Update strategy documents to be more refined and easier to reference

[choldgraf]

This updates a few high-level strategy documents so that we've got the content in our compass rather than in a linked google doc and slide deck etc. It follows many rounds of edits we had in the google doc below, so none of this should be surprising to folks.

Here's a link to the original strategy docs

Previews of these changes:

• https://2i2c-team-compass--1025.org.readthedocs.build/organization/mission/
• https://2i2c-team-compass--1025.org.readthedocs.build/organization/strategy/
• https://2i2c-team-compass--1025.org.readthedocs.build/organization/value-proposition/

Here are the major changes:

• Updated our mission to focus on co-creation.
• Added our goals, theory of impact, strategy, and priorities
• Added our value proposition
• For each of the above, I tried to shrink them down as much as possible so that we have short, referenceable content rather than long paragraphs.

To do

• Cross-reference this content with the other strategic docs we had linked (e.g. the Navigation Fund grant) to make sure we are not missing anything crucial.
• Give feedback about whether there is anything major missing at a content level.
• Give feedback about whether there is any structural change we obviously need to make.

That said, I think it'd be best if we try to get this in quickly and not get bogged down in things that aren't strategically critical - we can continue to iterate on this content!

References

• closes https://github.com/2i2c-org/meta/issues/1860
• closes https://github.com/2i2c-org/meta/issues/582
• closes Update our organizational mission #513

[aprilmj]

I read an earlier version of this PR & still like it.

This new mission statement is great - same idea, more relatable IMO: 2i2c enables communities to co-create discoveries and learning through shared data, computing, and tools.

[jmunroe]

This is timely! I am working on a different section of the TC and wanted to cross reference something from strategy documents.

When describing our value proposition, we had written in the strategy docs

Here’s our core value proposition
2i2c supports a network of communities with interactive computing hubs to power their science, and invests in the open source tools that help our communities create and share knowledge.

In this PR, I am not seeing this particular phrasing. The value proposition jumps straight into the "virtuous cycle of co-creation" content but misses the core value proposition. I think this is an important statement to keep in the value proposition.

[jmunroe]

I think this is intended to be a more condensed and reworked version of the original core value proposition:

2i2c supports a network of communities with interactive computing hubs to power their science, and invests in the open source tools that help our communities create and share knowledge.

But I think it loses two important ideas in the reworking:

1. The value of 2i2c network of communities
2. The reason communities invest in open source is to create and share knowledge.

It also replaces 'interactive computing hubs' (a front stage product that we build our services around) with 'managed infrastructure' (a much more vague concept that emphasizes back stage support).

[jmunroe]

My suggestion is to return the to the original statement:

2i2c supports a network of communities with interactive computing hubs to power their science, and invests in the open source tools that help our communities create and share knowledge.

and let the following figure and caption bring in the 'co-creation' and 'virtuous cycle' ideas.

[jmunroe]

I agree we need to update this mission statement and incorporate the multiple rounds of discussions and feedback we done into a new statement.

In the strategy document, we had come up with

2i2c’s mission is to grow the world’s collective ability to make discoveries and learn from one another by developing, operating, and supporting open infrastructure for interactive computing.

I thought that was good because it described a long-term goal that emphasized 2i2c potential impact as a mission driven organization.

This revised mission statement doesn't carry that same sense of ambition. It feels more of a description of what offer today and not a future state we should be striving towards.

[agoose77]

❤️

[aprilmj]

I like shifting our focus from impacting research and education by supporting open infra towards a more expansive growing the world's collective ability, period. It feels like a push towards community service and connection as a core part of our mission.

[choldgraf]

I briefly tried to address each of the suggestions from @jmunroe by making hybrids between the two. I'd be curious what you think about the new wording (or @aprilmj as well since she's commented on these too). My main concern is that once they're too wordy, they're hard to remember, reference, and use. I can't tell if this is too wordy or not so I'm going to sleep on it.

If we can't converge on mission/value prop statements then I'm going to add placeholders for both of those, and merge all the other pieces of this so that we don't block that work on figuring out these very high-level and abstract mission statement types of things.

[choldgraf]

Some feedback I got via Slack:

From @Gman0909
The language there really resonates with me, with the emphasis on community building and enablement now coming through much more assertively.

From @aprilmj
Overall I like the direction you're taking a lot - +1 to Giuliano's point that it's helping the social aspects of our network emerge more strongly.

You started something really interesting here:
Every decision should increase our leverage by leaning into the strategy above. Ask these questions before starting work:
...list of questions
I find a short list of questions a great way to make decisions about strategy, and I feel like having a shared list would help us make both technical and social choices. So 💯 to having a list, but I feel like those aren't quite the right questions. I can't put a finger on what's missing.