Council, related processes, emergent natures, and the potential for expansion and growth.
All ideas need to be evaluated against the parameters of impact that it has created and the return on investment. For example, hubs should be evaluated for their accomplishments and the changes that they have been able to bring into the local communities.

Coordinate across Stakeholders

Changes

Moved the concept of hubs, particularly thematic hubs, to the recommendation of “Equity in Decision-making” together with regional hubs.
Included thematic areas from the original source recommendations to highlight key areas for coordination (e.g. advocacy, capacity building, partnerships).
Shifted focus to how collaboration happens, highlighting the space for collaboration and communication as well as adaptable localized structures (like the hubs).

Invest in Skills and Leadership Development

Changes

Merged “Foster and Develop Distributed Leadership” with “Invest in Skills Development” as the two areas were quite interrelated.
Added more context to what leadership means as per feedback received and to define criteria.
Highlighted the overall skill development plans and technical needs. This includes surfacing aspects of investing in leaders from the movement and finding leaders from outside of the Movement.
Highlighted the social and collaborative aspects of skill development and leadership: peer matchmaking, horizontal connections in the movement, mentorship models, etc.
Added online skills and communities, recognition, and stressed contextualization for capacity building and geographic representation. Certification would be an incentive and not a prerequisite for participation or for progress in the movement.
Gave clarity about the proposed capacity building platform, existing or new.

Rationale

Leadership is a specific skill and the two recommendations had many overlaps. The merger removes redundancies.
If the idea of leadership is not addressed, it leads to subjective and even mistaken notions of leadership. Communities shared that the term and concept of leadership are not applicable or celebrated in some cultures or contexts.
The skill development platform does not have to be completely new. It could be either a process of updating Meta or of considering external platforms. This is a clear implementation discussion for a widely-identified need.
Added the expertise and learning resources of partners and allies, by pooling resources and activities around skills development. Peer matchmaking had also been less visible in the previous version although a key attribute of the recommendations for our Movement.
Capacity building has to occur in context. Implementation will need to determine the interplay between standardization of materials and local adaptation/ knowledge transfer. Aggregated data of assessment of skills can serve as real time indicators for development of learning materials and capacity building projects.

Manage Internal Knowledge

Changes

Improved the language around the knowledge base to highlight the participatory aspect and added more clarity about its future growth.
Provided clarity around the resources (financial and human) for the effort of improving and managing internal knowledge.

Identify Topics for Impact

Changes

Renamed to “Identify Topics for Impact” and explained the intention behind ‘prioritizing for impact’
Provided emphasis around the ‘inalienable free will’ of Wikimedians to edit/contribute on any topics of their choice.
No concrete topic areas have been added as research is needed to identify them.
Clarification around the term impact was provided.
Real life events and external influences regarding the impact of content needs to be factored for identification of topics. This includes the potential misuse of content and misinformation.
Advocacy efforts for building capacity for contribution towards the Wikimedia projects has been added. Advocacy for our free knowledge values.

Rationale

Prioritizing topics was perceived in the feedback as top-down and against the autonomy of volunteers and communities, which had not been the original intention. Clarity needed to be offered and concepts reworked to better make explicit the intentions to understand and analyze our content usage around the world and systemic ways to address content gaps and quality.

Innovate in Free Knowledge

Changes

This recommendation now has a direct connection to our vision statement regarding the sum of all human knowledge.
Partnerships and inclusion of policy for diverse domains of knowledge made explicit for relating to underrepresented groups and knowledge. Made specific reference to indigenous knowledge as per feedback request.
Stressed technology and made reference to rich media for making free knowledge accessible in more diverse forms and to bring trustworthy data from other knowledge bases.
Reliable sources from oral or non-Western knowledge made more clear.
This recommendation makes an explicit reference to the ‘knowledge as service’ pillar of the Strategic Direction.

Rationale

This recommendation was made more clear and explicit with regards to partnerships, reliable sources, and for clear experimentation with policies or creating new projects in consultation with communities and not in a top-down way to innovate and expand our range of free knowledge content and offerings.

Evaluate, Iterate and Adapt

Changes

This recommendation overall was made more concise. Self awareness as a concept for constructive criticism and evaluation was added.
Overall the key points are broken down more clearly so it can be better understood what steps it is referring to and metric for evaluation mentioned.
As per feedback, it was stressed that evaluation would be made across strategy, would work with communities and local reporting requirements to not be a burden and in a way to work with local context as the rest of the recommendations.

Rationale

Even though evaluation is part of the overall implementation, this recommendation was not removed or merged as it felt like a good way to close the document and a key concept that might otherwise be overlooked if not directly expressed and stressed.
Mutual accountability across Movement stakeholders has been introduced. In earlier versions, accountability was internal for each stakeholder, e.g. at the level of governance bodies or respective communities. It is now at the level of a distributed Movement with shared responsibility, shared resources, and shared learning.
Metrics expressed to be collectively defined with the Movement in response to fears that evaluation standards and processes would be top-down, imposed or not acknowledging local needs and capacities.

[MERGED] Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities

Changes

Based on confusion in feedback around what “cultural change” really meant and considering this recommendation mainly summarized changes proposed in other recommendations (see below), it was merged into:

“Provide for Safety and Inclusion” (Code of Conduct and anonymization).
“Ensure Equity in Decision-making” (Movement Charter) and the principle of “People-centeredness”.
Confusion in the feedback around what “movement governance documents” meant separate to the bodies of work above.

[MERGED] Plan Infrastructure Scalability

Changes

Feedback received demonstrated that ideas in this recommendation were not fully unique, clear or understood. They are now spread out across different recommendations. The Technology Council has been moved to “Coordinate Across Stakeholders”.
Other key items (e.g. the need to improve communication in the Movement) have been included in: “Increase the Sustainability of our Movement”, “Equity in Decision-making”, “Coordinate Across Stakeholders” and “Innovate in Free Knowledge”.

Appendix: previous iterations in brief

Looking at Wikimania to the Tunis version of the recommendations to reflect on:

Community feedback
Working group reflections (internal and cross-WG)
Programmatic

Advocacy

Change: Added HOW sections (with more detailed rationale) to recommendations 1 to 6: Transparency, Diversity, Global Conversation, Knowledge Management, Advocacy Hub, and Common Positioning.
Change: Added new recommendations 7 to 10 to cover key topics relating to advocacy: Partnerships, Empowerment of Advocates, Self-Determination, and Protection of Advocates.

Capacity Building

Change: Added definition and glossary to the Principles sections.

Community Health

Change: Developed recommendation 1 “Rules and regulations, decision making processes and leadership” into: R1: ‘A joint set of rules we all agree to live by,’ R2: ‘Redefining power structures to better serve the communities,’ and R3: Building the leadership of the future.
Change: Developed recommendation 2 “Community diversity and growth” into: R4: ‘Structure for handling conflicts- before, during and after, ’ R5: ‘Investing in building an inclusive global community,’ and R6: ‘Newcomers are a key indicator to the success of the movement.’
Change: Developed recommendations 3 “Safety” into: R7: ‘“Democratizing” participation (making Wikipedia/Wikimedia everyone’s responsibility) and reducing barriers for participation,’ R8: ‘Privacy and security for everyone,’ and R9: ‘Opening the circle: All terrain readiness.’
Change: Developed recommendations 4 “Agile and responsive support of community health” into: R10: ‘Network to continually support community health,’ R11: ‘Aligning resource allocation with community health goals,’ R12: ‘Investing in equity-centered technologies.’

Diversity

Removed: References to "encyclopedic knowledge" as "problematic" (R2: Content Diversity Metrics and Guidelines).
Removed: Capability Maturity Model Integration “CMMI” (R2: Content Diversity Metrics and Guidelines).
Removed: Quotas for community positions (R4: Quotas for Adopting Body Quotas for All Governing Bodies).
Removed: User pages to contain parameterized, self-declared characteristics (R6: Parameterized User Pages for Encouraging and Measuring Community Diversity).
Removed: The proposal to include NC and ND licenses in Wikimedia Projects (R9: Terms of Use/Licensing Policy).
Removed: Recommendation 12: Language Diversity
Merged: “Recommendation 1: Code of Conduct” into “R4: Planned community diversification“ and “R5: Reflective policies for participation and governance”
Merged: “Recommendation 3: Digitization and Resource Prioritization for Marginalized Groups” into “R6: Establishing partnerships in order to represent and protect worlds’ cultural diversity“
Merged: The ombudsperson proposal (to facilitate the flow of information between projects) from “R7: Ombudsperson / Community-WMF Liaison” into “R5: Reflective policies for participation and governance”
Merged: “Recommendation 10: Wikioral, a Project with Voice Recordings” into “R3:Redesigning the platforms for more diversity of people and content experiences ” and “R6: Establishing partnerships in order to represent and protect worlds’ cultural diversity”
Merged: “Recommendation 11: Creating a Wikipedia Diversity Newsletter” into “R4: Planned community diversification”
Merged: Recommendations “R7: A central infrastructure for content partnerships requiring technical solutions”, “R8: Technical Partnership For Developments under a shared vision and resource collaboration” and “R9: Partnership framework for harnessing modern technological developments” into “R3: Shared ecosystem of services and tools for content partnerships”
Merged: Recommendation “R5: Define priorities for partnerships so that all key aspects of building the free knowledge ecosystem are covered” and “R14: Encourage partnerships focusing on Knowledge gaps and knowledge equity” into “R5: Reflective policies for participation and governance”

Partnerships

Change: Removed the easy to use and to navigate access-point for potential partners (R6: A single point of entry for partners to engage with Wikimedia).
Change: Adjusted “recommendation: 1: A Framework that Supports Partnerships” to “R2: Wikimedia as steward of the Free Knowledge Ecosystem” Rationale: Better following the Strategic Direction

Product & Technology

Change: Further split “recommendation 6: New Developer Engagement Models” into “R6A: Improve Technical Contributor Engagement” and “R6B: Modernize Technical Contributor Tooling”
Change: Developed “recommendation 7: Growing the Third-Party Ecosystem” into “R7: Developing an Evolving Technology Vision and Strategy”

Resource Allocation

Change: Added a problem statement to resolve confusion around the rationale for the recommendation (RC: Recognize privileges / Design for equity).
Change: Added a bullet point to address paid editing, per feedback (RC: Recognize privileges / Design for equity).
Change: Added a bullet point to Q3 elaborating how the recommendation doesn’t necessarily lead to shrinking resource allocation in the non-Global South countries (RD: Distribute existing structures).

Revenue Streams

Merged: “Recommendation 6: Develop non-banner revenue streams for affiliates” into “Assumptions for the recommendations”

Roles & Responsibilities

Change: Developed the Scenario into a hybrid of the previous Quotiel and Situla based on the feedback received from communities