Thank you! Looking forward to seeing a successful launch of the CW survey 2016.

There are some possible tasks that may or may not exist:

• Evaluation of the 2015 survey, including lessons learned to be incorporated in the design of the new survey.
• Evaluation of what has been achieved after the 2015 survey (tasks resolved, ongoing...)
• Communication to the people who proposed tasks for the 2015 survey about what happens next.

I am especially interested in knowing what happens to the 2015 proposals still open. Are they carried forward to the new survey or do we start with a blank slate?

The goal as it is being discussed includes objectives for Technical Collaboration and Learning&Evaluation. I have edited title and description accordingly.

What about these expected impact / deliverables:

• Rich and diverse participation of core contributors in the definition of proposals and their voting.
• Review and improvement of proposals before the voting.
• Good coverage of communities beyond the Wikipedias.

L&E's part should be added.

This goal as it's explained in the description sounds pretty comprehensive:

This will focus on reaching out to the communities to give them a chance to propose and vote on tasks as well as helping Community Tech handle proposals and make sure they make sense by the time the voting phase comes.

We had added "support Community Tech in defining and scoping wishes related to community-led editor engagement and content contribution programs," to the Q2 doc, but if the goal you wrote will incorporate both the reaching out and the following up, I can remove mine.

@Abit , your objective specific to "community-led editor engagement and content contribution programs" needs to be spelled out with a description and measurement of success, in an own subtask. The key question is: how will we know whether we have succeed in this objective by the end of December?

@Qgil, Isn't that part of the L&E goals rather than the CE goals?

@Abit, we plan to have a CE goal combining the work of TC and L&E because it is all focused on the Community Wishlist Survey and we need to work in good sync. As agreed with Maggie and Jaime, I am responsible of assuring that this CE goal is defined with Johan/TC and you/L&E.

These are process details. You keep being the owner of the L&E tasks. Same for Johan and the TC part. Is this clearer now?

Looking at the emphasis on promotion of the survey beyond the Wikipedias use cases and in multiple languages, I think a sharper and clearer definition of this goal would be

Improve the representation of Wikimedia communities beyond English Wikipedia in the Community Wishlist Survey 2016

What do you think? This captures the effort TC is planning to lead reaching out to stakeholders across the movement in multiple languages, and it also captures L&E's focus on good participation and outcome for the specific case of the stakeholders they are supporting.

As per expected impact / deliverables, making sure that communities are aware and proposals are clear sound like means to an end, but what is the end we are aiming for? Also, the "making sure" is not easy to measure.

What about this:

• Achieve higher participation than last year in the definition of proposals and their voting
• Achieve better coverage of communities beyond the Wikipedias.

These objectives require good awareness by the communities about the possibility to submit proposals and vote them. Polishing proposals as they come and before voting is also a sensible task toward these objectives: the clearer the proposals, the more likely that participation will be higher beyond the tech friendly & fluent English core.

In T144074#2597464, @Qgil wrote:

• Achieve higher participation than last year in the definition of proposals and their voting

Does that mean someone takes the changelog of the {2015, 2016} CW Proposals page and counts the number of unique editors?

• Achieve better coverage of communities beyond the Wikipedias.

What does "coverage" mean? Someone could massmessage VPs on WM sites in different languages to "cover" more folks to get potentially aware of CW's existence, but is that meant here?
How is "coverage" measured? Is that about getting the usernames of all users who edited the {2015, 2016} CW Proposals page on metawiki and then check on which sites they've performed the most edits to identify their "home wikis"?

Does that mean someone takes the changelog of the {2015, 2016} CW Proposals page and counts the number of unique editors?

We have that number and I'm fairly certain @DannyH will make sure we'll have it for 2016 as well, if nothing else.

At the moment, updates for this are mainly posted in T144078, T144075 and T144080.

We're currently focusing on letting the communities know they can vote (T144076), replying to questions and keeping an eye on the survey to make sure the voting process doesn't run into any problems, or fixing them when it does. Also, if questions come up where a WMF team or a developer would need to comment, we try to point them to it.