Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upload Wizard work (was Re: Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments)

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Yann Forget wrote: > Hi, > > 2014-09-04 12:34 GMT+05:30 Erik Moeller : >> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Yann Forget wrote: >>> the most urgent and important thing is to fix the >>> UploadWizard. >> >> This is indeed underway, and has been for some time, with fo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Something that that would be useful is a video demonstration of Flow in action. I like the goal of VE in principle, and I hear lots of comments to the effect that it is improving over time. MediaViewer seems to be on the road to improvement. I understand where both of those are headed. But I am tr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upload Wizard work (was Re: Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments)

Hi, 2014-09-04 12:34 GMT+05:30 Erik Moeller : > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Yann Forget wrote: >> the most urgent and important thing is to fix the >> UploadWizard. > > This is indeed underway, and has been for some time, with focus on bug > fixes and code quality improvements. > > https://g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

Hi Erik, While I have a lot of reservations about the usefulness of the Media Viewer, I agree with you that talk pages are now inefficient for all and complex for new users. Personally I am willing to try any system which offers the features missing in the current talk pages, specially removing th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > That's a legitimate question, although it's not as "radically > divorced" as you would think; ultimately it'll use the VisualEditor > (probably with a simplified toolbar by default) just like Flow does. .. just like article editing, I mean -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Risker wrote: > The major deficiencies that have long been identified in the current > discussion system (and that can be addressed by technology) are all able to > be addressed in MediaWiki software or by extensions. Automatic signatures > have been done by bots f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

Hoi, "We" includes anyone who wants to be involved and does not exclude him or herself by his or her own actions or choices. Thanks, GerardM On 6 September 2014 07:09, Pete Forsyth wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > > Fundamentally, there's one key question to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Wil, the tl;dr here is "Philosophical beliefs aren't an effective underpinning for good software design. Start over." It's taken me a while to piece together much from the early discussions about Flow and figure out how we got to where we are now. It's my opinion that the root of the problem is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Chapters] Recognition of Wikimedia Belgium as a Wikimedia chapter by the WMF Board

Congrats from Wikimedia Hungary! Balázs 2014.09.02. 19:46, "Carlos M. Colina" ezt írta: > Dear all, > > It is an honour for me to announce that during Wikimania, the WMF resolved > [1] to recognise Wikimedia Belgium as a Wikimedia chapter. The resolution > was made public a few days ago. > > Th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Fundamentally, there's one key question to answer for talk pages in > Wikimedia projects: Do we want discussions to occur in document mode, > or in a structured comment mode? All else flows from there I think there's actually a much more fu

[Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

Hi all, I'm breaking out this discussion about Flow/talk pages (apologies for repeatedly breaking the megathread, but this is a well-scoped subject which deserves its own thread). Fundamentally, there's one key question to answer for talk pages in Wikimedia projects: Do we want discussions to occ

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary

(This press release is also available online here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Commons_celebrates_its_10th_anniversary ) Wikimedia Commons celebrates its 10th anniversary - *22 million+ images make Wikimedia Commons world’s largest freely licensed education

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Risker, what do you think might get us all back on track for Flow? Should the WMF consider a reset of the project and proceed only after making specific and enforceable commitments to work with the community? Is a total rewrite in order? Should we go completely tabla rasa on it and revisit whether

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Actually, Tim, you're not giving me credit for all the other mistakes I made. :D FWIW, lessons have been learned, and there is a new version in the works. But many people on this list have specifically said that they don't want to talk about Offwiki, and we should respect their wishes. I did make

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On 5 September 2014 17:25, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > One of the more recent WMF products: > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PageTriage > > "An important note is that some of the configuration and code is > specific to the English-language Wikipedia's workflows and as it's > constru

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Steven Walling wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg > wrote: > >> IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target >> deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF >> staff in general to be salesman for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffCom - Call for candidates 2015 [UPDATE]

Hi Varnet, I have emailed Affcom or individual members on more than one occasion for an update about the Cascadia Wikimedians user group application. We finished our response to Affcom's last question on August 7, which was almost a month ago. We have projects that we would like to start that are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

FWIW, ironically the tangled discussions about MediaViewer across multiple pages have made me think that having a more organized way to read discussions would be a good idea. My understanding is that this is one of Flow's objectives. If Flow can achieve this in a way that is helpful and non-disrupt

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target > deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF > staff in general to be salesman for it - it is scaring the community > that all WMF staff seem to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

I really don't like the way that people are referring to Flow as a done deal with an inevitable roll out. Nothing remotely close to workable software has been produced, no case has been made that the purported problems being addressed by this top-down software project are valid issues in the commun

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a > chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that > come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a > bigger debacle: > > 1) Is the WMF w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Interesting. What I'm noticing in both this discussion and the discussions around MV is that a lot of us think that the solution has value, but the features are not prioritized well. I don't have much experience with Trello, but I know of lots of other tools (Bugzilla is one, I believe) that can su

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

I think there have been some pretty strong indications over the years that the current talk page system needs to be improved. However, there's been little discussion at all about whether Flow is that improvement. I have been following the development for quite a while, and it really looks like th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Andreas, what would you do process-wise from the perspective of the WMF and/or the broader community to improve communication and its impact on development of Flow? ,Wil On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I'm not sure the term "loop" is appropriate. So far, I see little evid

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a bigger debacle: 1) Is the WMF working with the community as closely and substantially as possib

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

I'm not sure the term "loop" is appropriate. So far, I see little evidence that feedback provided [1] is making any appreciable difference. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flow On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blant

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > FLOW? Last I checked, Flow isn't deployed except as experiments in a handful of places, and is still in active deployment. But you're correct that this would constitute a replacement rather than a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote: I have heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't think is an improvement." I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't accompanied with, at the very least, some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] add use of wikimetrics to my resume

Fortunately I haven't ever done a reply all accidentally. I'm pretty vigilant about keeping sensitive data where it belongs. I have heard a nightmare scenario about legally privileged documents being distributed to opposing counsel, fortunately not by WMF. Pine On Sep 5, 2014 6:04 AM, "Liam Wyatt"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where should we organize ideas for the Strategic Plan update?

How about a category on Meta with a set of infobox templates like those on the strategy wiki? With a summary kept updated at [[m:strategy]] On Sep 5, 2014 5:03 AM, "Pine W" wrote: > Heh. That was not my first time when I started typing my email address and > instead Gmail autofilled wikimedia-l.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] add use of wikimetrics to my resume

Note to self: Add "Familiarity with dangers of the 'reply-all' and 'auto-complete address' functions in e-mail clients. ;-) -Liam On 5 September 2014 13:52, Pine W wrote: > Sorry, that was intended as a note to self. > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Pine W wrote: > > > > > >

[Wikimedia-l] Where should we organize ideas for the Strategic Plan update?

Heh. That was not my first time when I started typing my email address and instead Gmail autofilled wikimedia-l. This is what I get for choosing wiki.pine instead of pine.wiki. I need some coffee or more sleep. Anyway, this is what was supposed to go to Wikimedia-l: Do we have a central place for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] add use of wikimetrics to my resume

Sorry, that was intended as a note to self. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Pine W wrote: > > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://l

[Wikimedia-l] add use of wikimetrics to my resume

___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,