Hoi,
It is fine to disagree. What is lacking in your vision is a viable
alternative and, as you acknowledge the current system is no longer viable
we are in need of an alternative now. Your notions are yours and that is
fine. However, we are not a debating club really. My point is very much
that in Flow we have a project that is actively developed. It is based on
the lessons learned with the current talk pages and Liquid Threads. The
process of development includes community consultation and it has a chance
of delivering something viable in the near future.
To be honest, I do not care at all that you have another vision. It lacks
reality, it lacks a way forward. Get real and look what Flow is and how it
can be improved. Check out the use cases it works for and acknowledge the
achievements. THEN and only THEN consider the features that are being
tested and are still deficient. THEN and only THEN point out how we can
move forward and make it work better. THEN and only THEN can you lament
what we may lose what you liked in Talk pages.
We have to move forward and there is no time to start anew. So blame me
because I am harsh about your notions. I do not care for them, they are in
the way. However, please consider our need. We are moving more and more
towards mobile readers and editors and talk pages just do not cut it. We
need something better for these use cases and, we need them urgently.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7 September 2014 11:14, Diego Moya <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gerard, with all due respect, your reply is all based on incorrect
> assumptions. I recognize the severe problems that mediawiki conversations
> currently have, and my points about Flow acknowledge that it's incomplete
> software at its early stages and that it can grow into an acceptable tool
> for having discussions, but all that is irrelevant to the conversation
> that's going on at this thread.
>
> Both Erik and I are talking about what we expect a finished, full featured
> software would look like in the end, and we have both dismissed the current
> status of either tool. The idea that I want the new system to be based on
> current existing software is a strawman; that's not what I defend. I want a
> good, modern document-centric software even if it requires building
> something like mediawiki from scratch. This is a high level view of what
> either model can grow into if enough resources are poured into it.
>
> Erik has this vision that building a stable and easy-to-use system
> requires abandoning the open-ended nature of wiki systems, with which I
> disagree, and has committed us to a project with that result in the end, to
> build a very good architecture that will solve the wrong problem. From the
> conversation so far, I believe such view to be based on an incomplete
> understanding of the community needs, and I'm trying to steer the
> conversation to take into account perspectives from the wider community
> rather than the gut feelings of just one man, no matter how much experience
> he has with the project.
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
