That is a good point, Revi. And this is the kind of mess that makes me discouraged sometimes. But I think that James' involvement will be helpful here, as will a possible migration plan to a maintained tool.
(I've noticed a pattern recently of a few people separately deciding that they're not going to maintain certain tools or projects any longer. This maintainability problem really needs to be addressed, and is something that I'm hoping a CTO or VPE would address head-on.) On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Yongmin Hong <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2015. 9. 30. 오전 3:52에 "Floor Koudijs" <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > > > > The option that we are currently considering (and I cannot yet guarantee > a timeline or anything like that because we're in the middle of the > planning phase) is adapting the Wiki Ed Foundation's Dashboard to make it > fit for international use. See the Phabricator task here, and the related > Phabricator project. We would like to make this a feature project for the > next round of Outreachy, which means that we'll have a dedicated intern to > work on this project full time for three months, with the support of two > mentors. If this works out as I hope it will, we may have something ready > before the next academic year - but again, no hard guarantees here. I am > currently working on getting the project shaped up, looking into mentors > and confirming with possible interns. > > > > Two important points that were addressed in this thread: > > * Have community involvement early on. I really love this idea, and I'm > very grateful you're bringing this up and keep reminding us not to forget > about that. What I'd personally love to see is a group that can be involved > in advice, user testing and anything else on the user end that we may need. > I'm copying Quim Gil on this email to see if this fits within the scope of > Outreachy, as he may have some ideas around how to organize this best. We > would have to be careful not too derail the project with too ambitious > ideas and suggestions, and focusing on attainable and concrete tasks for > the intern to work on. That said, having several minds involved in this > with different backgrounds could be hugely valuable, in my opinion. > > * Think about maintenance. This is what I'm currently looking into, > since it's clear that the issue is not so much developing new tools, but > also looking ahead and making sure there will be ongoing support for these > tools. That's a longer discussion that wwill take place in parallel to the > development of the tool itself. This may not sound reassuring, but please > trust that it's foremost in all of our minds at WMF - we already have > enough tools out there that don't get the proper support, and we really > don't want to build more. > > > > I seriously doubt that the software will be maintained after the > internship period if this is Outreachy project. > The likely workflow: > 1.The Outreachy term ends > 2.User disappear/become inactive > 3.We are going to get this same message again at some stage after new > security vulnerability is found. > > Well, yeah, Flow, LQT, (ironic both tools are going to be not be > developed)[1] etc etc. > > [1]: context: Flow was developed with the purpose of 'replacing LQT/make > discussion easier' but I feel if they succeded to replace LQT fully. > (disclaimer: Flow is "not active development mode" according to the WMF > team.) > > -- > revi > https://revi.me > -- Sent from Android -- > > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > >
_______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
