Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Rob Lanphier]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:05 AM, C. Scott Ananian
 wrote:
> Here are three topic suggestions, cc'ed here in case folks aren't following
> the Flow, with an illustrative (but not exhaustive) list of sessions that
> could fit under each

Thanks for doing that breakdown!  I incorporated your suggestions into
this page:


I suspect each of the three ideas you presented here are worthy of
separate threads (and perhaps separate on-wiki conversations), so I'll
reply to at least the first part under separate cover.

Rob

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[C. Scott Ananian]

Here are three topic suggestions, cc'ed here in case folks aren't following
the Flow, with an illustrative (but not exhaustive) list of sessions that
could fit under each:

*1. *(A unified vision for) *Collaboration*

   - Real-time collaboration (not just editing, but chatting, curation,
   patrolling)
   - WikiProject enhancements: User groups, finding people to work with,
   making these first class DB concepts
   - Civility/diversity/inclusiveness, mechanisms to handle/prevent
   harassment, vandalism, trolling while working together
   - Real-time reading -- watching edits occur in real time
   - Integration with WikiEdu
   - Broadening notion of "an edit" in DB -- multiple contributors,
   possibly multiple levels of granularity
   - Tip-toeing toward "draft"/"merge" models of editing
   - Better diff tools: refreshed non-wikitext UX, timelines, authorship
   maps, etc.

*2. *Improving* Modular Wikitext Maintenance*

   - Infoboxes from wikidata, categories from wikidata, wikidata in
   commons, oh my!
   - Visual editing of templates, alternative template mechanisms, etc
   - Wikitext 2.0 -- how to shave off the rough edges but still provide a
   text-based power-user editing interface
   - Global pages, Global templates, etc
   - Improving composition of text and media content on the page
   - Moving to a Glossary model for LanguageConverter rules
   - Splitting metadata (categories, page flags, etc) from content in the DB

*3. *(Doubling down on)* Machine Translation*

   - Annotation service to record fine-grained translation correspondences
   between wikis over time (not just at the time of first translation)
   - Suggestion service to suggest new edits to wiki A when translated text
   wiki B is modified (or vice-versa)
   - Refactoring existing language converter pairs as (sometimes trivial)
   translation engines, eg cyrillic-to-latin
   - Building a translation engine in house, training it with translated
   wiki pages, improving it over time, etc
   - Tightly integrating the translation UX for everyone. More: one
   community wearing babel fishes / Less: scattered villagers after the Tower
   of Babel fell.
   - Improving harassment/vandalism/civility/inclusiveness/diversity
   mechanisms to handle these larger cross-cultural communities.
   - i18n of global pages, global templates, etc. May need mechanisms to
   allow translation of comments, for example.

 --scott
-- 
(http://cscott.net)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Quim Gil]

Robla and I are trying to nail down the main topics that will bootstrap the
Summit in the next days. Please join the discussion until we make a
decision (and beyond if you wish, of course):
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Tb6bztglijowk8x3

Remember that at least 50% of time and space will be dedicated to an
Unconference setup that will allow the discussion to any other topic not
making it to this short list.


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Bináris  wrote:

> 2016-09-15 18:53 GMT+02:00 Rob Lanphier :
>
> > This seems apropos:
> > https://vimeo.com/121290570
> >
> > It's good Hollywood is finally paying attention to our people.
> >
> Made my day! :-D
>
>
>
> --
> Bináris
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Bináris]

2016-09-15 18:53 GMT+02:00 Rob Lanphier :

> This seems apropos:
> https://vimeo.com/121290570
>
> It's good Hollywood is finally paying attention to our people.
>
Made my day! :-D



-- 
Bináris
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 15.09.2016 um 18:53 schrieb Rob Lanphier:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Daniel Kinzler
>  wrote:
>> Am 15.09.2016 um 01:54 schrieb Chad:
>>> Bummer. I think paying down tech debt is fun and way more rewarding
>>> than making shiny new things.
>>>
>>> But I'm also weird as hell...
>>
>> /me waves to a kindred soul.
> 
> This seems apropos:
> https://vimeo.com/121290570
> 
> It's good Hollywood is finally paying attention to our people.

Haha, excellent!

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Rob Lanphier]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Daniel Kinzler
 wrote:
> Am 15.09.2016 um 01:54 schrieb Chad:
>> Bummer. I think paying down tech debt is fun and way more rewarding
>> than making shiny new things.
>>
>> But I'm also weird as hell...
>
> /me waves to a kindred soul.

This seems apropos:
https://vimeo.com/121290570

It's good Hollywood is finally paying attention to our people.

Rob

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 15.09.2016 um 01:54 schrieb Chad:
> Bummer. I think paying down tech debt is fun and way more rewarding
> than making shiny new things.
> 
> But I'm also weird as hell...

/me waves to a kindred soul.

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Chad]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:01 PM MZMcBride  wrote:

> >>* how can we improve the quality of our software, and pay down the
> >> technical debt we've accumulated over the years?
> >
> >Pro: again, a favorite topic of talk-over-beers among developers.  One
> >could imagine a whole summit devoted to going through our software stack
> >component by component, identifying the cruft hidden in each, and making
> >concrete plans to banish it.
> >Con: this opinion might be controversial, but my impression is that we're
> >actually pretty good at low-level refactoring.  There are plenty of things
> >we are hesitant to change (say, wikitext syntax!), but I don't get the
> >feeling that the barrier is in engineering.  The problem is mostly a
> >management one: how can engineering communicate the time spend and value
> >added by "invisible" maintenance and refactoring; how can we get
> >management to allocate more dedicates resources to this?  I don't think
> >there's much technical debate about what to work on, if we had the
> >resources to do so.
>
> I think this problem exists in most companies/organizations. Nobody wants
> to pay down technical debt; building new features is a lot more exciting.
>

Bummer. I think paying down tech debt is fun and way more rewarding
than making shiny new things.

But I'm also weird as hell...


>
> >Ok, so what have we learned from this?  Even if others have different
> >opinions about each of Rob's proposed topics, which are the *sort* of
> >things we'd like the dev summit to be about?  Radical ideas?  Stuff
> >developers bitch over beers about?  Vague umbrella topics ("make wiki
> >easier to use") that we can crowd a bunch of stuff under?  Something else
> >entirely?
>
> In my experience, the greatest value derived from these types of events
> (summits, hackathons, unconferences, whatever other cutesy word) is having
> unstructured time to explore and think and poke and discuss with people
> about pet projects and other neat ideas. The structured and more formal
> sessions, with their broad themes for whatever year it is, are usually
> boring and ill-fitting.
>
>
This. I usually find myself skipping most sessions. One of two things
happen:

1) You sit there and listen to someone else talk to you, or
2) It's ostensibly a group discussion, but the group is too big and nothing
useful gets discussed because you spend too much time listening to 30
different voices.

(1) bores me to tears. (2) is basically useless.

-Chad
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[MZMcBride]

C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Rob Lanphier  wrote:
>>Let's say that we had to pick only one of these questions to answer
>>at WikiDev17.  Which would you choose?
>
>All of them!  But since no one else bit Rob's bait, let me try to give a
>pro/con for each.

I considered taking the bait. I read the questions, but my primary thought
was "man, this guy seems way overdue to submit a Gerrit patch or do
something less highfalutin."

>>* how can we better distribute the information on our websites?
>
>Pro: invites radical thought disconnected from monetary/fundraising needs!
>How can we get everyone to use our stuff?  We collectively probably
>haven't thought hard about this recently.

Plenty of people have given this thought. Offline reading, printed
editions, putting Wikipedia on the Moon, Wikipedia Zero, etc. We can do
more, of course, but that's true of everything.

>> * how can we help our software development community be more inclusive
>>and productive (and attract many more people)?
>
>Pro: again, big thoughts, on a topic which deserves attention.  Can drill
>down into nitty-gritty like, "why not github?" and "can we make the review
>process more friendly?" which are favorite topics for fat-chewing among
>developers.

Wikimedia-related Git repositories are on GitHub. If we want to attract
more people, that requires figuring out how to scale up the already shaky
code review process.

>>* how can we improve the quality of our software, and pay down the
>> technical debt we've accumulated over the years?
>
>Pro: again, a favorite topic of talk-over-beers among developers.  One
>could imagine a whole summit devoted to going through our software stack
>component by component, identifying the cruft hidden in each, and making
>concrete plans to banish it.
>Con: this opinion might be controversial, but my impression is that we're
>actually pretty good at low-level refactoring.  There are plenty of things
>we are hesitant to change (say, wikitext syntax!), but I don't get the
>feeling that the barrier is in engineering.  The problem is mostly a
>management one: how can engineering communicate the time spend and value
>added by "invisible" maintenance and refactoring; how can we get
>management to allocate more dedicates resources to this?  I don't think
>there's much technical debate about what to work on, if we had the
>resources to do so.

I think this problem exists in most companies/organizations. Nobody wants
to pay down technical debt; building new features is a lot more exciting.

>>* how can we make our websites better learning environments?
>
>Pro: another radical idea, and I like radical ideas. ;)
>Con: We have wikiversity for this.  Yes, it has its problems.  But
>wouldn't this topic be better phrased as, "how can we better support
>wikiprojects other than wikipedia?"

Yes, that's better phrasing. But it's still too vague to be useful. As I
read this question, I hear your comments about "strategy" v. "dev" echoing
around in my head. How we can better support non-Wikipedia projects might
mean setting them free/abandoning them.

>Ok, so what have we learned from this?  Even if others have different
>opinions about each of Rob's proposed topics, which are the *sort* of
>things we'd like the dev summit to be about?  Radical ideas?  Stuff
>developers bitch over beers about?  Vague umbrella topics ("make wiki
>easier to use") that we can crowd a bunch of stuff under?  Something else
>entirely?

In my experience, the greatest value derived from these types of events
(summits, hackathons, unconferences, whatever other cutesy word) is having
unstructured time to explore and think and poke and discuss with people
about pet projects and other neat ideas. The structured and more formal
sessions, with their broad themes for whatever year it is, are usually
boring and ill-fitting.

MZMcBride



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Rob Lanphier  wrote:

> Good point.  Let's say that we had to pick only one of these questions to
> answer at WikiDev17.  Which would you choose?
>

All of them!  But since no one else bit Rob's bait, let me try to give a
pro/con for each.

* how do we make manipulating the information on our websites easier and
> more useful? (both for humans and computers)
>

Pro: a very broad topic, most reasonable subjects of discussion could fit
under this umbrella.  CF Cite, multilingual support, wikidata-in-commons,
etc.
Con: a very broad topic, would this even be a useful frame?


> * how can we better distribute the information on our websites?
>

Pro: invites radical thought disconnected from monetary/fundraising needs!
How can we get everyone to use our stuff?  We collectively probably haven't
thought hard about this recently.
Con: not related to most of the other proto-topics I've heard floated.
Maybe more of a "strategy" topic than a "dev" topic.


> * how can we help our software development community be more inclusive and
> productive (and attract many more people)?
>

Pro: again, big thoughts, on a topic which deserves attention.  Can drill
down into nitty-gritty like, "why not github?" and "can we make the review
process more friendly?" which are favorite topics for fat-chewing among
developers.
Con: again maybe more "strategy" than "dev"; doesn't help us discuss
wikidata or refactoring the front-end.  Also, why "software development
community more inclusive" and not "editor community more inclusive"?  The
sharp division there might be a real issue.


> * how can we improve the quality of our software, and pay down the
> technical debt we've accumulated over the years?
>

Pro: again, a favorite topic of talk-over-beers among developers.  One
could imagine a whole summit devoted to going through our software stack
component by component, identifying the cruft hidden in each, and making
concrete plans to banish it.
Con: this opinion might be controversial, but my impression is that we're
actually pretty good at low-level refactoring.  There are plenty of things
we are hesitant to change (say, wikitext syntax!), but I don't get the
feeling that the barrier is in engineering.  The problem is mostly a
management one: how can engineering communicate the time spend and value
added by "invisible" maintenance and refactoring; how can we get management
to allocate more dedicates resources to this?  I don't think there's much
technical debate about what to work on, if we had the resources to do so.

* how can we make our websites better learning environments?
>

Pro: another radical idea, and I like radical ideas. ;)
Con: We have wikiversity for this.  Yes, it has its problems.  But wouldn't
this topic be better phrased as, "how can we better support wikiprojects
other than wikipedia?"


> * how can we make our websites better support languages other than English
> (and character sets other than Latin)?
>

Pro: I feel like this was deliberately aimed at me, and I like it. ;)  It
would serve as a concrete frame to recruit new participants from outside
enwiki/SFO.
Con:  Do I have to argue against my own pander?

...

Ok, ok.

Con: the typical attendees of a SFO dev summit are not really the best
folks to discuss non-English/non-Latin issues.  It might be worthwhile
doing as an "educate SFO developers about the issues" training summit, but
if you actually wanted to set goals/make progress you should really host
this topic at a non-North-American Wikimania.

=

Ok, so what have we learned from this?  Even if others have different
opinions about each of Rob's proposed topics, which are the *sort* of
things we'd like the dev summit to be about?  Radical ideas?  Stuff
developers bitch over beers about?  Vague umbrella topics ("make wiki
easier to use") that we can crowd a bunch of stuff under?  Something else
entirely?

  --scott

-- 
(http://cscott.net)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Demetrio Garcia]

DO NOT WRITE ME
THAK¨¨s

El jue, 8/9/16, Rob Lanphier <ro...@wikimedia.org> escribió:

 Asunto: Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?
 Para: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 Fecha: jueves, 8 de septiembre, 2016 13:57
 
 On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at
 7:53 AM, Nuria Ruiz <nu...@wikimedia.org>
 wrote:
 >
 > Seems that
 defining what areas we want to cover in the summit is
 > a prerequisite  to do what Brion was
 asking for in the initial e-mail, to
 >
 open the summit beyond WMF.
 >
 >
 Good point.  Let's
 say that we had to pick only one of these questions to
 answer at WikiDev17.  Which would you
 choose?
 * how do we make manipulating the
 information on our websites easier and
 more
 useful? (both for humans and computers)
 *
 how can we better distribute the information on our
 websites?
 * how can we help our software
 development community be more inclusive and
 productive (and attract many more people)?
 * how can we improve the quality of our
 software, and pay down the
 technical debt
 we've accumulated over the years?
 * how
 can we make our websites better learning environments?
 * how can we make our websites better support
 languages other than English
 (and character
 sets other than Latin)?
 
 Rob
 ___
 Wikitech-l mailing list
 Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Rob Lanphier]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Nuria Ruiz  wrote:
>
> Seems that defining what areas we want to cover in the summit is
> a prerequisite  to do what Brion was asking for in the initial e-mail, to
> open the summit beyond WMF.
>
>
Good point.  Let's say that we had to pick only one of these questions to
answer at WikiDev17.  Which would you choose?
* how do we make manipulating the information on our websites easier and
more useful? (both for humans and computers)
* how can we better distribute the information on our websites?
* how can we help our software development community be more inclusive and
productive (and attract many more people)?
* how can we improve the quality of our software, and pay down the
technical debt we've accumulated over the years?
* how can we make our websites better learning environments?
* how can we make our websites better support languages other than English
(and character sets other than Latin)?

Rob
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Nuria Ruiz]

>The organizers of the Summit propose to have a few main topics defined
>beforehand, so we can invite the people beyond the usual Summit
>participants that should be involved in these discussions.

>We don't have any opinion about which topics should be selected. However,
>we believe that it is important to choose complex topics with a high user
>impact (direct or indirect) and ramifications in multiple technical areas.
>The Summit with its +200 participants provides a great framework to push
>these topics.

I think this idea is inline with how most tech conferences work. In order
for the summit to be successful we
should know what type of event we are creating (purely technical, a venue
to explore user requests, a venue to influence
product roadmap, just "get in touch"... whatever)

Seems that defining what areas we want to cover in the summit is
a prerequisite  to do what Brion was asking for in the initial e-mail, to
open the summit beyond WMF.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Quim Gil  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Rob Lanphier  wrote:
>
> > It's hard for me to read this as anything but "WMF Product selects the
> > topics, and then 'listens' for objections on wikitech-l".
>
>
> Since this is not even remotely what I am trying to say, let me try again,
> while I keep iterating on the proposal:
>
> The organizers of the Summit propose to have a few main topics defined
> beforehand, so we can invite the people beyond the usual Summit
> participants that should be involved in these discussions.
>
> We don't have any opinion about which topics should be selected. However,
> we believe that it is important to choose complex topics with a high user
> impact (direct or indirect) and ramifications in multiple technical areas.
> The Summit with its +200 participants provides a great framework to push
> these topics.
>
> We don't have any opinion about who decides these topics and how. However,
> we need good enough answers and fast, so we can start organizing the
> participation and the program. There will be time to fine tune things as we
> go, and there will be enough space for all the topics not selected
> beforehand, in the unconference part of the Summit.
>
> We believe that by having the right people focusing on a few main topics
> before and during the Summit, the outcome of the event will have a clearer
> impact in the strategy and goals that ultimately drive where we put a lot
> of our attention and resources.
>
> Is your sense that the
> > correct direction for us is for someone to provide more top-down
> > direction instead of wikitech-l conversation?
> >
>
> My sense is that we need to open registration, call for participation, and
> call for travel sponsorship requests as soon as possible. This list, the
> Architecture committee, the WMF Technology management team, and the WMF
> Product management team are aware of this situation and our request to
> define main topics. I will be checking with all these sources with the goal
> of having a good enough answer that allows us to move forward with the
> Summit organization.
>
> --
> Quim Gil
> Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Quim Gil]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Rob Lanphier  wrote:

> It's hard for me to read this as anything but "WMF Product selects the
> topics, and then 'listens' for objections on wikitech-l".


Since this is not even remotely what I am trying to say, let me try again,
while I keep iterating on the proposal:

The organizers of the Summit propose to have a few main topics defined
beforehand, so we can invite the people beyond the usual Summit
participants that should be involved in these discussions.

We don't have any opinion about which topics should be selected. However,
we believe that it is important to choose complex topics with a high user
impact (direct or indirect) and ramifications in multiple technical areas.
The Summit with its +200 participants provides a great framework to push
these topics.

We don't have any opinion about who decides these topics and how. However,
we need good enough answers and fast, so we can start organizing the
participation and the program. There will be time to fine tune things as we
go, and there will be enough space for all the topics not selected
beforehand, in the unconference part of the Summit.

We believe that by having the right people focusing on a few main topics
before and during the Summit, the outcome of the event will have a clearer
impact in the strategy and goals that ultimately drive where we put a lot
of our attention and resources.

Is your sense that the
> correct direction for us is for someone to provide more top-down
> direction instead of wikitech-l conversation?
>

My sense is that we need to open registration, call for participation, and
call for travel sponsorship requests as soon as possible. This list, the
Architecture committee, the WMF Technology management team, and the WMF
Product management team are aware of this situation and our request to
define main topics. I will be checking with all these sources with the goal
of having a good enough answer that allows us to move forward with the
Summit organization.

-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Rob Lanphier]

Hi Quim,

Thanks for the response, and thanks for responding for my request to
talk about this at the upcoming IRC meeting:



I've got a lot of thoughts about your response, but I'm going to zero
in on the central thing that's confusing me (paraphrasing liberally
inline below):

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:
> By agreeing on a few main focus areas
> beforehand and "curating" them (assuring the the right people are invited
> and the right topics are addressed), we could leave more freedom of
> self-organization to all the rest.
> [...]
> One way to get there is to have WMF Product selecting these challenges with
> feedback from the Technology department and have Community Tech selecting
> the challenges from Community Wishlist tasks, all this while keeping
> listening the discussion in wikitech-l.
> [...]
> [making the scope of invitations be "participants in wikitech-l".
> goes in the opposite direction of
> the "opening up" that we have been pushing, and that moved Brion to start
> this thread. I think we can find ways to assure that "wikitech-l people and
> concerns" are addressed, while assuring that the opening up keeps happening.

It's hard for me to read this as anything but "WMF Product selects the
topics, and then 'listens' for objections on wikitech-l".  That seems
the opposite of "opening up" to me, but rather seems to be about
disintermediating wikitech-l discussion.  Is your sense that the
correct direction for us is for someone to provide more top-down
direction instead of wikitech-l conversation?

I'm going to repeat my rationale for wanting to emphasize wikitech-l.
Wikitech-l has long been our "paper of record" for Wikimedia technical
decision making.  To the extent that causes us to ask the question
"ok, what's the goal of wikitech-l?", then I think that makes this a
success.  We only hold WikiDev once a year, but wikitech-l is active
all year long.  Let's figure out why we're using this mailing list to
write messages at each other.

Rob

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Quim Gil]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Rob Lanphier  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Quim Gil  wrote:
> > GOALS [...] The Summit and its goal have been a moving target over the
> > years, as you can deduce from the many changes of names & goals. [0]
>
> It has been, but given the high satisfaction scores last year, I think
> it behooves us to come up with iterative improvements, not a radical
> rethink.  It seems like last year we got closer to what we've been
> struggling to achieve in previous years.
>

The satisfaction scores about the Summit itself (based on a survey run just
at the end of the event) are indeed high, and I agree that we should keep
the basic model for the three days, just adding iterative improvements
wherever needed. This comprises combination of pre-scheduled and
unconference sessions, the organization in areas with owners, the
organization of sessions with note-takers and other roles...

We have got clear feedback about the need to rethink the phases before and
after the event.

Before, the call for participation and the selection process was felt as
confusing and requiring a lot of energy from everyone (organizers
included), without a clear benefit. By agreeing on a few main focus areas
beforehand and "curating" them (assuring the the right people are invited
and the right topics are addressed), we could leave more freedom of
self-organization to all the rest.

After, the Summit discussions that brought high levels of satisfaction get
frequently colder and stalled, having little or no impact in the daily
work, quarterly planning, longer term strategy. By agreeing on a few main
focus areas that are already connected to our strategy and plans, and by
assuring that all required parties are as involved as the developers, the
Summit will have the impact that its participants expect.


>
> > Widening the audience was a main goal last year. This is why we renamed
> it
> > to Wikimedia (not MediaWiki) Developer Summit, and we invited developers
> of
> > tools, templates, bots, mobile apps, the MediaWiki Stakeholders Group,
> and
> > also non-Wikimedia users of our APIs. It was a half-backed thought that
> > received half-backed support that unsurprisingly brought half-backed
> > results.
>
> I think that's a bit unfair to what we accomplished last year.
>

My evaluation is based on the number of non-WMF developers specializing on
tools, templates, bots, mobile apps, MediaWiki, and other users of our
APIs, and what they got from the event. It is also based on how much
outreach effort we managed to put into assuring that the participation from
these sectors was rich and diverse. Making the assessment above doesn't
make me happy at all, but I think it is a fair and frank one.

> What if the Summit would be product driven, with architecture and the rest
> > following that drive. All we are here to offer better products to our
> > users. All the technical discussions make more sense when there is a
> clear
> > product vision to be either supported or contested with reality checks.
>
> I would like to get Wes's take on this.  Last year, I didn't get the
> sense that Wes was eager to grab the reins on WikiDev16, and I'd be
> surprised if he wants to do it this year.  That seems to dump too much
> of the responsibility on him.
>
> It would seem that the target *participant* for this summit would be
> the future WMF Chief Technology Officer (CTO).  Assuming that we have
> the CTO hired by January, it would set the bar way too high to expect
> that the new CTO will be responsible for running the summit.  We
> should strive to make a big theme of this summit be "onboarding WMF's
> new CTO".  Obviously, the scope should be more than that, but let's
> hope that WikiDev17 is a great introduction to the wikitech-l
> community for our new CTO
>

OK, it looks like I need to define better what I mean by "product driven".
First of all yes, MediaWiki and Wikipedia clearly are products. Then...

When Brion opens this thread proposing to refocus the Summit "to prioritize
and work on things that really matter" to our users, he is basically
proposing to change from a tech-architecture-infrastructure-driven
perspective to a perspective driven by user experiences, the features that
users miss, the problems that bug them most. Let the users talk, and then
we will figure out what that means in terms of technology, architecture,
infrastructure.

I don't think that a reinvented "Dev Summit that asks our users to participate"
is feasible in the literal sense, if that Summit needs to happen in January
and today we are just beginning to discuss the notion of it. But I strongly
agree with Brion's point, and I think that a totally feasible move in that
direction is to

* select some challenges with a big user impact from the WMF Product roadmap
* select some challenges from the highly ranked requests from the Community
Wishlist
* assure that the people that need to be involved 

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Toby Negrin]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) 
wrote:

> with by the WMF's Product department, perhaps not.
>

I'd be happy to talk about Reading's roadmap and discuss the technical
implications[1]. I could also go over some of the user research we just did
in Mexico, Nigeria and India[2] and what it might mean for the future.

I'd also second suggestions to look at the Community Tech wishlist. There
are a lot of useful, challenging problems to take on that didn't make the
top 10 but could use some attention.

-Toby

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Strategy/2016-2017_plan
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Rob Lanphier]

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Quim Gil  wrote:
> Thank you for starting this conversation, Brion!
>
> Let me share the point where Rachel Farrand (Summit organizer) and I
> (Summit budget owner) find ourselves, after some conversations.
>
> GOALS [...] The Summit and its goal have been a moving target over the
> years, as you can deduce from the many changes of names & goals. [0]

It has been, but given the high satisfaction scores last year, I think
it behooves us to come up with iterative improvements, not a radical
rethink.  It seems like last year we got closer to what we've been
struggling to achieve in previous years.

> Widening the audience was a main goal last year. This is why we renamed it
> to Wikimedia (not MediaWiki) Developer Summit, and we invited developers of
> tools, templates, bots, mobile apps, the MediaWiki Stakeholders Group, and
> also non-Wikimedia users of our APIs. It was a half-backed thought that
> received half-backed support that unsurprisingly brought half-backed
> results.

I think that's a bit unfair to what we accomplished last year.

> What if the Summit would be product driven, with architecture and the rest
> following that drive. All we are here to offer better products to our
> users. All the technical discussions make more sense when there is a clear
> product vision to be either supported or contested with reality checks.

I would like to get Wes's take on this.  Last year, I didn't get the
sense that Wes was eager to grab the reins on WikiDev16, and I'd be
surprised if he wants to do it this year.  That seems to dump too much
of the responsibility on him.

It would seem that the target *participant* for this summit would be
the future WMF Chief Technology Officer (CTO).  Assuming that we have
the CTO hired by January, it would set the bar way too high to expect
that the new CTO will be responsible for running the summit.  We
should strive to make a big theme of this summit be "onboarding WMF's
new CTO".  Obviously, the scope should be more than that, but let's
hope that WikiDev17 is a great introduction to the wikitech-l
community for our new CTO

> We have a Wikimedia Foundation Product department and also a Community
> Wishlist where the communities push for product improvements.

The Community Wishlist seems like a great item to highlight (again) this year.

> We could set
> the goal of selecting (top down) a small number of product challenges and
> invite whoever needs to be involved to push them forward. Then we can leave
> plenty of free space for other topics that participants want to push
> (bottom up).
> [...]
> AUDIENCE [...]  Product
> managers, UX designers, researchers, [add other roles here], and maybe even
> selected users/editors must be invited too in order to push the selected
> product improvements forward.
>
> But there is a problem: we have a capacity limit of 200 people. The
> Foundation alone could basically fill the event if we don't set limits, The
> Summit is immediately followed by the Wikimedia Foundation AllHands annual
> meeting. The Summit is actually the successor of Tech Days, an AllHands for
> all people who worked in tech at the Foundation.

That's obviously the primary challenge we're faced with.  Given that
we can't invite all 5 billion or so stakeholders, we're going to have
to figure out how to narrow the scope of invitations, and accomplish
great things with a smaller audience.

My proposal: let's make the scope of invitations be "participants in
wikitech-l".  Wikitech-l has long been our "paper of record" for
Wikimedia technical decision making.  To the extent that causes us to
ask the question "ok, what's the goal of wikitech-l?", then I think
that makes this a success.  We only hold WikiDev once a year, but
wikitech-l is active all year long.  Let's figure out why we're using
this mailing list to write messages at each other.


> Basically, we would need to make some tough calls to define main goals and
> main audiences for the Summit in 2017. Successful events (just like
> successful products) are often the result of tough calls, so no surprise
> here.

Yes.  I'm looking to our Engineering Community Manager to create a
great Engineering meeting.


> PS1: someone asked about lessons learned -->
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_Summit_2016/Lessons_Learned
>
> PS2: Rob suggested that a single email thread is not the best channel to
> solve this complex discussion and I agree with him... but I didn't want to
> kill this interesting thread either. Please note that the canonical places
> for Summit discussion are
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Developer_Summit_2017 and the
> related Phabricator project task
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/board/2192/
>
> [0] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_
> Summit_2017#Previous_summits

My comments at Talk:Wikimedia_Developer_Summit_2017 don't have any
responses as of this writing.  Clearly, I said 

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Brad Jorsch (Anomie)]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:

> What if the Summit would be product driven, with architecture and the rest
> following that drive. All we are here to offer better products to our
> users. All the technical discussions make more sense when there is a clear
> product vision to be either supported or contested with reality checks.
>

IMO that depends on what you define as "product". In the sense that
MediaWiki and Wikipedia are products, sure. In the more narrow sense dealt
with by the WMF's Product department, perhaps not.


-- 
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Senior Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Eran Rosenthal]

>
> But there is a problem: we have a capacity limit of 200 people.

In hackthons (either Wikimedia hackathon or Wikimania hackthon days) there
is not always a large enough hall for all the devs, and people may sit in
different rooms.
So the capability limit can be soften a bit - this could be a simultaneous
event in multiple different locations where the main part take in SF, but
Wikimedia chapters may organize in the same time smaller scale events (it
could be even 1 room +pizza ++beer).

We could set the goal of selecting (top down) a small number of product
> challenges
>
One possible goal: Citations
Citation support in MW is very hacky  - based on hacks EVERYWHERE from
parsoid, VE, ContentTranslation (tech) and template/modules (where every
wiki have its own version/some version imported from enwiki...)

I can imagine rewriting the Extension:Cite from scratch (Extension:CiteV2),
with more structured data support (similar to in sense to Brion''s idea
from Wikimania Mexico) - then the Wikidata support + importing /generating
bibliographic data in wikidata (or other Wikibase repo?) takes part in
Berlin where there is strong pywikibot/WD community, while
Parsoid+VE+core/extension support for Cite takes place in SF.












On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:

> Thank you for starting this conversation, Brion!
>
> Let me share the point where Rachel Farrand (Summit organizer) and I
> (Summit budget owner) find ourselves, after some conversations.
>
> GOALS
>
> First we need to define the goals of the Summit, then we can talk about the
> target audiences and the structure of the event that will help achieving
> these goals. The Summit and its goal have been a moving target over the
> years, as you can deduce from the many changes of names & goals. [0]
>
> Widening the audience was a main goal last year. This is why we renamed it
> to Wikimedia (not MediaWiki) Developer Summit, and we invited developers of
> tools, templates, bots, mobile apps, the MediaWiki Stakeholders Group, and
> also non-Wikimedia users of our APIs. It was a half-backed thought that
> received half-backed support that unsurprisingly brought half-backed
> results.
>
> Still, even if we would have done better, "widening the audience" is not a
> goal per se. What should we widen the audience for? Here is an idea.
>
> What if the Summit would be product driven, with architecture and the rest
> following that drive. All we are here to offer better products to our
> users. All the technical discussions make more sense when there is a clear
> product vision to be either supported or contested with reality checks.
>
> We have a Wikimedia Foundation Product department and also a Community
> Wishlist where the communities push for product improvements. We could set
> the goal of selecting (top down) a small number of product challenges and
> invite whoever needs to be involved to push them forward. Then we can leave
> plenty of free space for other topics that participants want to push
> (bottom up).
>
> That "we" should be representative and effective in order to define a list
> of goals in a few days (we need to open registration asap). It should be
> possible to get a short list from the Product and Technology departments,
> the Community Tech team (representing the Community Wishlist) and the
> Architecture Committee. Then again these product goals cannot be too
> surprising, since they are supposed to be prominent in discussions and
> plans already now.
>
>
> AUDIENCE
>
> If the Summit will focus on product goals, then it is evident that software
> architects and core developers will not be enough to achieve it. Product
> managers, UX designers, researchers, [add other roles here], and maybe even
> selected users/editors must be invited too in order to push the selected
> product improvements forward.
>
> But there is a problem: we have a capacity limit of 200 people. The
> Foundation alone could basically fill the event if we don't set limits, The
> Summit is immediately followed by the Wikimedia Foundation AllHands annual
> meeting. The Summit is actually the successor of Tech Days, an AllHands for
> all people who worked in tech at the Foundation.
>
> We do have some travel sponsorship budget for volunteers, and I believe we
> could get more participants among non-Wikimedia users of Wikimedia APIs and
> MediaWiki if we really want to target them. However, we simply cannot go
> for a big outreach while keeping an expectation of general attendance from
> Foundation's Product and Technology departments.
>
> Maybe we should go back to the invitation-only model with the capacity
> limit of 200 people in mind, and the representation of target audiences we
> want to get. For instance, we could set priorities on those directly
> involved in the product improvements selected (and that means that we need
> to select them asap) and define a % limit for Foundation participants.
>
> Basically, we would need to 

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Quim Gil]

Thank you for starting this conversation, Brion!

Let me share the point where Rachel Farrand (Summit organizer) and I
(Summit budget owner) find ourselves, after some conversations.

GOALS

First we need to define the goals of the Summit, then we can talk about the
target audiences and the structure of the event that will help achieving
these goals. The Summit and its goal have been a moving target over the
years, as you can deduce from the many changes of names & goals. [0]

Widening the audience was a main goal last year. This is why we renamed it
to Wikimedia (not MediaWiki) Developer Summit, and we invited developers of
tools, templates, bots, mobile apps, the MediaWiki Stakeholders Group, and
also non-Wikimedia users of our APIs. It was a half-backed thought that
received half-backed support that unsurprisingly brought half-backed
results.

Still, even if we would have done better, "widening the audience" is not a
goal per se. What should we widen the audience for? Here is an idea.

What if the Summit would be product driven, with architecture and the rest
following that drive. All we are here to offer better products to our
users. All the technical discussions make more sense when there is a clear
product vision to be either supported or contested with reality checks.

We have a Wikimedia Foundation Product department and also a Community
Wishlist where the communities push for product improvements. We could set
the goal of selecting (top down) a small number of product challenges and
invite whoever needs to be involved to push them forward. Then we can leave
plenty of free space for other topics that participants want to push
(bottom up).

That "we" should be representative and effective in order to define a list
of goals in a few days (we need to open registration asap). It should be
possible to get a short list from the Product and Technology departments,
the Community Tech team (representing the Community Wishlist) and the
Architecture Committee. Then again these product goals cannot be too
surprising, since they are supposed to be prominent in discussions and
plans already now.


AUDIENCE

If the Summit will focus on product goals, then it is evident that software
architects and core developers will not be enough to achieve it. Product
managers, UX designers, researchers, [add other roles here], and maybe even
selected users/editors must be invited too in order to push the selected
product improvements forward.

But there is a problem: we have a capacity limit of 200 people. The
Foundation alone could basically fill the event if we don't set limits, The
Summit is immediately followed by the Wikimedia Foundation AllHands annual
meeting. The Summit is actually the successor of Tech Days, an AllHands for
all people who worked in tech at the Foundation.

We do have some travel sponsorship budget for volunteers, and I believe we
could get more participants among non-Wikimedia users of Wikimedia APIs and
MediaWiki if we really want to target them. However, we simply cannot go
for a big outreach while keeping an expectation of general attendance from
Foundation's Product and Technology departments.

Maybe we should go back to the invitation-only model with the capacity
limit of 200 people in mind, and the representation of target audiences we
want to get. For instance, we could set priorities on those directly
involved in the product improvements selected (and that means that we need
to select them asap) and define a % limit for Foundation participants.

Basically, we would need to make some tough calls to define main goals and
main audiences for the Summit in 2017. Successful events (just like
successful products) are often the result of tough calls, so no surprise
here.

PS1: someone asked about lessons learned -->
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_Summit_2016/Lessons_Learned

PS2: Rob suggested that a single email thread is not the best channel to
solve this complex discussion and I agree with him... but I didn't want to
kill this interesting thread either. Please note that the canonical places
for Summit discussion are
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Developer_Summit_2017 and the
related Phabricator project task
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/board/2192/

[0] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_
Summit_2017#Previous_summits

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Risker  wrote:

> This topic is a great read, and as a non-developer who's interested in
> technical matters, I was quite excited to see this proposal.
>
> It might be an idea to identify one or two specific topics that may be
> particularly amenable to outreach to users outside of the "usual suspects"
> who attend the Dev Summit, and then actively recruit interested parties. It
> is quite possible that scholarships may be required to ensure a broader
> (i.e., more than English North Americans) participation, so this may be a
> budgetary issue that needs to be weighed 

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Risker]

This topic is a great read, and as a non-developer who's interested in
technical matters, I was quite excited to see this proposal.

It might be an idea to identify one or two specific topics that may be
particularly amenable to outreach to users outside of the "usual suspects"
who attend the Dev Summit, and then actively recruit interested parties. It
is quite possible that scholarships may be required to ensure a broader
(i.e., more than English North Americans) participation, so this may be a
budgetary issue that needs to be weighed against using those same
scholarships for active developers. I think some of the comments on this
thread are correct, that it's likely that at least some of the discussions
at the Dev Summit will be too esoteric for non-developers.  On the other
hand, there was a point where I only understood about 3% of what was posted
on this mailing list, and I think I can quite honestly say I'm all the way
up to 25% now.  People do learn by assimilation. :-)

A similar process can be done with Wikimania - which has the added
advantage of already attracting hundreds of community members for other
reasons.  I'd suggest that a special "developer/community day" be held in
conjunction with the hackathon.  While it's likely you'd still need to
offer scholarships, in most cases it would be the cost of an additional
day's accommodation/per diem rather than flight/accommodation/per diem,
because you would target people who are already planning to attend
Wikimania.  I expect that the 2017 Wikimania will be one of the largest
ones, since it is in North America and easily accessible by just about
everyone, so there is likely to be a large target audience.  You might want
to work with Marc-Andre (who is the Wikimania Convenor) to see how this
could be accommodated.

Thanks Brion for raising the topic - and thanks to everyone in this thread,
you've all taken this idea to heart and recognized the value of user
input.

Risker/Anne



On 1 September 2016 at 13:12, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> The last couple years we've done a big MediaWiki Dev Summit in January,
> around the time of the Wikimedia Foundation all-hands meeting. Invitations
> have been fairly broad to known developers, but there's a very strong
> feeling that newbies, non-technical people, and in general *the people
> MediaWiki is created and maintained for* are not welcome.
>
> I think we should change this.
>
> I would really like a broader MediaWiki Dev Summit that asks our users to
> participate, and asks "developers" to interact with them to prioritize and
> work on things that really matter to them.
>
> I want template authors, Lua module authors, template users, power editors,
> folks working on the lines of defense for vandalism patrol and copyvio
> checking. I want people with opinions on discussion systems. I want people
> who have been editing for years and have experience with what works and
> what doesn't. I want people who wish they could edit but have a bad
> experience when they try, and want to share that with us so we can help
> make it better.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- brion
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 09/01/2016 03:35 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> However, no one was present at the

dev summit who used LanguageConverter on their home wiki, and few folks who
rely on Content Translation routinely.  (Maybe one or two were present, but
not enough to have a reasonable discussion about the future of these
features.)  For better or worse, previous dev summits have had weak
representation from those who are not American users of
projects-other-than-enwiki.


I think this general problem is partly inevitable.

I'm not saying that all Dev Summit attendees are enwiki users, or will 
be in the future.  But I think that even with scholarships and outreach, 
it will inevitably be skewed in a few ways:


1. Almost no one will show up, when compared to our broad user base. 
The people who do come will mostly be a subset of the most enthusiastic 
power users.


Power users are one of the groups we're building software for, but not 
the only one.


This can be mitigated with hard work at outreach to representative users 
who don't typically come to this kind of thing.


But this is also why we need to use other outreach and measurement 
efforts, like EventLogging, to reach and measure the people that don't 
attend summits (and may not answer surveys regularly).


2. The people that do come will be skewed towards being native speakers 
of English.


3. They will be heavily skewed towards being either WMF employees, San 
Francisco, or able to afford to fly.  Scholarships can help with this, 
but only partly.


So I would be careful about seeing this as a great opportunity to meet 
an accurate cross-section of our user base.  We need to be a little more 
strategic when thinking about what to build and who we're building for.


I agree with C. Scott there might be a role for specifically inviting 
key groups of users (e.g. shared hosting) to work with them in person 
and understand their needs.  Though this could be at the Dev Summit, it 
doesn't necessarily have to be.  It could be at Wikimania, or in SF but 
another time, etc.


Matt

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 PM, bawolff  wrote:

> >
> > * In a big session on services-oriented architectures, a lot of time was
> > spent theorizing about what small wikis who do their hosting on
> > shared-hosting services do, and whether various solutions we were
> proposing
> > would make it easier or harder for these non-WMF users of mediawiki.
> *But
> > none of these users were at the summit.*  So no decisions could
> ultimately
> > be made, as the necessary affected parties were not present.
> >
>
> I don't think that would change, regardless of what we do. Even if we
> have more users at the summit, its not going to be a representative
> sample of every type of user we have. I don't think its reasonable to
> assume that just because a usecase isn't represented at the summit
> that it doesn't exist. Anyone taking the time out of their day to
> travel all the way to a MediaWiki event, is probably a power user, and
> thus this will bias the representation of users at the summit.
>

Quite possibly!  And thus perhaps we should just exclude those sort of
topics from the summit -- if we can't get representative participation, we
shouldn't have a decision-oriented summit session.

Sessions oriented around "learning from our community" might still work --
we could have invited a cross-section of shared hosting users for a
workshop where we gathered info about different hosting providers, walked
them through installs using vagrant (or what-have-you), listened to their
concerns & problems, and worked together with them to figure out what might
work.  At the end, we can't say "this will work for all users of shared
hosts" but at least we can say, "for the 15 people we worked with, here are
the ways they managed to install a services-oriented prototype of
mediawiki" or something like that.

"Community workshop" is an underexplored dev summit format.  But maybe that
would be a better fit at wikimania?
  --scott
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[bawolff]

>
> * In a big session on services-oriented architectures, a lot of time was
> spent theorizing about what small wikis who do their hosting on
> shared-hosting services do, and whether various solutions we were proposing
> would make it easier or harder for these non-WMF users of mediawiki.  *But
> none of these users were at the summit.*  So no decisions could ultimately
> be made, as the necessary affected parties were not present.
>

I don't think that would change, regardless of what we do. Even if we
have more users at the summit, its not going to be a representative
sample of every type of user we have. I don't think its reasonable to
assume that just because a usecase isn't represented at the summit
that it doesn't exist. Anyone taking the time out of their day to
travel all the way to a MediaWiki event, is probably a power user, and
thus this will bias the representation of users at the summit.

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Rob Lanphier]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Rob Lanphier  wrote:
> I copied your message here:
> 

Ooops, I meant here:


Rob

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Rob Lanphier]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> I think we should change this.

I think so too!  I have a lot more to say, but I'm thinking that the
best place to say it will be on wiki rather than on mailing list.  So,
I copied your message here:


I'd like to give you a better response later when I have more food in me  ;-)

Rob

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> The last couple years we've done a big MediaWiki Dev Summit in January,
> around the time of the Wikimedia Foundation all-hands meeting. Invitations
> have been fairly broad to known developers, but there's a very strong
> feeling that newbies, non-technical people, and in general *the people
> MediaWiki is created and maintained for* are not welcome.
>
> I think we should change this.
>
> I would really like a broader MediaWiki Dev Summit that asks our users to
> participate, and asks "developers" to interact with them to prioritize and
> work on things that really matter to them.
>
> I want template authors, Lua module authors, template users, power editors,
> folks working on the lines of defense for vandalism patrol and copyvio
> checking. I want people with opinions on discussion systems. I want people
> who have been editing for years and have experience with what works and
> what doesn't. I want people who wish they could edit but have a bad
> experience when they try, and want to share that with us so we can help
> make it better.
>

Hear, hear.

To make the discussion concrete, here are some issues I've had at past dev
summits, which may also answer the question "what would these non-devs do?":

* In a big session on services-oriented architectures, a lot of time was
spent theorizing about what small wikis who do their hosting on
shared-hosting services do, and whether various solutions we were proposing
would make it easier or harder for these non-WMF users of mediawiki.  *But
none of these users were at the summit.*  So no decisions could ultimately
be made, as the necessary affected parties were not present.

* I've tried to have conversations about the role of LanguageConverter and
Content Translation at each dev summit.  However, no one was present at the
dev summit who used LanguageConverter on their home wiki, and few folks who
rely on Content Translation routinely.  (Maybe one or two were present, but
not enough to have a reasonable discussion about the future of these
features.)  For better or worse, previous dev summits have had weak
representation from those who are not American users of
projects-other-than-enwiki.  (Again, not that it as 100% American enwiki
users, just that not enough others were present to constitute a reasonable
quorum for discussing issues affecting them.)

* The parsing team has various proposals for improvements to the template
system.  We don't really have a quorum of the "power users" of the wiki
projects who write and use nontrivial templates.

* In general the dev summit is pretty quite about projects other than
wikipedia!  Wikisource/wikibooks/wikitionary/commons/etc have lots of
interesting technical work to be done, which is poorly represented by WMF
employees.

 --scott

ps. I am sympathetic to the idea that this sort of broader conversation
about technical topics might fit better at wikimania.  But the last few
wikimanias have been moving in the opposite direction, to being less
WMF-driven, and I actually thought Esino Lario was a quite nice example of
how that can work.  No one I talked to at Esino Lario felt that "not enough
WMF staff were present" or that they couldn't get WMF answers to their
questions when they needed.  But this trend is opening a gap between WMF
engineering and our user community, which we should try to bridge somehow
or other.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Brion Vibber]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:11 AM, bawolff  wrote:

> Yes, we certainly do have issues with follow-through on summit decisions.
>

*nod*


> For me personally, I've found the dev summits mostly useful as a
> community building type thing (For the MediaWiki developer community).
> As a remotee (Or at other various points in time, as a volunteer), its
> rare I actually see everyone in real life. The dev summit provides a
> venue to actually interact with everyone. While it may not actually be
> the best at resolving architectural issues, I feel like it helps me
> understand where everyone is coming from.
>
> In particular, I find that the dev summit is more effective for this
> purpose than hackathons, as the unstructured nature of hackathons tend
> to get people clumping in groups that already know each other. The dev
> summit on the other hand better provides for cross-pollination of
> ideas in my experience. (Don't get me wrong, I love hackathons too,
> just for different reasons).
>

That's a very good point! It may be good to have distinct spaces for these
environments, and 'hackathon' type events tend to have a different focus on
bringing people in with shorter-term projects.

I think we may want to look at ways to "boost signal" on input to and
output from MWDS. Even if we don't have as much physical cross-pollination
between devs and users as we could co-hosting with a bigger, less
dev-focused event like Wikimania, it's important to retain that focus on
user needs -- both as input to make technical decisions based on, and as
output when we're reporting back what we expect to work on and if/how we
can either assign resources within WMF, WMDE etc or if we need help from
outside and how to organize that.


> However, use-cases and users is why we're here, so I'm certainly not
> opposed to that focus. I just hope we continue to retain this as an
> event that's more talky and less hacky, as I feel that's where a lot
> of the uniqueness of the event came from.
>

Yeah, I get that. Thanks for bringing up the positive side of less-hacky. :)

One aspect of the first MediaWiki architecture summit that I really
> liked but has been mostly lost, was inviting non-Wikimedia mediawiki
> users. They're a group that has use-cases that we don't often hear
> about, and provide a unique perspectives. Although I suppose its not
> surprising that their involvement has kind of been lost. I would love
> to see them come back, although I'm not exactly holding my breath for
> that.
>

*nod* Some of those use-cases are great for potential Wikimedia-world uses
too; we shouldn't forget those "other" users. :)

-- brion
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Russell Uman]

One aspect of the first MediaWiki architecture summit that I really
liked but has been mostly lost, was inviting non-Wikimedia mediawiki
users. They're a group that has use-cases that we don't often hear
about, and provide a unique perspectives. Although I suppose its not
surprising that their involvement has kind of been lost. I would love
to see them come back, although I'm not exactly holding my breath for
that.


As a non-wikimedia mediawiki developer, who attended this year's summit 
for the first time, I thought there was a reasonable amount of 
discussion that would be interesting for users/editors.


There was a lot of discussion about how developers decide what to 
implement. Community tech wishlist most prominently, but also for other 
features. I remember a pretty great discussion on the first day around 
the various ways to support lower-bandwidth and mobile users. There was 
also a great discussion about the future of mediawiki core as a 
standalone product. Maybe that was only interesting to me :)


I'd like to see this event keep its developer focus. But I think 
users/editors can benefit from meeting developers as much as developers 
can benefit from meeting developers.


Even though many talks are implementation focused, I think users can 
help make sure the initial use cases and requirements don't get lost in 
those discussions, and can help with usability and acceptance testing 
for new features.


--
russell  uman
   firebus
d-_-b

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[bawolff]

>
> Yes, I think we *should* provide a focus for the event, and that the focus
> should be on users, use cases, and what we as developers need to do to
> achieve those things.
>
> In my opinion we haven't had a strong focus to the event in the past, and
> it's limited what we accomplish there to largely making a set of technical
> presentations and having a few discussions that either don't produce a
> decision or don't have much affect on what actually happens after the
> summit.
>
> (I'd be very interested also in some feedback on things that *have* worked
> well at MWDS in the past, as I'd love to encourage anything that has been
> productive! But I think we've not been successful in an architectural focus
> so far.)
>
> -- brion

[Sorry about last email. accidentally hit send]

Yes, we certainly do have issues with follow-through on summit decisions.

For me personally, I've found the dev summits mostly useful as a
community building type thing (For the MediaWiki developer community).
As a remotee (Or at other various points in time, as a volunteer), its
rare I actually see everyone in real life. The dev summit provides a
venue to actually interact with everyone. While it may not actually be
the best at resolving architectural issues, I feel like it helps me
understand where everyone is coming from.

In particular, I find that the dev summit is more effective for this
purpose than hackathons, as the unstructured nature of hackathons tend
to get people clumping in groups that already know each other. The dev
summit on the other hand better provides for cross-pollination of
ideas in my experience. (Don't get me wrong, I love hackathons too,
just for different reasons).

However, use-cases and users is why we're here, so I'm certainly not
opposed to that focus. I just hope we continue to retain this as an
event that's more talky and less hacky, as I feel that's where a lot
of the uniqueness of the event came from.

One aspect of the first MediaWiki architecture summit that I really
liked but has been mostly lost, was inviting non-Wikimedia mediawiki
users. They're a group that has use-cases that we don't often hear
about, and provide a unique perspectives. Although I suppose its not
surprising that their involvement has kind of been lost. I would love
to see them come back, although I'm not exactly holding my breath for
that.

--
Brian

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Melody Kramer]

I'm not a dev (by day job) but frequently attend hackathons and other
coding events, and just wanted to detail what I do and what I've seen
others do (without coding.)

- write documentation
- do rapid protosketching or user testing
- write content for the platform/app
- user test existing platforms (if devs want someone to test something out)
- ideation and initial brainstorming
- translation
- develop comms. strategies so that the participants continue to work
beyond the event
- accessbility testing (I haven't done this but have seen people do it.)

I've never attended this particular summit, but thought the list might
provide some food for thought. This is a good blog post
 on
how to shape a hackathon or dev event for non-coders too. (Full disclosure:
I used to work there, though I didn't write that post.)

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Brian Wolff  wrote:

> Last year there was an attempt to sort of do this (mostly by extending the
> word "developer" to mean new things). Largely those types of people didnt
> attend (although there were a few exceptions), however I remember being
> left wondering if they did attend, what would they do? It seems to me most
> sessions were about architecture design decisions that actually didnt
> affect anyone not working on the code (ie we were going to make the user
> visible feature either way, the question was do we use method x or method y
> in the backend). With that in mind. Otoh, its entirely possible that some
> of the sessions i didnt attend were more applicable to these groups.
>
> With that in mind are you proposing the focus of event also change? Or do
> you think that these groups would be interested in it as is?
>
> --
> Brian
>
> On Thursday, September 1, 2016, Brion Vibber 
> wrote:
> > The last couple years we've done a big MediaWiki Dev Summit in January,
> > around the time of the Wikimedia Foundation all-hands meeting.
> Invitations
> > have been fairly broad to known developers, but there's a very strong
> > feeling that newbies, non-technical people, and in general *the people
> > MediaWiki is created and maintained for* are not welcome.
> >
> > I think we should change this.
> >
> > I would really like a broader MediaWiki Dev Summit that asks our users to
> > participate, and asks "developers" to interact with them to prioritize
> and
> > work on things that really matter to them.
> >
> > I want template authors, Lua module authors, template users, power
> editors,
> > folks working on the lines of defense for vandalism patrol and copyvio
> > checking. I want people with opinions on discussion systems. I want
> people
> > who have been editing for years and have experience with what works and
> > what doesn't. I want people who wish they could edit but have a bad
> > experience when they try, and want to share that with us so we can help
> > make it better.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -- brion
> > ___
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



-- 
Melody Kramer
Read a random featured article from Wikipedia!


mkra...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Brian Wolff]

On Thursday, September 1, 2016, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Brian Wolff  wrote:
>
>> Last year there was an attempt to sort of do this (mostly by extending
the
>> word "developer" to mean new things). Largely those types of people didnt
>> attend (although there were a few exceptions), however I remember being
>> left wondering if they did attend, what would they do? It seems to me
most
>> sessions were about architecture design decisions that actually didnt
>> affect anyone not working on the code (ie we were going to make the user
>> visible feature either way, the question was do we use method x or
method y
>> in the backend). With that in mind. Otoh, its entirely possible that some
>> of the sessions i didnt attend were more applicable to these groups.
>>
>> With that in mind are you proposing the focus of event also change? Or do
>> you think that these groups would be interested in it as is?
>>
>
> Yes, I think we *should* provide a focus for the event, and that the focus
> should be on users, use cases, and what we as developers need to do to
> achieve those things.
>
> In my opinion we haven't had a strong focus to the event in the past, and
> it's limited what we accomplish there to largely making a set of technical
> presentations and having a few discussions that either don't produce a
> decision or don't have much affect on what actually happens after the
> summit.
>
> (I'd be very interested also in some feedback on things that *have* worked
> well at MWDS in the past, as I'd love to encourage anything that has been
> productive! But I think we've not been successful in an architectural
focus
> so far.)
>
> -- brion
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Brion Vibber]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Brian Wolff  wrote:

> Last year there was an attempt to sort of do this (mostly by extending the
> word "developer" to mean new things). Largely those types of people didnt
> attend (although there were a few exceptions), however I remember being
> left wondering if they did attend, what would they do? It seems to me most
> sessions were about architecture design decisions that actually didnt
> affect anyone not working on the code (ie we were going to make the user
> visible feature either way, the question was do we use method x or method y
> in the backend). With that in mind. Otoh, its entirely possible that some
> of the sessions i didnt attend were more applicable to these groups.
>
> With that in mind are you proposing the focus of event also change? Or do
> you think that these groups would be interested in it as is?
>

Yes, I think we *should* provide a focus for the event, and that the focus
should be on users, use cases, and what we as developers need to do to
achieve those things.

In my opinion we haven't had a strong focus to the event in the past, and
it's limited what we accomplish there to largely making a set of technical
presentations and having a few discussions that either don't produce a
decision or don't have much affect on what actually happens after the
summit.

(I'd be very interested also in some feedback on things that *have* worked
well at MWDS in the past, as I'd love to encourage anything that has been
productive! But I think we've not been successful in an architectural focus
so far.)

-- brion
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Tony Thomas]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> Thoughts


Great. I was thinking the same thing last time during WikiConference India
too. We had couple of hackers hacking around in one room, and editors
editing in another room. When some of us took time to go near them, they
told about various issues they face (but this one was more or less language
specific, wiki-centric issue etc), and when we sat near them and tried
fixing it, it worked, and they were overjoyed! I think this might be the
only possible way to reduce the gap between users and devs.

Quoting one more situation, there was a Wikimedian there at the WCI, who
was typing in page titles to a wiki page and waiting for the red/blue link
to show up to check if the page exists. He was doing it as part of some
project. which was to find out which all pages never existed for a list
(don't know who gave him the list, though) - and create the same in his
home wiki. Experts would know it can be done with a python script calling
one of API, and I was lucky to show him that.

Wait, this might move the focus from a Mediawiki Dev summit, though - but
something like this should happen, I hope.

Thanks,
Tony Thomas 
Home  | Blog  |
ThinkFOSS 
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Opening up MediaWiki dev summit in January?

[Pine W]

I like the concept. I wonder, if instead of having a standalone dev summit,
it would make sense to have this broadly scoped conference be combined with
or adjacent to Wikimania.

Pine

On Sep 1, 2016 10:12, "Brion Vibber"  wrote:

> The last couple years we've done a big MediaWiki Dev Summit in January,
> around the time of the Wikimedia Foundation all-hands meeting. Invitations
> have been fairly broad to known developers, but there's a very strong
> feeling that newbies, non-technical people, and in general *the people
> MediaWiki is created and maintained for* are not welcome.
>
> I think we should change this.
>
> I would really like a broader MediaWiki Dev Summit that asks our users to
> participate, and asks "developers" to interact with them to prioritize and
> work on things that really matter to them.
>
> I want template authors, Lua module authors, template users, power editors,
> folks working on the lines of defense for vandalism patrol and copyvio
> checking. I want people with opinions on discussion systems. I want people
> who have been editing for years and have experience with what works and
> what doesn't. I want people who wish they could edit but have a bad
> experience when they try, and want to share that with us so we can help
> make it better.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- brion
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l