Pine, I believe your points are very valid and relevant
To know of the process WMF is using is a basic demand, in order for users to know what to expect and how to relate to releases.
To know what process is used is not the same as asking for more bureaucracy. Even a process description like "we let all programmers release in whatever status of quality they want" (if that would be true) is better then today, as it gives clarification
Then, but secondary to this demand of clarification, and also very important is that WMF is using a process on par with what is needed in this environment. And the process description could very well, (in order to allow for agile programming), only focus on criteria for releases, and skip how to get there
Anders Pine W skrev 2014-09-21 10:24:
Given longtime experience with problematic releases of MediaWiki features, I think that published quality standards that products must meet in order to become production releases could help to limit the number and seriousness of additional troubled launches. These standards would also reduce the ambiguity around terms like alpha and beta. Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
