Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] git.wikimedia.org dead due to wikimania ; )

[MZMcBride]

Huib Laurens wrote:
>I always believed that our servers were monitored 24/7? But nobody seems
>to be around to fix a core part in our systems?

Hi Huib.

You've been around quite a long time, so it shouldn't be new information
to you that the appropriate mailing list for an issue like this is
wikitech-l (where there's already an ongoing thread), not wikimedia-l. And
you should also know that for issues like this, the best place to search
is Bugzilla, as both Nemo and myself have now pointed out (specifically
).

You seem to be a bit confused about core v. non-core services. In the
Wikimedia world, core functionality generally means that the wikis are
accessible for, at the very minimum, read access. Peripheral services and
sites have varying levels of criticality, though there's no rating system
in which git.wikimedia.org (a simple Git repository viewer) would be
considered core (though it being completely down can be considered
critical, as it makes development work more tedious and annoying).

Obviously the operations team has a number of monitoring systems in place.
The public monitoring dashboard is here: .

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] git.wikimedia.org dead due to wikimania ; )

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Huib Laurens, 10/08/2013 17:31:

I always believed that our servers where monitored 24/7?


Not magically, despite the amount of unicorns bought by the WMF. You're 
looking for https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51983



But nobody seems
to be arround to fix a core part in our systems?


No development is really prevented by gitblit being down; business as 
usual continues on gerrit.wikimedia.org and this additional reliability 
is actually what they wanted to achieve by moving gitblit (formerly 
gitweb) to a separate server.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] git.wikimedia.org dead due to wikimania ; )

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Huib Laurens  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I always believed that our servers where monitored 24/7? But nobody seems
> to be arround to fix a core part in our systems?
>
> Huib
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: rupert THURNER 
> Date: Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:24 PM
> Subject: [Wikimania-l] git.wikimedia.org dead due to wikimania ;)
> To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" <
> wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> it seems git.wikimedia.org is down due:
> * no volunteer has access
> * no paid person works on weekends
> * everybody else is at wikimania
>
> rupert.
>


Doesn't this imply that nobody is at Wikimania?


>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Huib Laurens
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] git.wikimedia.org dead due to wikimania ; )

[Huib Laurens]

Hello,

I always believed that our servers where monitored 24/7? But nobody seems
to be arround to fix a core part in our systems?

Huib

-- Forwarded message --
From: rupert THURNER 
Date: Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:24 PM
Subject: [Wikimania-l] git.wikimedia.org dead due to wikimania ;)
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" <
wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org>


it seems git.wikimedia.org is down due:
* no volunteer has access
* no paid person works on weekends
* everybody else is at wikimania

rupert.

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,

Huib Laurens
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata-l] Meeting about the support of Wiktionary in Wikidata

[David Cuenca]

To add up a couple of comments to what Denny said, from my experience with
Wikisource, reaching out to international, loosely connected communities is
already a big challenge on its own. I would like to invite Wiktionary
contributors to take a look to this Individual Engagement Grant project
that Aubrey and me are doing for Wikisource, because maybe it would make
sense that a group of involved Wiktionarians started a similar initiative
for Wiktionary. The original application can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision

And the midterm report:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision

If anyone from the Wiktionary community wants to step forward, I would be
more than happy to share experiences and provide advice.

Cheers,
Micru

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Denny Vrandečić <
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> [Sorry for cross-posting]
>
> Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the
> discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and
> discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking at the
> OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.
>
> Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:
>
> * our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the
> Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where
> readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide structured
> data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels the role of
> Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also highlights the difference
> between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since OmegaWiki's goal is "to create a
> dictionary of all words of all languages, including lexical, terminological
> and ontological information."
>
> * a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal to
> support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not assume that
> there is such a things as a language-independent defined meaning. But no
> matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure that the bulk
> of the data could freely flow between the projects, and even though we
> might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is ensured that the
> exchange of data is widely possible.
>
> We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today: <
> http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata>
>
> My major take home message for me is that:
> * the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or sketch
> of how it would look like and how it could be used on the Wiktionaries
> * there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves all
> Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the discussion on
> the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and will be moved to
> Meta.
>
> Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to support
> Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of support so far. So
> this is what I will continue building upon. Further comments are extremely
> welcomed. You can find it here:
>
> 
>
> As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups and
> extensions are done.
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/8/10 Samuel Klein 
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland 
> wrote:
> > >> I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale 
> wrote:
> > > Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no,
> > > because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,
> >
> > This is not actually the case.
> > There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at
> > least simply providing hosting.  It stalled because the code needed a
> > security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to
> > put some time into that.  The OW editors and dev were very interested
> > in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined
> > project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and
> > translations.
> >
> > Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the
> > criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
> > * It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki
> > * It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the
> > scope of free knowledge
> > * It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that
> > grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years
> > alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
> > * It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
> >
> > Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary
> > update -- and this idea was proposed and taken s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata-l] Meeting about the support of Wiktionary in Wikidata

[Denny Vrandečić]

[Sorry for cross-posting]

Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the
discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and
discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking at the
OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.

Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:

* our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the
Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where
readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide structured
data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels the role of
Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also highlights the difference
between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since OmegaWiki's goal is "to create a
dictionary of all words of all languages, including lexical, terminological
and ontological information."

* a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal to
support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not assume that
there is such a things as a language-independent defined meaning. But no
matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure that the bulk
of the data could freely flow between the projects, and even though we
might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is ensured that the
exchange of data is widely possible.

We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today: <
http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata>

My major take home message for me is that:
* the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or sketch
of how it would look like and how it could be used on the Wiktionaries
* there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves all
Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the discussion on
the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and will be moved to
Meta.

Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to support
Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of support so far. So
this is what I will continue building upon. Further comments are extremely
welcomed. You can find it here:



As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups and
extensions are done.

Cheers,
Denny





2013/8/10 Samuel Klein 

> Hello,
>
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland  wrote:
> >> I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.
>
> Agreed.
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:
> > Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no,
> > because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,
>
> This is not actually the case.
> There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at
> least simply providing hosting.  It stalled because the code needed a
> security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to
> put some time into that.  The OW editors and dev were very interested
> in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined
> project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and
> translations.
>
> Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the
> criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
> * It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki
> * It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the
> scope of free knowledge
> * It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that
> grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years
> alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
> * It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
>
> Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary
> update -- and this idea was proposed and taken seriously by the OW
> devs -- their community of contributors should be part of discussions
> about how to solve the Wiktionary problem that they were the first to
> dedicate themselves to.
>
> Regards,
> Sam.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,