Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread MZMcBride
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
This conversation should shift to meta sooner rather than later.  I'm not
on my PC, but perhaps /Talk:OTRS/Software?

I'm not sure moving to Meta-Wiki is a good idea. OTRS is the current
software. It's unclear what a Software talk subpage would be used for.

I'm inclined to say that whoever steps up and makes a commitment to
support a ticket response system can pick whether to stick with OTRS
or move to a different system, as long as it's comparable to (or better
than) OTRS.

James' post offered a lot of insight into why this has been so
slow-moving. (Thank you, James!) But at this point it seems fairly clear
that someone needs to become responsible for the technical support of OTRS
or its successor. I'm not sure Meta-Wiki can help with that. It seems more
like an organization issue.

James Alexander wrote:
Yeah, I have to agree sadly that we need more tech support and this has
been a thing that has been ongoing for a while. I personally think it
should remain in the foundation for many reasons (the least of which is
relatively large legal reasons) but we REALLY need to focus on it, or a
replacement, more.

I would think the Wikimedia Foundation would want to remain pretty distant
from unfiltered volunteer replies to e-mails, from a legal standpoint, but
maybe someone from the Wikimedia Foundation legal team can chime in on
this point.

Thanks again for your post. Some of the background info in particular was
enlightening.

MZMcBride



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Liam Wyatt
On 21 February 2013 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 I'm not sure moving to Meta-Wiki is a good idea. OTRS is the current
 software. It's unclear what a Software talk subpage would be used for.



I understood him to mean that we should move the *discussion* to meta - not
the handling of the emails themselves.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 21 February 2013 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

  I'm not sure moving to Meta-Wiki is a good idea. OTRS is the current
  software. It's unclear what a Software talk subpage would be used for.
 


 I understood him to mean that we should move the *discussion* to meta - not
 the handling of the emails themselves.


That.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread K. Peachey
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 James Alexander wrote:
Yeah, I have to agree sadly that we need more tech support and this has
been a thing that has been ongoing for a while. I personally think it
should remain in the foundation for many reasons (the least of which is
relatively large legal reasons) but we REALLY need to focus on it, or a
replacement, more.

 I would think the Wikimedia Foundation would want to remain pretty distant
 from unfiltered volunteer replies to e-mails, from a legal standpoint, but
 maybe someone from the Wikimedia Foundation legal team can chime in on
 this point.

 Thanks again for your post. Some of the background info in particular was
 enlightening.

As long as there is a NDA (or such) in place, It would be fine, No
different than having one of the OTRS devs work on it (see the bz
report about updates).

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Peter Gervai
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:25 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 Wikimedia is currently running OTRS version 2.4. The most recently
 released OTRS version is 3.2. There's been an outstanding request to update
 Wikimedia's OTRS installation for just shy of three years now:

Yes. May have been me, or at least I hope I joined the chorus. ;)

 mounting volunteer frustration, I'm wondering whether this is an area
 where the Wikimedia chapters or some other group might be able to lend a
 hand in supporting the maintenance of this piece of important
 infrastructure. Broadly, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't acting on this
 issue and it seems to have little interest in maintaining or supporting
 this software any longer.

I have been administering a few medium sized installation of OTRS for
quite a long time, and happened to contribute to the code as well.
Several times I had the urge to offer a hand to upgrade it, and if
people are in need I do it now: I am  willing to upgrade it since the
current version is horribly old, and the upgrade process has proven to
work in the past for me between large version jumps as well.

(The required amount of project time is based on guesswork but if the
size permits it's even possible to create a new installation with a
copy of the old db and switch over, which is the safest way.)

My guess is that it's possible that the system needs serious review of
configuration since there has been plenty of big changes (speedups) in
the last years. It's doable.

However if anyone want to throw the work on me I most probably going
to look for at least  few people to watch over my typos. It can be
done alone, no problem, but safer if there's someone else's watching.
:-)

(For tech and administrative details feel free to contact me. I'm
userid 1 on huwp, and my identity is recorded plenty of times already,
as well as being an otrs member.)

 Given recent discussion about various Wikimedia movement roles, I'm
 wondering whether a Wikimedia chapter or a grant or some other movement
 player could either take on supporting the existing OTRS installation (by
 hiring a contractor), evaluating and implementing better/different
 response software, and/or moving the response system elsewhere.

I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially
support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly
because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met
anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not
interested suporting something I do not know.

(Judging by http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/OTRS there's plenty of
possible improvement here, especially on the spamfiltering part...)

cya,
Peter
([[user:grin]] / [[:hu:user:grin]] / Peter Gervai)

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Thomas Morton
I offered to look into this some time last year, and apply for a grant to
write an up to date piece of software. However it didn't get a good
response, with the foundation promising an OTRS update early this year...
apparent progress was made at that point, but it petered out very quickly.

Tom


On 21 February 2013 05:18, DeltaQuad Wikipedia deltaquadw...@gmail.comwrote:

 +1, the interface still confuses me at somepoints today.

 But I have to ask, are we getting everything we need with an OTRS update to
 the new version, or are we settling for a medioker (excuse my spelling, it
 is late). Is it a better idea to have wikimedians (maybe through grants,
 idk) build something open source and cc-whatever? That way fixes can be
 made and we can get many devs (broad sense of the term) fixing bugs of a
 new system.

 DeltaQuad - Mobile phone
 English Wikipedia Administrator and Checkuser
 On Feb 20, 2013 11:35 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:25 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 
   Hi.
  
   OTRS (https://ticket.wikimedia.org/) is a critical piece of
  Wikimedia's
   infrastructure. It currently handles nearly all customer service
  inquiries
   directed at Wikimedia. Trusted volunteers triage and respond to this
   e-mail.
  
   Wikimedia is currently running OTRS version 2.4. The most recently
   released OTRS version is 3.2. There's been an outstanding request to
  update
   Wikimedia's OTRS installation for just shy of three years now:
   https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/22622. OTRS' inventor kindly offered
 to
   donate his time to help with an upgrade, but due to a number of
 factors,
   this has become an untenable solution.
  
   Given the bug's fast-approaching birthday, the security concerns of
   running outdated software, the Wikimedia Foundation apparently being
   overburdened and uninterested in maintaining this piece of software,
 and
   mounting volunteer frustration, I'm wondering whether this is an area
   where the Wikimedia chapters or some other group might be able to lend
 a
   hand in supporting the maintenance of this piece of important
   infrastructure. Broadly, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't acting on this
   issue and it seems to have little interest in maintaining or supporting
   this software any longer.
  
   Given recent discussion about various Wikimedia movement roles, I'm
   wondering whether a Wikimedia chapter or a grant or some other movement
   player could either take on supporting the existing OTRS installation
 (by
   hiring a contractor), evaluating and implementing better/different
   response software, and/or moving the response system elsewhere.
  
   MZMcBride
  
  
  
  
  
 
  I've been working on OTRS since 2008 and have been an OTRS administrator
  for much of that time.  As somebody who devotes a lot of his time to
  OTRS-related work, I'm extremely disappointed in the lack of support the
  OTRS team has been dealing with.  As MZMcBride points out, there are a
  number of reasons why the software needs to be updated.
 
  Last year, we handled roughly 40,000 general inquiries in over 35
  languages.[1]  This alone should be a convincing reason as to why we
 should
  have at least somewhat up-to-date software, clean of security issues and
  other problems.[2]
 
  While I realize that there have been other priorities, I would have
 thought
  that with 3 years of waiting, eventually OTRS would be important enough
 for
  somebody to give some much needed attention to.
 
  [1] -
 
 
 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/24/the-incredible-work-of-the-wikimedia-volunteer-response-team/
  [2] -
 
 
 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDcomponent=OTRSproduct=Wikimedia
 
  --
 
  Ryan
  User:Rjd0060
  ___
  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 mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:04:

I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially
support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly
because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met
anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not
interested suporting something I do not know.


Interesting. Has hu.wiki ever considered to use a WM-HU hosted instance 
of OTRS instead of the WMF one? Given that this was among the suggested 
solutions here, it would be useful to know about previous discussions on 
the matter.
(The only thing I know is that WMIT considers WMF's OTRS so crappy that 
even our own – rather bad – instance is preferred to using theirs.)


Nemo

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Peter Gervai
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
 Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:04:

 I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially
 support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly
 because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met
 anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not
 interested suporting something I do not know.


 Interesting. Has hu.wiki ever considered to use a WM-HU hosted instance of
 OTRS instead of the WMF one?

Yes. It wasn't done because more often than not we got negative
feedback from the foundation when we wanted to host some of our own
services. Actually setting up a new one is quite simple, almost I'd
say a matter of minutes, plus maybe a few hours with all the
customisation (and thise we _severely_ miss by using the central
administered one).

 Given that this was among the suggested
 solutions here, it would be useful to know about previous discussions on the
 matter.

Indeed. I wasn't following the discussion since I supposed it's been handled.

 (The only thing I know is that WMIT considers WMF's OTRS so crappy that even
 our own – rather bad – instance is preferred to using theirs.)

It is not really maintained on the sysadmin level, to put it mildly.
I'm willing to change that if there's interest.

But your question may induce me to install one with the wikimedia
config just to see how it works with the new one. :-)

-- 
 byte-byte,
grin

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:25:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:04:


I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially
support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly
because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met
anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not
interested suporting something I do not know.



Interesting. Has hu.wiki ever considered to use a WM-HU hosted instance of
OTRS instead of the WMF one?


Yes. It wasn't done because more often than not we got negative
feedback from the foundation when we wanted to host some of our own
services. Actually setting up a new one is quite simple, almost I'd
say a matter of minutes, plus maybe a few hours with all the
customisation (and thise we _severely_ miss by using the central
administered one).


It's not surprising that you had negative feedback from the WMF, but it 
would be interesting to know if and why the hu.wiki community and the 
chapter discussed it and thought it was a good idea and under which 
conditions. The technical part is rather easy, but the organisation of a 
migration is not.
I'm sure that the WMIT board would never agree to host an OTRS service 
for it.wiki even if the community begged it (which is highly unlikely to 
happen anyway ;) ): it would like begging people to sue us for a few 
more 20 M€ requests.


Nemo

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Tomasz Ganicz
2013/2/21 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com:
 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:

 I personally feel more comfortable if the OTRS system is maintained by
 WMF and not by any small (or even larger) Wikimedia chapter - even my

 We were talking about local versions.

 Global OTRS _will_not_ be operated by wmhu (we neither want nor offer
 it); the question was who can support the administration of the _WMF_
 OTRS. WMF can use south-sudanese contractors to run it if it pleases,
 or a chapter, or whoever, it's the same: all the responsibilities stay
 at WMF.


Yes.. sure organizing local OTRS system is up to the local chapters,
but bear in mind we are talking about official E-mail addresses of
relevant Wikimedia projects. The personal data included in these
E-mails is subject of WMF privacy policy:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy

E-mails sent to OTRS contain quite often very fragile personal data -
such as real names of editors, home addresses, phone numbers etc.

And I guess WMF will never let to operate it or store by any third
party including chapters.

-- 
Tomek Polimerek Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-21 Thread Ilario Valdelli

I support the email of Charles.

I would invite you to take in consideration a more flexible model and to 
give the role of the chair or vice-chair to the chapters (may be 
rotating the functions) and not to a single person.


Afterwards the chapter may decide who will be the person in charge, but 
this would be an internal decision limited to the chapter.


This solution will help to share different points of view and to give 
relevance to the chapters and not to people.


This solution will help also to avoid personal discussions (the chapter 
may substitute the person in charge) and may focus the efforts in more 
productive discussions.


I would say that it has been considered relevant the Iberocoop model but 
this model has its own weaknesses, it's a good start but it's not a 
valid model (and I think that Iberocoop members are aware of that).


In any relevant confederation the rotation is the most used solution. In 
Europe for instance the presidency of the Council of EU is in charge of 
each member but I would give the example of Switzerland (and the 
Switzerland is a confederation since XIII century):


/President and Vice President rotate annually, each Councillor thus 
becoming Vice President and then President [...]. The President is not 
the Swiss head of state//, but he or she is the highest-ranking Swiss 
official. He or she presides over Council meetings and carries out 
certain representative functions that, in other countries, are the 
business of the//head of state//. In urgent situations where a Council 
decision cannot be made in time, the President is empowered to act on 
behalf of the whole Council. Apart from that, though, the President is a 
/*/primus inter pares/*/, having no power above and beyond the other six 
Councillors/[1]


Please have in mind these words: Primus inter pares.

So I invite you to help and to support a migration to a new model more 
flexible, more decentralized and more focused on the needs of the chapters.


Regards

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_inter_pares#Switzerland

On 21.02.2013 12:07, Charles Andrès wrote:

Dear Fae,

I find it contradictory to consider that anticipated election of the chair is 
good for WCA but that for the vice chair it would be bad, if we need to have 
elections before Milano we can have both in parallel.

Anyway I was,  and I'm still  oppose to anticipated election.  Since the beginning of the 
discussion about WCA bylaws , the question of do we need a chair and a vice 
chair hasn't been fixed, and I'm sorry to tell that provoking new election before 
fixing this point is just bad.


Jan-Bart in a previous mail made the good comment that we should stop 
discussing about membership and voting, but the question here is really about 
what is the WCA.
Several chapters ask for an Iberocoop model, it means that they don't want a 
chair and a vice chair. The people present in London can argue that at least 
some position should exist to assure that coordination is done, but the 7 
present in London cannot decide for 14 others.  By deciding to anticipate the 
election of the chair it's just what you have done.

In your answer you talk about WMF board asking directly or indirectly for your 
replacement. This argument has been read in the personal comment of board 
member, and all chapter are aware of that and will take it into account, or 
not, when the time will come. But we don't need your resignation now whereas 
the new election is already planned in just two month, the few week of 
difference will not affect the WCA. Also if you are personally disputed by 
people outside the chapter, the vice chair is at least equally disputed among 
the chapter, what's the most important?




Ilario

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Sumana Harihareswara
I am sorry for breaking threading; my undigestify plugin is giving me
an error.

I'm looking at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/22622 -- Upgrade
Wikimedia OTRS installation from 2.4.x CVS to the latest version
(3.2.1) -- and I see that Wikimedia Foundation's Rob Halsell has been
trying to get in touch with Martin Edenhofer, the OTRS inventor, to get
him onto the next step of helping out.  If anyone knows Edenhofer and
can ask him to reply, that would be great, even if it's just to say
sorry but this isn't something I can take on.  Resolving that will
reduce the cookie-licking
http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking and make it easier
for others to coordinate.

I believe one thing that's needed is a clear commitment or confirmation
from the Foundation -- do we plan to upgrade or replace OTRS, or not?
If so, what is our timeframe? I've asked CT Woo, head of WMF Operations,
to please comment on the bug or on the list.  Since there are security
implications, I've also notified our Security Engineer, Chris Steipp, to
remind him of the current situation.

And another thing that's needed is clarity from WMF Legal on whether it
would be okay for a chapter or other affiliated group to work on
upgrading/moving/hosting/switching from OTRS, and whether there are EU
data privacy restrictions.  So I've asked Legal for comment.  Once we
understand that better, I can help Peter Gervai and Madman get going,
whether to help with an in-place upgrade, a move, or something else;
thank you so much for your offer!

Rjd0060, thanks for the link to open bugs in WMF's Bugzilla about OTRS
problems
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDcomponent=OTRSproduct=Wikimedia.
 I've asked our Bug Wrangler, Andre Klapper, and our bug wrangling
intern Valerie Juarez, to take a look at those tickets just to
double-check their priority so it's clear what problems the out-of-date
OTRS system is causing.

I've also emailed labs-l to follow up on Madman's question regarding the
status of https://labsconsole.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nova_Resource:Otrs
(the OTRS Labs project).

Thomas Morton, if you can forward me the note where the WMF promised an
update to OTRS early this year, that would be great to help me chase
this down. :-)

I am glad that people have been bringing this up and pushing for a
better toolset and experience for our volunteers.  Hope I can help.

-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Nicole Ebber
Just a quick reply: We have been in touch with Martin Edenhofer a few
months ago and I will try to reach out to him today.

Best,
Nicole

On 21 February 2013 13:07, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 I am sorry for breaking threading; my undigestify plugin is giving me
 an error.

 I'm looking at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/22622 -- Upgrade
 Wikimedia OTRS installation from 2.4.x CVS to the latest version
 (3.2.1) -- and I see that Wikimedia Foundation's Rob Halsell has been
 trying to get in touch with Martin Edenhofer, the OTRS inventor, to get
 him onto the next step of helping out.  If anyone knows Edenhofer and
 can ask him to reply, that would be great, even if it's just to say
 sorry but this isn't something I can take on.  Resolving that will
 reduce the cookie-licking
 http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking and make it easier
 for others to coordinate.

 I believe one thing that's needed is a clear commitment or confirmation
 from the Foundation -- do we plan to upgrade or replace OTRS, or not?
 If so, what is our timeframe? I've asked CT Woo, head of WMF Operations,
 to please comment on the bug or on the list.  Since there are security
 implications, I've also notified our Security Engineer, Chris Steipp, to
 remind him of the current situation.

 And another thing that's needed is clarity from WMF Legal on whether it
 would be okay for a chapter or other affiliated group to work on
 upgrading/moving/hosting/switching from OTRS, and whether there are EU
 data privacy restrictions.  So I've asked Legal for comment.  Once we
 understand that better, I can help Peter Gervai and Madman get going,
 whether to help with an in-place upgrade, a move, or something else;
 thank you so much for your offer!

 Rjd0060, thanks for the link to open bugs in WMF's Bugzilla about OTRS
 problems
 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDcomponent=OTRSproduct=Wikimedia.
  I've asked our Bug Wrangler, Andre Klapper, and our bug wrangling
 intern Valerie Juarez, to take a look at those tickets just to
 double-check their priority so it's clear what problems the out-of-date
 OTRS system is causing.

 I've also emailed labs-l to follow up on Madman's question regarding the
 status of https://labsconsole.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nova_Resource:Otrs
 (the OTRS Labs project).

 Thomas Morton, if you can forward me the note where the WMF promised an
 update to OTRS early this year, that would be great to help me chase
 this down. :-)

 I am glad that people have been bringing this up and pushing for a
 better toolset and experience for our volunteers.  Hope I can help.

 --
 Sumana Harihareswara
 Engineering Community Manager
 Wikimedia Foundation

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



--
Nicole Ebber
International Affairs

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread David Gerard
On 21 February 2013 12:07, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:

[Sumana does ALL THE THINGS]

This is a wonderful response. Thank you!


- d.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Charles Andrès
Thanks Sumana,

For legal reason , WMCH, as fundraising processor, had to get its own OTRS 
system and queues, if it's a Movement request supported by the Foundation , we 
will be more than happy to participate and support the development of an 
alternative host by a chapter or the chapter association or whatever…


Sincerely

Charles


___
I use this email for mailing list only.

Charles ANDRES, Chairman
Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge –
www.wikimedia.ch
Skype: charles.andres.wmch
IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch

Le 21 févr. 2013 à 13:07, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org a écrit :

 I am sorry for breaking threading; my undigestify plugin is giving me
 an error.
 
 I'm looking at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/22622 -- Upgrade
 Wikimedia OTRS installation from 2.4.x CVS to the latest version
 (3.2.1) -- and I see that Wikimedia Foundation's Rob Halsell has been
 trying to get in touch with Martin Edenhofer, the OTRS inventor, to get
 him onto the next step of helping out.  If anyone knows Edenhofer and
 can ask him to reply, that would be great, even if it's just to say
 sorry but this isn't something I can take on.  Resolving that will
 reduce the cookie-licking
 http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking and make it easier
 for others to coordinate.
 
 I believe one thing that's needed is a clear commitment or confirmation
 from the Foundation -- do we plan to upgrade or replace OTRS, or not?
 If so, what is our timeframe? I've asked CT Woo, head of WMF Operations,
 to please comment on the bug or on the list.  Since there are security
 implications, I've also notified our Security Engineer, Chris Steipp, to
 remind him of the current situation.
 
 And another thing that's needed is clarity from WMF Legal on whether it
 would be okay for a chapter or other affiliated group to work on
 upgrading/moving/hosting/switching from OTRS, and whether there are EU
 data privacy restrictions.  So I've asked Legal for comment.  Once we
 understand that better, I can help Peter Gervai and Madman get going,
 whether to help with an in-place upgrade, a move, or something else;
 thank you so much for your offer!
 
 Rjd0060, thanks for the link to open bugs in WMF's Bugzilla about OTRS
 problems
 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDcomponent=OTRSproduct=Wikimedia.
 I've asked our Bug Wrangler, Andre Klapper, and our bug wrangling
 intern Valerie Juarez, to take a look at those tickets just to
 double-check their priority so it's clear what problems the out-of-date
 OTRS system is causing.
 
 I've also emailed labs-l to follow up on Madman's question regarding the
 status of https://labsconsole.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nova_Resource:Otrs
 (the OTRS Labs project).
 
 Thomas Morton, if you can forward me the note where the WMF promised an
 update to OTRS early this year, that would be great to help me chase
 this down. :-)
 
 I am glad that people have been bringing this up and pushing for a
 better toolset and experience for our volunteers.  Hope I can help.
 
 -- 
 Sumana Harihareswara
 Engineering Community Manager
 Wikimedia Foundation
 
 ___
 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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-21 Thread Manuel Schneider
The list already exists since several months but hasn't been used yet:

https://intern.wikimedia.ch/lists/listinfo/wca-announce

/Manuel

Am 19.02.2013 21:09, schrieb Michael Peel:
 
 On 19 Feb 2013, at 19:57, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 19 February 2013 16:10, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:

 There will be a special list 'WCA-announcements. If you want to be
 informed about Bulletins and discussions, join the list and you will
 get links to Meta Wiki. It's a one-way-list, because the discussions
 are supposed to be on Meta Wiki. This is a WCA service for Council
 Members and non Council Members alike. In this way, nobody is obliged
 to be on a heavy traffic list such as Wikimedia-l.


 Thanks Ziko, I'm happy to create this list for you on the Foundation
 servers, please follow the instructions at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists#Create_a_new_list to file a
 bug. I'd suggest WCA-Announce to match our similar announcement lists for
 MediaWiki, WLM, Toolserver etc and to keep it relatively short.
 
 Is there a reason why wikimediaannounce-l can't be used here?

-- 
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-21 Thread Thehelpfulone
On 21 Feb 2013, at 13:01, Manuel Schneider manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch 
wrote:

 The list already exists since several months but hasn't been used yet:
 
 https://intern.wikimedia.ch/lists/listinfo/wca-announce
 
 /Manuel

When I offered to create the list I considered that it would be better to have 
the list on WMF servers instead of the chapter server so someone looking at the 
main mailing list directory could find it more easily.

However, the point that WikimediaAnnounce-l could be used is a reasonable one, 
and it's likely that the audience who subscribe to that list would be 
interested in what the WCA is doing, given that the list is for 'movement' 
announcements and chapters/WCA are part of our movement.

Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-21 Thread Markus Glaser

Hi Charles,

from the feedback we had about the WCA, IMHO we need to consider two 
different issues:
* we are criticised for focussing on structures too much. In London, as 
you can see in the protocol [1], we discussed several options including 
the one about an executive board, but decided to let form follow 
function and leave any structural debate for now. Of course, I cannot 
stop you from doing so, but I will try and focus my time on doing actual 
work until Milan.
* be it justified or not, several key players in the Wikimedia universe 
do have issues with Fae being Chair. Personally, I value Fae's work a 
lot. But we need to address the concerns of the world outside the 
Chapters unless we keep thinking of the WCA as a lonely (non-)player 
without any relation to the other entities in this Wikimedia world. I 
respect Fae's decision to react to the current situation and bring 
forward the election. Whoever will be (re-)elected, we will have a Chair 
with a lot more support then.


I quite like your initiative in creating this survey, thanks for this. 
At the same time, may I ask you if you coordinated this with Ziko and 
Michail, who volunteered to do some research along the same lines as you 
suggested [2]? I should think it makes sense to bundle similar 
initiatives. What I'd like to avoid is that every WCA council member 
starts rushing into their own projects.


Best,
Markus

[1] 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Meetings/2013-07#Reflective_discussion
[2] 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Meetings/2013-07#Action_teams



Anyway I was,  and I'm still  oppose to anticipated election.  Since the beginning of the 
discussion about WCA bylaws , the question of do we need a chair and a vice 
chair hasn't been fixed, and I'm sorry to tell that provoking new election before 
fixing this point is just bad.


Jan-Bart in a previous mail made the good comment that we should stop 
discussing about membership and voting, but the question here is really about 
what is the WCA.
Several chapters ask for an Iberocoop model, it means that they don't want a 
chair and a vice chair. The people present in London can argue that at least 
some position should exist to assure that coordination is done, but the 7 
present in London cannot decide for 14 others.  By deciding to anticipate the 
election of the chair it's just what you have done.

In your answer you talk about WMF board asking directly or indirectly for your 
replacement. This argument has been read in the personal comment of board 
member, and all chapter are aware of that and will take it into account, or 
not, when the time will come. But we don't need your resignation now whereas 
the new election is already planned in just two month, the few week of 
difference will not affect the WCA. Also if you are personally disputed by 
people outside the chapter, the vice chair is at least equally disputed among 
the chapter, what's the most important?


Finally I will point that WCA is representing 21 chapters for now, and most of those chapters are 
really tired of discussion in english on meta, asking them to have a campaign and a 
vote online whereas we can have a live vote in Milano is just another way to say we don't 
care of you.


WCA is needed, but is not needed tomorrow , it's needed when all chapter will 
participate and make it grow, and we won't have that unless we find the seed 
action that will make all chapter willing to support is growth, and sorry this 
is not this list 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Meetings/2013-07#Session_3:_Actions.2C_engagement
 that will change the actual dynamic.

I'm not a magician, I don't have a ready to use solution, but what I'm sure, is 
that the very first step should be an open discussion between chapters about 
what is the WCA is, and for that purpose I created this page, to build a survey 
among chapters: 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/survey_march_2013

I invite all interested people to participate to the creation of this survey. 
In a second time the same type of survey should be open to the whole movement, 
but because the WCA is the CHAPTER ASSOCIATION, I think it's reasonable to 
first know what the first concerned people think.


Cheers

Charles
  



  


















___
I use this email for mailing list only.

Charles ANDRES, Chairman
Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge –
www.wikimedia.ch
Skype: charles.andres.wmch
IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch

Le 20 févr. 2013 à 09:25, Fae fae...@gmail.com a écrit :


On 20 February 2013 07:57, Charles Andrès charles.andres.w...@gmail.com wrote:

Hello Ziko,

Because you want to hear:

1)Their is no census within the chapter whether we still want a deputy chair 
position

It's better for us to focus on the actions we are taking for the next
3 months. We 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising testing

2013-02-21 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
As said previously, we keep getting complaints from editors that the 
thing looks like phishing.


dont-shoot-the-messenger-Nemo

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-21 Thread Markus Glaser

Am 21.02.2013 15:57, schrieb Manuel Schneider:

I think I have to agree that one announce list is enough. As we haven't
started using the wca-announce yet I see no problem in agreeing that we
use wikimedia-announce-l instead.


/Manuel

+1

We can use a [wca] tag in the subject line as you suggested to raise wca 
specific awareness.


Cheers,
Markus

--
Markus Glaser
WCA Council Member (WMDE)
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-21 Thread Charles Andrès
HI Ziko,

Could you give us more information about this action team?, and especially its 
composition  because there is few information here 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Research , no 
more on the minute of your meeting in London, and I don't remind any public 
call for joining this team?

Sorry to use Wikimedia-l for this question, but if we use the chapters mailing 
we are criticize, so here the transparency :-)


Charles



___


Charles ANDRES, Chairman
Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge –
www.wikimedia.ch
Skype: charles.andres.wmch
IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch

Le 21 févr. 2013 à 16:25, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl a écrit :

 Hi, Michal and I will soon come up with a general question to the
 movement, in the frame of the action team research. Maybe today or
 tomorrow.
 Kind regards
 Ziko
 
 2013/2/21 Markus Glaser markus.gla...@wikimedia.de:
 Am 21.02.2013 15:57, schrieb Manuel Schneider:
 
 I think I have to agree that one announce list is enough. As we haven't
 started using the wca-announce yet I see no problem in agreeing that we
 use wikimedia-announce-l instead.
 
 
 /Manuel
 
 +1
 
 We can use a [wca] tag in the subject line as you suggested to raise wca
 specific awareness.
 
 Cheers,
 Markus
 
 
 --
 Markus Glaser
 WCA Council Member (WMDE)
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 ---
 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
 http://wmnederland.nl/
 
 Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht
 ---
 
 ___
 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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-21 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Pacience.

2013/2/21 Charles Andrès charles.andres.w...@gmail.com:
 HI Ziko,

 Could you give us more information about this action team?, and especially 
 its composition  because there is few information here 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Research , no 
 more on the minute of your meeting in London, and I don't remind any public 
 call for joining this team?

 Sorry to use Wikimedia-l for this question, but if we use the chapters 
 mailing we are criticize, so here the transparency :-)


 Charles



 ___


 Charles ANDRES, Chairman
 Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge –
 www.wikimedia.ch
 Skype: charles.andres.wmch
 IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch

 Le 21 févr. 2013 à 16:25, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl a écrit :

 Hi, Michal and I will soon come up with a general question to the
 movement, in the frame of the action team research. Maybe today or
 tomorrow.
 Kind regards
 Ziko

 2013/2/21 Markus Glaser markus.gla...@wikimedia.de:
 Am 21.02.2013 15:57, schrieb Manuel Schneider:

 I think I have to agree that one announce list is enough. As we haven't
 started using the wca-announce yet I see no problem in agreeing that we
 use wikimedia-announce-l instead.


 /Manuel

 +1

 We can use a [wca] tag in the subject line as you suggested to raise wca
 specific awareness.

 Cheers,
 Markus


 --
 Markus Glaser
 WCA Council Member (WMDE)
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.


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



 --

 ---
 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
 http://wmnederland.nl/

 Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht
 ---

 ___
 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



-- 

---
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
---

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread MZMcBride
David Gerard wrote:
On 21 February 2013 12:07, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

[Sumana does ALL THE THINGS]

This is a wonderful response. Thank you!

Completely agreed. Thank you, Sumana! It seems like we're headed in a good
direction.

MZMcBride



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Rjd0060
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:54 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 [Sumana does ALL THE THINGS]
 
 This is a wonderful response. Thank you!

 Completely agreed. Thank you, Sumana! It seems like we're headed in a good
 direction.



Yes, Sumana.  I look forward to seeing what information your work can bring
us.

Whether the software is upgraded, changed or clean-installed...it really
doesn't matter on our end of things.  Any of these options would likely
improve things on both the part of the volunteers using the system, and the
ops team maintaining it.

-- 

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread David Goodman
I get very exasperated when the WMF says it does not have the money
for something . Since it is spends only 1/2  of its annual receipts,
it has the money;   The actual meaning of the statement is that the
WMF does not think the project of high enough priority to do, and
would prefer to add the money to its reserves rather than spend it.
(I agree that the Foundation ought to build up a reserve, but devoting
so much of its financial resources to the purpose is not a reasonable
decision).

That it does not have the human resources is another matter, and a
real concern. It is of course related: unless it uses its money to
hire technically qualified people who understand the needs of WP, it
never wiil have suitable staff for the requirements of the project.
But even with this limitation, projects for work that is not
intrinsically unique to Wikipedia can be outsourced.

That individual people and chapters are not only willing but eager to
fill its deficiencies is what keeps the overall project going.



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



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Nathan
In fairness to the WMF tech team, and without totally absolving them
of delays, it looks like a lot of the delay has been related to
problems contacting and exchanging information with the OTRS inventor.
Not that the WMF couldn't have put more energy into staying in touch
with him, but it's worth noting they have made periodic efforts to
work with him on an upgrade.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Platonides
On 21/02/13 07:19, [[w:en:User:Madman]] wrote:
 Does anyone know what the status is of the OTRS project on Labs? Given
 a contact, I'd be happy to do what I can to help; I have some limited
 experience configuring/deploying OTRS (up until the end of the 3.0
 branch last year, nothing with 3.1 or 3.2 unfortunately).

 I think opportunities for *volunteer* help have to consciously be
 maximized, especially for volunteers who are or are willing to be
 agents and/or identified to the Foundation. It's not going to get done
 otherwise.

 -Madman/ea

I don't see much future in that, sadly. Yes, a puppetization from a
volunteer could help the WMF, however they won't give you access to the
current setup that you would be replicating. And that's a point that has
been barring any volunteer help for years on this topic. Only ops can
work on it, but nobody is assigned to otrs, and they have other tasks.
There's a mixture of technical needs, legal issues and
too-risky-to-touch it.
Then Martin Edenhofer appeared offering to help with it, but there was
delay after dealy: a NDA is needed, then separate machines, later he
needs to provide the ssh key...
And no work is done.


On 21/02/13 07:32, James Alexander wrote:
 Yeah, I have to agree sadly that we need more tech support and this has
 been a thing that has been ongoing for a while. I personally think it
 should remain in the foundation for many reasons (the least of which is
 relatively large legal reasons) but we REALLY need to focus on it, or a
 replacement, more.
 
 OTRS is the public face of not only the projects but the foundation in
 general and answers an absolutely insane amount of  email every year and
 that has been the case for a while. When I first started applying to work
 at the foundation my big interview ended up being about 8 hours (with a
 liquor break in the middle) explaining to Philippe how I thought OTRS
 needed to be replaced. I thought, and continue to think, that the system
 underserves the job and we would be better served with something else that
 could take much better advantage of modern advancements and clarity in
 purpose.
 
 Sadly at the time they didn't have the money for me to work on OTRS (and so
 I came to do the fundraiser) and since then I have heard rumors of it's
 upgrade or replacement every single year (multiple times) only to be told
 later that the resources aren't available. I've seen us look at the upgrade
 multiple times, I've heard it be called both new ceiling wax and cake
 frosting but not necessarily called a good option. It may be, I don't know
 and we (as usual with outside products) overwork it beyond measure. Even
 the professional OTRS folks when we were talking to them about helping
 upgrade basically said errr, you have HOW much in the database? and told
 us to just abandon it and start fresh with their new version. That said
 even their internal OTRS version wasn't upgraded yet last year 
 
 We need to do something though, it is disappointing to me that it hasn't
 been a bigger priority because I think it should have been and I think it
 should be now. I'm not sure if an OTRS upgrade is the best option... but it
 is probably better then what we have. For a long while I thought we should
 wait and not upgrade so that we can just replace it... but clearly it's
 been too long for that now.
 
 James

Thanks for your insight, James. It's very interesting.
As you have dealt with it, can you clarify why is the upgrade such a big
problem? Yes, we have tons of emails. So what? Does the upgrade use
O(2^N) operations??
Even if not-too-efficient, I would expect the upgrade to have finished
in three years :)
I don't even know about a test upgrade being performed ever.

I agree that OTRS is kind-of inefficient. We could easily build a
replacement in 1-2 months *keeping the old data*. If OTRS works quite
well on a single server, just imagine what we could do in a multiple
server setup. I find hard that such version would perform worse. Not to
mention the “handy” improvements we could add based on our usage.
But just a newer OTRS version would be an improvement.



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's support of OTRS

2013-02-21 Thread Nicole Ebber
Martin has answered my email and just left a comment on
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22622. I'll get him in
touch with Sumana via E-Mail.

Hope this helps, best regards,
Nicole

On 21 February 2013 21:37, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 21/02/13 07:19, [[w:en:User:Madman]] wrote:
 Does anyone know what the status is of the OTRS project on Labs? Given
 a contact, I'd be happy to do what I can to help; I have some limited
 experience configuring/deploying OTRS (up until the end of the 3.0
 branch last year, nothing with 3.1 or 3.2 unfortunately).

 I think opportunities for *volunteer* help have to consciously be
 maximized, especially for volunteers who are or are willing to be
 agents and/or identified to the Foundation. It's not going to get done
 otherwise.

 -Madman/ea

 I don't see much future in that, sadly. Yes, a puppetization from a
 volunteer could help the WMF, however they won't give you access to the
 current setup that you would be replicating. And that's a point that has
 been barring any volunteer help for years on this topic. Only ops can
 work on it, but nobody is assigned to otrs, and they have other tasks.
 There's a mixture of technical needs, legal issues and
 too-risky-to-touch it.
 Then Martin Edenhofer appeared offering to help with it, but there was
 delay after dealy: a NDA is needed, then separate machines, later he
 needs to provide the ssh key...
 And no work is done.


 On 21/02/13 07:32, James Alexander wrote:
 Yeah, I have to agree sadly that we need more tech support and this has
 been a thing that has been ongoing for a while. I personally think it
 should remain in the foundation for many reasons (the least of which is
 relatively large legal reasons) but we REALLY need to focus on it, or a
 replacement, more.

 OTRS is the public face of not only the projects but the foundation in
 general and answers an absolutely insane amount of  email every year and
 that has been the case for a while. When I first started applying to work
 at the foundation my big interview ended up being about 8 hours (with a
 liquor break in the middle) explaining to Philippe how I thought OTRS
 needed to be replaced. I thought, and continue to think, that the system
 underserves the job and we would be better served with something else that
 could take much better advantage of modern advancements and clarity in
 purpose.

 Sadly at the time they didn't have the money for me to work on OTRS (and so
 I came to do the fundraiser) and since then I have heard rumors of it's
 upgrade or replacement every single year (multiple times) only to be told
 later that the resources aren't available. I've seen us look at the upgrade
 multiple times, I've heard it be called both new ceiling wax and cake
 frosting but not necessarily called a good option. It may be, I don't know
 and we (as usual with outside products) overwork it beyond measure. Even
 the professional OTRS folks when we were talking to them about helping
 upgrade basically said errr, you have HOW much in the database? and told
 us to just abandon it and start fresh with their new version. That said
 even their internal OTRS version wasn't upgraded yet last year 

 We need to do something though, it is disappointing to me that it hasn't
 been a bigger priority because I think it should have been and I think it
 should be now. I'm not sure if an OTRS upgrade is the best option... but it
 is probably better then what we have. For a long while I thought we should
 wait and not upgrade so that we can just replace it... but clearly it's
 been too long for that now.

 James

 Thanks for your insight, James. It's very interesting.
 As you have dealt with it, can you clarify why is the upgrade such a big
 problem? Yes, we have tons of emails. So what? Does the upgrade use
 O(2^N) operations??
 Even if not-too-efficient, I would expect the upgrade to have finished
 in three years :)
 I don't even know about a test upgrade being performed ever.

 I agree that OTRS is kind-of inefficient. We could easily build a
 replacement in 1-2 months *keeping the old data*. If OTRS works quite
 well on a single server, just imagine what we could do in a multiple
 server setup. I find hard that such version would perform worse. Not to
 mention the “handy” improvements we could add based on our usage.
 But just a newer OTRS version would be an improvement.



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



--
Nicole Ebber
International Affairs

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 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