Here's why: this is a [[top-down]] imposition on the wikipedia community. If it is successful it will only be so by fundamentally destroying the character of that community, which develops organically from the bottom up. If it is unsuccessful, then it won't have mattered.
Like a substantial percentage of the wikipedia community, I do not respect our benevolent overlords. So long as they stay out of the way of our ongoing creation, they can do whatever they want and I'll support their equally vital efforts. If they decide to channel our creativity outside our mission statement (and, incidentally, [[theirs]]), well, then I have issues.
One of the first things I asked, when I was finally able to find a platform where I could ask anyone anything, was "What is your authority?" I was trying to find out who had authorized the strategy initiative, and who was managing it. It was authorized by the Board of Trustees in April 2009, directing Ms Gardner to develop and implement the strategy.
This is really important. The board gave responsibility for creating a future plan to an employee. Not the community.
And Ms Gardner is doing the right thing - using outside advice and community-derived staff she is trying to create a strategy which is at least community-involved. But it isn't community-driven.
Maybe this is the best that can be hoped for. Maybe the Wikimedia communities are simply too insular, or too inter-antagonistic, to develop cooperative efforts for defining visions of the future. But, maybe, this is leaving the community feeling outside looking in, even according to some of the organizers.
I think particularly with the English wikipedia people feel significantly removed and want someone to "translate" the process for them. - PhilippeDifferent communities within what is sometimes called the "Wikimedia Movement" have occasionally been informed of the existence of this effort - which has been ongoing since at least April 2009 - and reacted quite defensively at what they feel is an encroachment on their sphere of influence.
But from my armchair there is little or no awareness or involvement in the process even among the more active members of the communities. So a minority will be making decisions for the whole, [[disenfranchising]] the majority.