Re: [Wikitech-ambassadors] [Train] 1.32.0-wmf.14 status update

[Željko Filipin]

Hi,

the train is still blocked.

Problems from the previous e-mail message are resolved, the new version is
deployed to groups 0 and 1 but can proceed no further until these issues
are resolved:

- MapCacheLRU::has called with invalid key. Must be string or integer -
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200456

Once these issues are resolved train can resume. If the task is resolved on
Friday or over the weekend, the train will resume Monday.

Thank you for your help resolving these issues!

Željko


On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:33 PM Željko Filipin 
wrote:

> The train is still blocked.
>
> Problems from the previous e-mail message are resolved, the new version is
> deployed to groups 0 and 1 (except wikidata) but can proceed no further
> until these issues are resolved:
>
> * Wikidata dispatching stuck - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200420
>
> Once these issues are resolved train can resume. Since it's already
> Thursday afternoon for me, if the task is resolved on Friday or over the
> weekend, the train will resume Monday.
>
> Thank you for your help resolving these issues!
>
> Željko
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 6:14 PM Željko Filipin 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1.32.0-wmf.14 version of MediaWiki is blocked [0].
>>
>> The new version is deployed to group 0 [1], but can proceed no further
>> until these issues are resolved:
>>
>> - Wikibase\DataModel\Entity\EntityIdParsingException $serialization must
>> not be an empty string - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200340
>>
>> - wmf.14 failing to execute ThumbnailRender jobs "error:
>> ThumbnailRenderJob::run: HTTP request failure" -
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200346
>>
>> Once these issues are resolved train can resume. If these issues are
>> resolved on a Friday the train will resume Monday.
>>
>> Thank you for your help resolving these issues!
>>
>> Željko
>> --
>> [0] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T191060
>> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/versions
>>
>
___
Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
Wikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors

Re: [Wikitech-ambassadors] [Train] 1.32.0-wmf.14 status update

[Željko Filipin]

The train is still blocked.

Problems from the previous e-mail message are resolved, the new version is
deployed to groups 0 and 1 (except wikidata) but can proceed no further
until these issues are resolved:

* Wikidata dispatching stuck - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200420

Once these issues are resolved train can resume. Since it's already
Thursday afternoon for me, if the task is resolved on Friday or over the
weekend, the train will resume Monday.

Thank you for your help resolving these issues!

Željko

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 6:14 PM Željko Filipin 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 1.32.0-wmf.14 version of MediaWiki is blocked [0].
>
> The new version is deployed to group 0 [1], but can proceed no further
> until these issues are resolved:
>
> - Wikibase\DataModel\Entity\EntityIdParsingException $serialization must
> not be an empty string - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200340
>
> - wmf.14 failing to execute ThumbnailRender jobs "error:
> ThumbnailRenderJob::run: HTTP request failure" -
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200346
>
> Once these issues are resolved train can resume. If these issues are
> resolved on a Friday the train will resume Monday.
>
> Thank you for your help resolving these issues!
>
> Željko
> --
> [0] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T191060
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/versions
>
___
Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
Wikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors

Re: [Wikitech-ambassadors] Grievances about future technical administrator group

[Saint Johann]

Hi Gergő,

Immense thanks for this response. Other than the note about 4 engineers 
(one was elected not long before, one is a bot that maintained user 
JS/CSS before and just one with his bot doesn’t need such permissions at 
all), you’ve confirmed everything I and others tried to convey in the 
discussion.


Oleg


On 26/07/2018 03:40, Tisza Gergő wrote:

Hi Oleg,

I am sorry if the change or the way I communicated about it is 
frustrating to you . I'm happy to provide more insight into the 
motivation behind the change, if that helps.


On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:41 AM Saint Johann > wrote:


— Some tell that, apparently, after working for 2 years already and
doing more edits than all sysops combined in JS/CSS, engineers do not
have ‘at least as much trust as being an administrator’ since they
weren’t elected like administrators (we are electing sysops with a
vote
and engineers are being elected with a discussion, so people argue
that
engineers do not have trust because they weren’t subjected to a vote).


I think someone who had those rights for a while and did not abuse 
them can be reasonably trusted with them (which is why I suggested 
simple opt-in as the migration process).
From what I could understood with Google Translate, this seems to be 
the current community consensus as well.


— Others claim that, because MediaWiki developer community decided to
unite those rights under one group, merging any groups with it is not
acceptable, and, moreover, the engineer group shouldn't be given
those
rights at all.


One goal with the change was to reduce the number of people with JS 
editing permissions as much as possible without preventing them from 
doing their work. If a group is primarily about JS editing, it might 
makes sense to merge (that might be the case with interface-editor on 
some wikis, although not all). If a group has a wider range of roles, 
then merging would mean giving the permission to people who might not 
be interested in JS editing, and avoiding that situation was the 
entire point. I 'm not  sure which of those applies to engineers - at 
a glance, out of the 12 of them 4 have never edited CSS/JS and one 
almost never [1], so probably it makes sense to separate 
interface-admins from engineers?


— Moreover, some people claim that if a group would be too small,
like
engineers right now (12 accounts with 85 sysops), they could, in
opinion
of those people, usurp all editing of JS/CSS, decline to revert edits
that are deemed controversial by community, and this justifies giving
the permissions to all 85 existing sysops, even those that didn’t
edit
JS/CSS at all.


Again, as far as I can understand the discussion this was a fringe 
opinion and the current consensus proposal requires admins to opt in.


I really think that it all comes down to focusing on
projects that didn’t have any technical administrators and not
explaining anything to projects that did.


For projects which do have some kind of non-admin JS editor role 
(engineer, interface-editor, templateeditor, botadmin) there were two 
"social" goals:
- Warn them against handing out JS editor too easily. With the current 
structure, that does happen sometimes, and can you get things like the 
fawiki incident. JS editing should only be given to people who can be 
trusted not to abuse their privileges to attack the site.
- Do not completely discourage people from handing it out to 
non-admins. Trust is important, but it's a somewhat different kind of 
trust (admins need to be socially competent, level-headed, fair etc; 
JS editors don't really need to be all those things, they just need to 
not be malicious) and there are people who can absolutely be trusted 
not to be malicious, but don't have the social skills or the good 
judgement to be admins (or just don't want be one), and there is no 
reason to prevent them from doing good work on JS pages.


[1] https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/28510

Hope that helps!



___
Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
Wikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors


___
Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
Wikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors

Re: [Wikitech-ambassadors] Grievances about future technical administrator group

[youssef]

Ok
cont...@lescoursiers.ma
www.chatroom16.org

2018-07-23 23:41 GMT+01:00 Saint Johann :

> This might a wrong venue to discuss this but these were the worst 3 days
> of my participation in Wikimedia movement, and that feeling is probably
> shared by my colleagues.
>
> The consultation about the creation of new technical administrators group
> that just ended yesterday was an utter and total disaster for people with
> existing non-sysop groups for editing JS/CSS.
>
> In Russian Wikipedia, for 300 Kb already [1], people are weaponising every
> reading of the consultation document (which they, for some reason, consider
> akin to global policy) against, uniting the same-minded groups (local
> ‘engineer’ group was created under a ‘Technical administrator group’ RfC)
> for an umbrella of reasons:
> — Some tell that, apparently, after working for 2 years already and doing
> more edits than all sysops combined in JS/CSS, engineers do not have ‘at
> least as much trust as being an administrator’ since they weren’t elected
> like administrators (we are electing sysops with a vote and engineers are
> being elected with a discussion, so people argue that engineers do not have
> trust because they weren’t subjected to a vote).
> — Others claim that, because MediaWiki developer community decided to
> unite those rights under one group, merging any groups with it is not
> acceptable, and, moreover, the engineer group shouldn't be given those
> rights at all.
> — Moreover, some people claim that if a group would be too small, like
> engineers right now (12 accounts with 85 sysops), they could, in opinion of
> those people, usurp all editing of JS/CSS, decline to revert edits that are
> deemed controversial by community, and this justifies giving the
> permissions to all 85 existing sysops, even those that didn’t edit JS/CSS
> at all.
>
> I do not expect organisers of the consultation and MediaWiki developer
> community to intervene into a discussion that's happening in a foreign
> language, but I really think that it all comes down to focusing on projects
> that didn’t have any technical administrators and not explaining anything
> to projects that did. In the retrospective, I really wish that I did more
> push on this point on Phabricator [2] since this was a major point that I
> expected to backfire because of the vague wording of the document and that
> did backfire.
>
> What I would like to have from the global community, though, is a clear
> documentation for people who are affected by this change, because right
> now, because of misinformation, misreadings and over-interpretations, it
> could go as far as losing all interface editing permissions for me and
> others because the document in question didn’t go far enough on the
> qualifications and left too much to community’s assumptions.
>
> Oleg
>
> [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Форум/Правила#Объеди
> нение_флагов_инженера_и_техадмина  /%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%
> D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%
> B8%D0%BB%D0%B0#%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%
> D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%
> B2_%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%
> B8_%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0>
> [2]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T190015#4257719
>
> ___
> Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
> Wikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
>
___
Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
Wikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors