James,
Pine suggested you might be able to fill in some of the gaps here. I am not
tied to any given format, but what I'm looking for is the connective tissue
between things like ACTRIAL, AFC and its increased use, Page Curation, the
Draft: namespace, etc.
Reading through the associated pages on
I put model writing a new article with visual editor on my to-do list. It
may be a good idea to do a few test runs where we boot a hundred or so
pages in each category in VisualEditor, and then see how many of each have
errors.
On Apr 25, 2015 1:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25
On 25 April 2015 at 04:11, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going
to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching
beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see.
When did you last
As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going
to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching
beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see.
As I have spent most of my time for the last year and a half dealing with
the gross
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
Thanks Pine. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is somebody (maybe
Fabrice?) who can shed some light on the general thinking in the software
development in this area.
Hi Pete,
James A. might be able to answer that, or know which project manager to
ping.
AFC and related processes are within my scope of concern regarding editor
retention, but they're not my expertise. I wish I could help more.
Currently, when I'm not dealing with Cascadia Wikimedians budgets
I agree with the statement New tech can only do so much to fix the
problem. Our retention rate for new editors was 1% the last time I
checked. What we should do about that should probably be the subject of a
different thread. We've had multiple discussions about vital statistics for
the editor
Hi Pete,
Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
Pine
On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was
the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was
the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in
response to ACTRIAL?
If so -- has there been any study of whether its
James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pete,
Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
Pine
He pops in every once in a while during his break but while
I don't know that there is a next step. The WMF has clearly indicated they
will not budge on the solution that the high-level Wikipedia community says
is needed. I have qualms myself about the way the community operates at
times but covering ACTRAIL and New Page Patrol at the Signpost felt like an
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The team has pretty strong arguments why they don't want posts to be
editable (the gist is, they fear that no other discussion system does
this, and it will freak people out -- they see the introduction of a
new system as
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
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,
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
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,
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org 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
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
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Something that that would be useful is a video demonstration of Flow in
action.
That could be handy, Pine. But sometimes you can't demonstrate all
benefits yet, because they don't even exist in the implementation yet
-- only in
Hoi,
I have used LiquidThreads and the current talk pages for too long. I prefer
LiquidThreads ANY day warts and all over the talk pages.
Ok this discussion is about automated discussion environments and lets keep
to that subject. As you may know, translatewiki.net uses LQT. It is
therefore quite
On 06/09/14 06:13, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
Have the successes and failures of the existing approaches and tools been
considered? Are things LQT got right present in Flow?
Some, yes (remember Andrew and Brandon have worked on both LQT and
Flow) -- in other cases the
On 06/09/2014, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
Be like 4chan! Everyone loves 4chan.
No.
This is so wrong it hurts.
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Erik - how confident are you that you're coming up with something that
the present users of talk pages - people actually trying to get work
done on articles - will love? Not just barely tolerate - what are you
bringing us?
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
On 06/09/14 07:41, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
Why in the world would posts not be editable? I've never used a platform
where discussion was important in which users couldn't at least edit their
own posts (along with mods) where
On 06.09.2014 19:18, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
The subject is discussion / talk space not article space editing..
Yaroslav
please stay on topic..Surely Marc has more than 13 edits in all kinds
of
discussion on multiple wikis.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 September 2014 19:14, Yaroslav M.
On 09/06/2014 01:12 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
But dismissing them by setting up a (rather
ridiculous) straw man is not helpful.
I *wish* it was a strawman. How else would you qualify:
And sadly we have enough users around who try to contribute content
without having time to go through the rite of
I'm not going to reply in-line here, because I think there's been an
undoubtedly unintentional missing of the point here. Instead I will tell a
story about a friend of mine.
Some years ago, when her children were 3 and 4, their family had a lovely
traditional Christmas Day, but something felt
2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
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
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
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
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
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 m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM,
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
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 jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the term loop is appropriate. So far, I
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
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
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com 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
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
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
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
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
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF
On 5 September 2014 17:25, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
Hoi,
Maybe... but it assumes that we have plenty of time and work sequently.
Both are not the case and as it is, the framework is broken.to the extend
that people refuse to use it. So yes, ideally you want to fix many issues
nicely and in a collaborative manner. At the same time our readers are
Hoi,
Maybe... but it assumes that we have plenty of time and work sequently.
Both are not the case and as it is, the framework is broken.to the extend
that people refuse to use it. So yes, ideally you want to fix many issues
nicely and in a collaborative manner. At the same time our readers
Hi,
Thanks for your message. I think it is honest and useful.
2014-09-01 20:40 GMT+05:30 Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org:
...
MV is a perfect example. 99% of the problems it objectively has (we
ignore here matters of taste) derive from the difficulty of parsing the
multitude
On 09/02/2014 02:52 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
OK, I could buy that [fixing image pages]. But then why not
fixing that *first*, so that
any MV implementation coming afterwards would be smooth?
In the best of worlds, that would have been ideal.
Now, no doubt I'm going to be branded a cynic for
I don't think people yell MediaViewer is broken as much as they yell
MediaViewer broke my workflow!. The problem is that no one cares about
some editor's personal workflow, so maybe we should be documenting use
cases that could be used for new old editors and developers alike
On Tue, Sep 2,
I generally agree with your analysis Marc, notwithstanding that there is
blame to share on all sides - not just users who point to broken edge
cases. The (quite predictable) behaviour you mention is why I was quite
fond of the way the usability initiative from several years ago (the team
that
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/09/2014, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
...
metadata. It's not an argument against MV, it's an argument for getting
rid of the horrid way we handle File: pages with ad-hoc workarounds.
The *correct* solution is
On 09/02/2014 10:35 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
The key here in my opinion is:
- clear communication about what state constitutes success (e.g. When
80% of people who have opted in have STAYED opted-in)
- clear communication about the progress towards that state (e.g. Showing
the success factor in
On Aug 31, 2014 11:46 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer,
Superprotect
and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for the
projects.
Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves
Hoi,
The argument is not at all about the MediaViewer. It is only the latest
flash point. Consequently the notion of how hard it is to set a default on
or off is not relevant really.
When you read the Wikipedia Signpost you read about one of the major German
players and it is found necessary to
The difficulty of working with multiple configurations is one of WMF's main
points, along with its opinion that readers prefer MV and that WMF should
prioritize what WMF feels the readers want. WMF also is making a point of
claiming soveriegnty over software configuration.
Meanwhile, many
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. It's not about MediaViewer
at all, it's about two things:
#1: The frustration of some volunteers that they feel their views are not
being adequately considered in major deployments of new software.
#2: A lack of confidence and faith in the WMF
Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
fter the catastrophic
aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that
should have been picked up in even a cursory unit testing scheme or
regression testing scheme
On 01/09/2014, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
...
metadata. It's not an argument against MV, it's an argument for getting
rid of the horrid way we handle File: pages with ad-hoc workarounds.
The *correct* solution is to fix the damn image pages, not to remove MV.
...
So, can you
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
fter the catastrophic
aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that
should have
On 09/01/2014 11:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
We've heard that before.
Oh, I'm pretty damn sure that the stick to the timeline idea isn't
going to get traction ever again. :-) But yeah in general recognizing
an error is
On Sep 1, 2014 5:10 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
Thank you for that. A heartfelt rant feels a lot better than being told my
call is important to you.
(snip)
The fundamental issue is that the WMF is attempting to
On 1 September 2014 17:57, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
The same, by the way, goes for VE, which should have had bail and give me
what you have now as wikitext from the onset, and Flow which needs a bail
and convert this thread to ye olde talkpage thread (which I fear will
On 09/01/2014 12:57 PM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
The *correct* solution is to make MV bail completely on pages it fails to
parse, falling back to the known bad-but-sufficient behaviour, and maybe
adding a hidden category unparsable by MV to the image, so that it can be
addressed. If 10% of the
.
From: Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes
about deployments
I think you've
-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes
about deployments
Hoi,
The argument is not at all about the MediaViewer. It is only the latest
flash point. Consequently the notion of how hard it is to set a default on
or off is not relevant really.
When you read the Wikipedia Signpost you
Hoi,
Dear Pine. I do not care a fig about what some users think. You either
support their view or you do not. When they consider that the current
number of readers is adequate, I want to appreciate what they think those
numbers are, what the trends are and how it is possible that their opinion
is
Thank you very much, Marc, for this clear and sound statement. It
seems to me that there are many discussions that are far away from the
real points, like the multitude of information on our pages. I once
counted how many links there are on the German main page of Wikimedia
Commons, I stopped when
On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above. The
en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the WMF
shrugged and said Nah, rather not.
That's... Not exactly what I
On Sep 1, 2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above.
The
en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the
That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints, because
the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive effort to
produce.
The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and spam
from people who never have the slightest intent of editing helpfully,
Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response to
concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed articles
showing up in mainspace?
Risker/Anne
On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker joedec...@gmail.com wrote:
This, to the best of my knowledge,
I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients and
students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's solved,
since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate (AFC).
Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new users?
What is irritating about the ACTRIAL scenario, was that it was a well
defined (6 month) test.
It might have worked, it might not have worked. But we would have known.
We would have had solid comparators.
Most of what we do (WMF and community) has no control to establish whether
it works.
To be
Hi all,
Thank you Erik for your mail. It shows that the WMF is willing to
discuss rather than to impose its solution.
I am really shocked that the dispute reaches that level of
confrontation, and although some community members have a hard stance,
this is largely due to WMF actions, specially
Legal position:
I have seen it claimed by legal and repeated here by Erik that the
reasonableness criteria means that we do not have to worry about the
CCBYSA-3.0 clause that says all copyright holders need equal attribution.
This is simply not so:
The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be
Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer,
Superprotect
and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for the
projects.
Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves is
disheartening.
Personally, I would like to see us building on
Hoi,
Once people decide to leave, the situation is quite stark. There are those
that do and there are those that do not. In my previous mail it should have
been clear that I described the situation after the departure of many
malcontents. That IS a bi-polar state obviously.
That is not to say
On 8/28/14, 2:55 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are
married and though their
On 30/08/2014, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 8/28/14, 2:55 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of
WMF update:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)diff=9665238oldid=9664457
Gerard, I agree that a forked wiki could have collaborations with WMF. But
having separate hosting and legal ownership would create new headaches and
risks. I hope WMF takes a
Hoi,
Such separate hostings and ownership would not be that much of a risk to
the WMF. The challenges will be first and foremost with the separatists;
then again it is firmly their choice. There will be benefits on both sides
as well. The community that remains with the WMF will lose all of the
I agree with Gerard, and would add that a good portion of the new readers and
missing female editors do not own or operate a desktop and are only available
on mobile and tablet, so this is not only where the new readers are, but also
where the first edit experience is for most women (and sadly,
On 28 August 2014 12:56, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Gerard, and would add that a good portion of the new readers and
missing female editors do not own or operate a desktop and are only
available on mobile and tablet, so this is not only where the new readers
are, but
Hey Jane,
as the desktop is sometimes characterised only as a legacy input
device for old power editors, while the reading is done from mobile
devices, often in the form of mash-ups and geo-apps, why is a
compromise so hard to achieve?
One solution that pops up would
You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are
married and though their household contains a desktop, the desktop is
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are
I should explain that I am a resident of the Netherlands, where we have a
central statistics bureau which includes census statistics that you can
query for free and download your own datasets in xls format. As a data
analyst I have spent lots of time gathering such data and reporting on it
in
What the heck is a design community at all, and why does their opinion
count, when WMF uses every opportunity to claim it is super-unfair to claim
that the community wants anything?
2014-08-27 6:49 GMT+02:00 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 27 August 2014 05:16, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
Hoi,
Actually the issue is no longer only that. It is also very much about how a
subset of people high jack the conversation by their uncompromising stance.
When they feel they might leave, I personally prefer it when they stop
their posturing and decide either way.
When they want to stay, they
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If you take a look at the mobile experience in
a desktop browser, you'll find it not so different from many redesigns
- large, readable text, narrower measure, deliberately chosen
typography, minimal clutter, easier
On 27 August 2014 05:16, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
And the design community is taking notice:
https://news.layervault.com/stories/31897-wikipedia-already-looks-great--just-add-m-on-desktop
We already know the design community doesn't like the edit button. Was
there any reason
On 26 August 2014 09:39, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
First, I think it's worthwhile in these discussions - in a context of
a project where consensus is important - to remember that there are
actually many different perspectives on Media Viewer in the community.
Even in German
Hoi,
Given that it is pathetically easy to opt out of the MultimediaViewer, the
amount of vitriol spouted by some is way out of proportion to the problem.
If you do not want it, opt out. But thermonuclear was was threatened,
people were to lose their job over this.
No the excuses are too little
The issue is not just that individual users may want to opt out, it's
whether it should be activated by default for readers. There is also the
matter of licensing information.
I'm not aware of where thermonuclear was was threatened. There were, and
continues to be, discussion about forking. MV is
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, at 13:19, Pine W wrote:
I have heard very few people say don't ever change the interface. I have
heard people say don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
is an improvement.
VE was a good example. The sentiment of the community wasn't that VE''s
concept
from my own experience, the Flow and Multimedia folks track bugs somewhere
else where I can't even view or comment
Bugs and tasks are public for the Multimedia team. If you mean bugs in
the bastardized sense of the term which is things filed in bugzilla, then
yes, the Multimedia team doesn't
Hoi,
I am so happy that you know so well that all the millions have been wasted.
As so often, an opinion is just that. When you want to learn about the
effect of the development done, it may be useful to look a bit further
afield. Mobile is one area where the development proves really effective.
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
