Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: > On 5/31/11 3:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote: >> taking a page out of the rest of the business world's book, you set a >> deadline and then it just fucking gets met. No excuses, no questions. > > I think you have an optimistic view of how businesses actually work. :)
It's funny that you say that. When there was a hard deadline for the UploadWizard being deployed (November 30?), what happened? Was the deadline met? It's not a matter of Wikimedia having the ability to set and meet deadlines; they've pretty clearly demonstrated that when something is important enough, it's not an issue. In this case, it's a matter of finding/creating the _willingness_ to set/meet the deadlines (and the lack of resulting consequences if/when deadlines are missed). I occasionally show my face at wiki-meetups, and invariably tech comes up for discussion (MediaWiki/tech being at the center of nearly everything Wikimedia). My view (and perhaps others share it) is that Wikimedia code development can be summed up like this currently: there are so many cooks in the kitchen and yet dinner is always late. > Perhaps the answer is that we have to give the volunteer developers some > obvious pathway to harmonizing their and our priorities. Like, if you're > working on files and multimedia, you should be emailing Bryan, me, or > maybe Tim or Russell. Could it be that simple? I don't think being more explicit/clear about what people are working on could ever be a bad thing. Will it help alleviate whichever problem it is you're thinking about? I don't know. But I can't imagine a wiki page making it clear who works on what is going to hurt anything. It can only really help. :-) MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
