Basically, you (in the plural) thought you could do better than the consensus, and therefore simply without rejecting it , did not implement it while you tried other things first. All these trials would have been good, ''had they been done before implementation.'' I am waiting for someone from the foundation to come out and agree to that, a recognition that the error was that they needed to be done first.
I am then waiting for a statement that all future changes of this sort will be broadly announced and trialed first, And I'm further waiting for a statement that the actual implementation will depend on the consensus. Frankly, if these are not forthcoming, the community needs to consider what it can do to retain control over the interface. While some individuals at the WMF may have greater individual expertise at some of the things involved, they collectively do not have better judgment than the editing community about what makes a good editing interface. They may have the power to override it, but they do not have the right to do so. If they think they ought to have the right, let them justify it. Probably the first step is to insist on its consensus on this feature. I wouldn't want to make an example of this otherwise, but unless we have an acknowledgement that we will have the right to decide in the future, the time to assert our right to decide is now. The WMF presumably thinks it can out-wait us, and needs to learn otherwise. I'm not eager to do this: I've heard some ideas, and I hope we do not need them. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>wrote: > On 13 May 2013 18:01, Oliver Keyes <oke...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > >.You bring > > up Echo; yes, we didn't bring the Orange Bar back. But we spent a lot of > > cycles coming up with alternatives, running them past people, with many > > editors and many staffers actively engaged in the process. We had > > designers, developers, product managers participating in the discussion, > > And still you miss (if not ignore) the point; you removed something > which was useful; consensus - supported by justifications and > experience - was that it should be restored, and you ignored that > consensus. > > You consulted on options including that restoration; and when it it > was supported, you disregarded it out-of-hand. > > You (collectively) made unsupportable assertions and accusations, and > resorted to snide comments when called on them. > > > and in the end we came up with something that everyone, well, > begrudgingly > > tolerates. > > And that's just downright false. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
