The document appears to define the stakeholders as
Audience heads Product managers/owners Software engineers
Where, if anywhere, do actual users fit in to this process? What is the proposed plan for user engagement as the concept, planning, design and specification stages? Are users regarded as co-creators of the design product, or merely passive consumers of whatever the process happens to produce?
PS: What exactly is an audience head?
Where did you spot "audience head" in this particular document?
We are talking about a human centered vision, which, by definition, puts the user, at the heart of the process (hence this statement of purpose, to actually acknowledge that). Our "users" vary from contributing community members to casual readers, and with a wide range of shades in between (casual contributors, addicted readers, etc). When the document mentions research and collaboration themes, this entails that user research is conducted and collaborative discussion/decision-making processes are applied, while keeping in mind, that collaborative decision making process could be experimental/changing, based on the variety of users mentioned earlier, where in any case, we would make the process as transparent as possible (and we already mentioned transparency).
It is in the linked Team Practices Group/Design engagement/Post-interview roadmap. Do you accept that list (which I have quoted directly) as the statement of the relevant stakeholders?
You say that you will put the user at the heart of this process. Very well, then how?
"Very well, then how?"
I think they say how right above your comment in this sentence: "When the document mentions research and collaboration themes, this entails that user research is conducted and collaborative discussion/decision-making processes are applied".
Does that answer your question, or is there more that I am not getting?
"users" seems really different than "user research is conducted and collaborative discussion/decision-making processes are applied".
The first means these are stakeholders.
The second means these are final users, than serious research will be done by people in the know to understand what they want, filtered by research call for feedbacks, polls, automated messages on the village pump more than by organic discussion.
In general, the audience head, is someone who manages a team whose work is user facing, so people related to product, fundraising, and communications for example. The people you mentioned are directly related to product work, and the design work, however, in a community based movement, stakeholders are more broad, otherwise, we wont have this conversation around a draft of statement of purpose, while editing it as we share.
As mentioned, human centered design, by definition, puts the user in the heart of the process, it is kind of a standard process, where we will not reinvent the wheel. Thanks.
Thaks for that. So all the stakeholders listed in that subpage are internal, so it cannot be complete. What and where is the accepted complete list of stakeolders?
I regret to say that simply repeating the slogan that users are at the heart of the process does not answer the question "how". How will that laudable ambition, and the design philosophy you mention, and the standard process you propose to adopt, actually be put into practice by the WMF? What form do you envisage for the engagement? What will you actually do in the real world? Surveys -- closed or free-form, opt-in or opt-out, public or by invitation? Wiki pages -- which wikis, which pages? Face-to-face meetings -- where when and with whom? Mailing lists -- new or existing, open or closed, moderated or unmoderated? To adopy your metaphor, there are many wheels that have been invented, now you have to choose which ones to use and where on the vehicle to put them -- and you need to work with the community on that choice.
@Rogol Domedonfors, I actually think that these are really good questions. It's clear you really care about designing for the user. If not written directly into the statement of purpose, @Awjrichards (WMF) answering some of these questions can only make design better. But perhaps those answers come at a different stage?
@Rogol Domedonfors thanks for kicking off this thread. The document you linked to regarding stakeholders (Team Practices Group/Design engagement/Post-interview roadmap) is not intended to outline the stakeholders to WMF design. Rather, the list of stakeholders articulated there are those identified for the process we've undergone of defining the statement of purpose for design. I think you are correct that it is incomplete and currently only references stakeholders internal to the WMF. I've updated the document to that effect.
It's important to note that this document (this draft statement of purpose) is not intended to articulate specific actions that will be taken - it's not intended to answer the "how", which from your comments I am understanding to be your principle concern (am I grokking that right?). This document is about the "what" - what is it that design at the WMF is attempting to achieve.
As for the "how" piece in regards to user research, currently each product team approaches this as makes the most sense for them in their product area. But at a high level, much of the user-centric research that happens at the WMF happens through our Design Research group. You can find specific details about their "how" on their linked page.
Once we've clarified the "what" question, we will be reassessing the "how" question more broadly - what needs to change for the design group to be able to achieve what it's setting out to do? In other words, what needs to change in the "how" to help us get there?