> the org has permission to use the MediaWiki name/logo/domains Name and Logo sure -- but why domains? This shouldn't be an exclusive thing; we should not be moving towards having only one shop offering this service. Maybe the WMF could have some sort of 'partners' program that handled licensing.
> MediaWiki documentation endorses the organization doing the > hosting/support (need general consensus with the developers, many but not > all of whom are WMF employees) I don't think I can express how much I loathe organizations that do this. Varnish and Adiscon (rsyslog) are two offenders that come to mind. It seems to create an ecosystem where a new user assumes they must use the hosting provider for an install. And/or that any new features the vendor develops can be locked away and never documented except very sketchily in code. I don't mind having a page on mediawiki.org that would say something along the lines of 'if you dont want to host yourself...' but otherwise I feel the documentation / main site should be kept as neutral as possible. ~Matt Walker Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Technology Team On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Brion Vibber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Brian Wolff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I know this is not your question - but officially supported by whom? I > > would consider this massively out of scope for the wmf unless it was > using > > revenue from this service to subsidize wikipedia. Even then it seems > > somewhat questionable, politically. > > > > Excellent question: I'd say the key "official"ness markers of a > hosting/support organization would be: > > * the org has permission to use the MediaWiki name/logo/domains (need > agreement with WMF?) > * MediaWiki documentation endorses the organization doing the > hosting/support (need general consensus with the developers, many but not > all of whom are WMF employees) > > I'd expect conditions of such would tend to include: > > * the org invests its time, money, and people back into MediaWiki > development > > > The actual organization could (maybe should?) be distinct from WMF; whether > it could be a wholly-owned subsidiary like Mozilla's "Mozilla Corporation", > or a separate mini-company like our MediaWiki release management team, or > something else is something I feel needs a lot more input. > > -- brion > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
