Chad <innocentkil...@...> writes: > I'd like to touch on this one particular point. The community HAS spoken > and clearly wants it back the way it was. A volunteer even did so [0] but > was reverted [1] with the message that UI changes to Vector are off-limits > without some sort of prior discussion and approval. > > This sits with me _very_ badly. I don't disagree (in principle) that changes > to > our user experience should be discussed and not implemented via fiat. But > when you've got overwhelming consensus that this is the right course of > action, reverting the change and declaring it off-limits to our committers > is just wrong. Our volunteer developers do a pretty good job of judging and > implementing community consensus, and saying that some things aren't > negotiable sets a bad precedence. > I completely agree with this. Although the people that made and executed this decision are my friends and coworkers, I increasingly feel the need to call them out on this particular action. We, the usability team, exist to improve the appearance and usability of the site, not to own or monopolize these topics. This revert, particularly the tone (and, to a lesser degree, the substance) of the revert summary, sends the message that we do in fact claim that monopoly; that any decision about usability goes through us; that "our" code is a sacred work that may only be touched with prior approval of a staff member, and that any mortal who dares violate these sacred commandments will experience the Wrath of the Immediate Revert.
There is no doubt in my mind that all members of the usability team, as well as other people involved with our work, will reject these notions instantly upon reading them. I am convinced that every single one of them has the genuine desire to work with the community in mutual respect rather than to impose their views upon them. However, they have failed to be cooperative, having appeared rather authoritarian in both their actions and their (mostly unconscious) messaging. I am certain this was not their intention, but that doesn't mean it wasn't inappropriate. About the issue at hand: there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that the collapsing of the language links should be reverted, be it permanently or in anticipation of a different solution. The Foundation has been neglecting to do this for too long now. Unless someone stops me, I will reinstate Plationdes' revert and deploy it to the live site tomorrow morning (PDT). Roan Kattouw (Catrope) P.S.: Except for the last sentence, this post expresses my opinions as a community member, not as a contractor for the Foundation. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l