It might unnecessarily complicate matters to draw this kind of distinction between community-written code and organization-written code.
We have the capacity to make new features available to the user, whether through code we write ourselves, code that comes in from the community, or code that results from a collaboration of both. Through a balance of cost (e.g. implementation, maintenance, support) and benefit (i.e. utility to the user), we can come up with the relative priority of any set of features, independently of the motivation of any work in progress. It's certainly possible that such motivation factors into the weight of benefit, and we can simply adjust the priority accordingly. This prioritization then makes it trivial to decide between reviewing (or fixing, testing, deploying, etc.) feature Foo vs. coding up feature Bar. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Dan Garry <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 June 2015 at 09:44, James Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Wouldn't that a misprioritization? >> > > In a literal sense, yes. However, as the curators and owners of an open > source project, we have a responsibility to review code contributed by our > volunteers, and as volunteers they have the freedom to work on whatever > they choose. > > I'm not sure there's a golden bullet answer to this, except that it's > about finding the right balance between our responsibilities. > > Dan > > -- > Dan Garry > Product Manager, Discovery > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > teampractices mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices > >
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
