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

2014-09-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, As it is the current talk pages are horrible. You gloss over this fact because you are so fired up about the potential of end users can build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request the platform developers to build support for them. Then you attack flow because some

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

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair
Your suggestion is to be dismissed with prejudice because it is so obviously wrong in so many ways.. I do not care about a possible potential of a broken system at all I may want to think about features that are actively used in this broken system. Thanks, GerardM I won't be

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

2014-09-07 Thread Pine W
I would suggest aiming for a series of base hits. (: An attempt was made to hit VE out of the park. We know how well that worked. I think a lot of the work of capturing suggestions is supposed to be done by the project manager and the engineering community liaisons. It would be interesting to

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

2014-09-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, I like your story and I understand the sentiment. For me the story is about the kind of functionality that we may or may not need in Flow. The story is not about retaining what went before.. Mark my words, I cannot wait for the old talk system to go. As I understand the current situation,

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

2014-09-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, The central point Diego made starts from is that the current broken system has a POTENTIAL for unstructured, unaccountable changes by whomever. You do not build on a fundament that is collapsing as it is. A system that is manifestly broken particularly on the one platform where our new

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

2014-09-07 Thread Diego Moya
Gerard, with all due respect, your reply is all based on incorrect assumptions. I recognize the severe problems that mediawiki conversations currently have, and my points about Flow acknowledge that it's incomplete software at its early stages and that it can grow into an acceptable tool for

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

2014-09-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, It is fine to disagree. What is lacking in your vision is a viable alternative and, as you acknowledge the current system is no longer viable we are in need of an alternative now. Your notions are yours and that is fine. However, we are not a debating club really. My point is very much that

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

2014-09-07 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
2014-09-07 4:17 GMT+03:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com: I think the design of Flow is much like the liqueur-filled chocolates. It's missed the point of a discussion space on Wikimedia projects. All the use cases in the world, no matter how carefully researched and accounted for, will help you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

2014-09-07 Thread Yann Forget
Hi, The first thing to fix is the reporting: if the user accepts reporting, you should really report the issue without asking to enter a mail or some information the user does not know. I am fine playing a guinea pig if it is useful, but here I can't even report anything. Regards, Yann

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

2014-09-07 Thread Diego Moya
On 7 September 2014 13:33, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Get real and look what Flow is and how it can be improved. Check out the use cases it works for and acknowledge the achievements. THEN and only THEN consider the features that are being tested and are still deficient.

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

2014-09-07 Thread Diego Moya
...and having said and sent that previous post, I want to publicly apologize for the third paragraph counting from the end. That was uncalled for. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

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

2014-09-07 Thread Diego Moya
On 09/06/2014 17:06 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote: if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs? You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endless drama around solutions to non-problems as misdirection

2014-09-07 Thread David Goodman
Gerald, are you saying that you personally find the effort involved in editing wikitext or adding media disproportionate , or that there are people who would like to contribute content who find it excessive, but would find it effective with a more intuitive interface? The first I doubt; the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endless drama around solutions to non-problems as misdirection

2014-09-07 Thread Steven Walling
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 1:54 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Steven Walling wrote: ... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently

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

2014-09-07 Thread Craig Franklin
Hi, Is there a page somewhere where I can see a detailed functional specification of this product, showing how it'll work, what functions/features it will include in it's MVP state, and such? I know about the page on Mediawiki ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow ) that talks about things in

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

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair
Let me begin with this: my preferences lie far closer to yours, Gerard, than Diego's. I believe that we have a document oriented system that works well for stuff like encyclopedic content. But I think that we should be conducting our discussions in a discussion oriented system. That doesn't

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

2014-09-07 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote: a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request the platform developers to build support

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endless drama around solutions to non-problems as misdirection

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair
The way I see it, there is something each and every one of us can do to help with attrition right now with no interference from or dependencies on anyone else. We can treat each other with the respect that we all deserve. Before hitting send or Save Page, we can ask ourselves if we've said what

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

2014-09-07 Thread Risker
On 7 September 2014 23:54, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote: a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can build new features and flows on top of

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

2014-09-07 Thread Todd Allen
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote: a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can build new features and flows on

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

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair
I composed the following as part of a longer message, but I decided not to send it unless others were having similar issues since I'm on track to exceed my monthly allowance of posts here ;): There's one thing in this discussion that troubles me greatly. We've got a treasure trove of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endless drama around solutions to non-problems as misdirection

2014-09-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, I hardly ever write a Wikipedia article because there are too many showstoppers as far as I am concerned. The reasons for me are that the policies involved are so overly complicated that I first consult a friend about my plan for an article and its feasibility. The second reason is the large

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

2014-09-07 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote: a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can build new features and flows on top

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

2014-09-07 Thread Risker
On 8 September 2014 00:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: snip . e.g. once it is beta quality, I am sure Jimmy Wales will want it enabled on his user talk page, which would increase exposure to, and acceptance of, Flow. ...or possibly far less complaining on his page. :-)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair
I don't know what you mean by entering an email, but when you add something to a workflow like a bug system, it's pretty common that it expects to be able to send you notifications about status changes, etc. I didn't experience any of the issues you mentioned on my Nexus 5 phone and Nexus 7

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

2014-09-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, There are two ways to look at the talk systems. It served us so far to some extend. It has been considered in need of replacement for a long time and consequently we have systems like Liquid Threads that are arguably at least as good in many use cases and fail in others. The other way to

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

2014-09-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, You missed the multiple discussion pages in all the other languages. They are certainly as observant, as eloquent and they have different use cases and issues as well. Thanks, GerardM On 8 September 2014 06:26, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I composed the following as part of a