Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Something that I would find interesting is a more detailed explanation of the reasoning behind the decision to put Flow into maintenance mode instead of continuing efforts to make it suitible for more diverse purposes. I'm not sure that Flow could ever fully replace all talk pages, but I tilt in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

MZMcBride mzmcbride.com> writes: > > Forwarding this to wikimedia-l as it doesn't seem to be very technical in > nature, but definitely seems worthy of discussion. > > MZMcBride > > Danny Horn wrote: > >For a while now, the Collaboration team has been working on Flow, the > >structured

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

We are planning to put Flow into public dumps this month, and work with all the remaining communities still using LQT about converting to Flow. I wanted to let this announcement settle for a minute before we talk to them. On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:23 PM, John Mark Vandenberg

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Thanks for that perspective Amir. I hadn't even thought of the mobile aspect. It would be great to have improved collaboration tools for working on mobile. Pine On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: > 2015-09-02 3:15 GMT+03:00 MZMcBride

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

2015-09-02 3:15 GMT+03:00 MZMcBride : > What I'm struggling with here is that Flow seems to have failed to > deliver. It hasn't met its goals of covering even basic talk pages and it > sounds as though further development work on Flow will now be suspended. > > From my

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:37 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Amir E. Aharoni wrote: >>Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You can >>write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working for >>many months already. This is my definition of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Amir E. Aharoni wrote: >Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You can >write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working for >many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk pages". > >Even more importantly is that you can write

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Hi, (here goes a disclaimer about me posting this email as volunteer tech ambassador in Catalan Wikipedia in my personal time) While Flow might not be ready to make happy core enwiki contributors, in my humble (and again, personal) opinion it is clearly ready to make life easier to dozens

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Quick followup, with a reminder that onwiki feedback would be ideal. The original message is replicated at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:So4pui07y03ibgqq and your input there will be greatly appreciated. ​Thanks. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

T​o clarify: Starting in October, Flow will be maintained; it's not being abandoned. Further work on the discussion system will need to be driven by communities voicing their desire for further work on it. Additional development on the discussion system will be prioritized on community request and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of MZMcBride Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 10:15 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization Danny Horn

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Danny Horn wrote: >To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now focusing >our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that >take place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex >workarounds -- templates, categories, transclusions, and lots

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

I don't know how Wikimedia engineering tracks project resource usage - is there a number out there for the total cost to the WMF associated with the Flow project? At a basic minimum, the number of developer and other hours dedicated to Flow (including fully dedicated contractors)? Is it likely

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Finance perspective here. My understanding is that Lila slowed the development of Flow awhile back. If Flow was turning out to be a resource intensive project with marginal benefits, then ending its development is likely to be a good management decision. A retrospective on Flow's development and