Just a quick note on behalf of Europeana to acknowledge that this suggestion has been received, and that we're actively discussing its implications. We'll respond as soon as we can. Thanks,
-Liam On 19 February 2015 at 09:14, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gergo Tisza <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> (This assumes that you need external code review. Two Europeana devs >> working on the project and doing code reviews for each other could be an >> alternative.) >> > > Thanks for all the smart comments in the thread so far, and big thanks to > everyone who's worked on this proposal. GWT is a pretty amazing reflection > of the unique value Wikimedia can provide to the cultural and educational > sector already, so I am really happy this is getting additional attention. > > A couple of points: > > 1) I agree with Gergo's point quoted above, and within the context of the > current proposal, would recommend budgeting for at least a 20 hour/week > developer supporting Dan with code review and integration, ideally someone > with prior MW experience. This cannot entirely eliminate integration effort > on the WMF side of things, but will ensure that the people who have the > greatest interest in seeing the project through to completion are set up > for success in doing so. With or without this, let's really carefully > negotiate what exactly everyone's commitments are so we avoid a repeat of > phase 1. > > 2) I say "within the context of the current proposal", because I would ask > you to give serious consideration to the following question: Does > GLAMWikiToolset need to existing within MediaWiki? When it was first > developed, we didn't have OAuth (so a tool outside MediaWiki couldn't > perform user actions), and our APIs were less mature. Today we have many > examples of external tools that are doing amazing things. Magnus' tools > have made tens of millions of edits to Wikidata. The Wiki Edu Foundation > has created wizard.wikiedu.org and dashboard.wikiedu.org for managing > student assignments and courses. > > I know we have GWT and so it seems natural to just fix bugs and improve > it. But consider the long term development velocity. GWT is used by a very > small subset of Wikimedia users, it's not "core site functionality" and > does, as far as I can tell (I may be missing something), not benefit > dramatically from deep integration. You pay a lot of cost for this > integration without necessarily getting a lot of "bang for the buck". > > I would wager that if you started over with a new external tool, applying > all the lessons learned so far and spending extra effort on UX, you could > pretty quickly catch up with current functionality and then would move at a > faster velocity from there. Consider where we want to be in 2016, 2018, > 2020 -- is the strategy of maintaining a deeply integrated MediaWiki > extension for this really sustainable or desirable? I think it's at least > worth seriously considering the alternatives. > > Erik > -- > Erik Möller > VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Glamtools mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools > >
_______________________________________________ Glamtools mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
