I spoke with Jon in person and I think we have reached some sort of understanding.
The main point I think should be made public - something I communicated to Jon in person - is that me stepping away from VisualEditor for a couple of months to work on UI standardization and a new skinning system has been proposed without lines of code written or detailed implementations specified because I know that a lot of the work that needs to be done has already been done, and the people who can help me tie it all together already work at the same place that I do and are generally available to me upon request. My goal is to make things work for everyone to the greatest degree possible. I believe fundamentally in voluntary association, and if we are going to get people to sign on voluntarily to join forces - while it may requires some sacrifices - it will only happen if we aren't snubbing people and then turning around and dictating how they work. It's unfortunate that there has been so much hostility around this issue. Let's see that it ends now. - Trevor On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry Erik, I missed your post in the discussion above and just saw it as I > was working my way back through the stack of emails. Anyway, I hope this is > on your radar. > > Pine > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sounds like there are some issues here that may need untangling. I'm > > pinging Erik. He's probably aware of this but I would like to hear his > POV. > > Mobile is high on WMF's priority stack and it's high on my list of > personal > > interests. > > > > Pine > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > > >> What you're saying, Trevor, makes sense, and I agree that we shouldn't > >> have > >> a "code purgatory". I won't presume to speak for Jon, but I imagine his > >> somewhat provocative presentation of Mantle is due, at least in part, to > >> frustration. About a year ago, the mobile web team was gung-ho to start > >> moving parts of MobileFrontend into core. The first step in this process > >> was to convert MobileFrontend into a skin, which we did. The second part > >> was to move our template system into core, since most of the other parts > >> depend on it and there's no MVC framework in core, especially not for > >> client-side use. We put together an RfC on this,[1] and pushed it at the > >> architecture summit. No consensus was reached on moving forward, and > >> instead we reluctantly agreed to hold off on doing anything until > Gabriel > >> had a chance to implement an alternate solution for comparison. We > >> recently > >> tested Gabriel's implementation,[2] but are not totally satisfied with > it > >> or convinced that it is the best way forward (although Gabriel is still > in > >> the process of improving it). > >> > >> After having lost most of our momentum, we recently pushed to prioritize > >> core infrastructure work during mobile web's planning for the upcoming > >> fiscal year, and even talked about breaking off part of the mobile web > >> team > >> into a "skin and infrastructure team". This too was basically shut down > in > >> favor of continuing work on mobile features. Then after suffering both > of > >> these setbacks we learn that there is yet another nascent proposal for a > >> new core UI skinning infrastructure and even though it doesn't have a > >> single line of code yet, you have been granted 80% of your time to work > on > >> it (rather than working on either of other two systems that have already > >> been started). While it's great that you have invited the mobile web > team > >> to participate in this effort, I hope you can understand how this entire > >> experience has been extremely demoralizing and frustrating for the > mobile > >> web team. Personally, I can't blame Jon for losing patience in the > process > >> and (purposefully or not) causing a stink about it. > >> > >> That said, I hope we (the mobile web team) can put aside some of our > >> feelings of being snubbed and outmaneuvered and work (yet again) towards > >> reaching some sort of consensus on moving forward. > >> > >> 1. > >> > >> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library > >> 2. > >> > >> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library/Knockoff_-_Tassembly/Mobile_spike > >> > >> > >> Ryan Kaldari > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Trevor Parscal <tpars...@wikimedia.org > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Indeed, this thread is a bit silly. > >> > > >> > If someone wants to make an extension that provides a feature, and > >> someone > >> > else wants to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. But why would > >> such a > >> > thing need proposing? > >> > > >> > If the point of Mantle is only to provide a way to bring templates to > >> the > >> > client, then sell it that way. Look at the code in Mantle, and the way > >> it's > >> > been pitched online and in person. It includes other things too, and > has > >> > been repeatedly advertised as a general place where any code that is > >> > experimental can be put, while also simultaneously pushing for others > to > >> > depend on it. > >> > > >> > I have no problem with adding useful functionality to ResourceLoader, > >> even > >> > doing so in an extension. I have a problem with trying to develop, > what > >> Jon > >> > himself call, a code "purgatory". > >> > > >> > I'm happy to talk in person as well. > >> > > >> > - Trevor > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should > >> be in > >> > > core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons). > For > >> > > example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig, > >> etc. > >> > > So why is Mantle such a bad idea? There's no consensus on > implementing > >> > > templating in core yet, so it seems like a pretty cool idea to have > an > >> > > extension that other extensions can utilize for that technology in > the > >> > > meantime (instead of writing separate code for the same purpose). > The > >> > > JsonConfig and EventLogging extensions are basically the same idea, > >> > right? > >> > > I think if Jon had named the extension "TemplateDooDad" (and hadn't > >> > > emphasized the fact that he was avoiding putting the code into > core), > >> it > >> > > wouldn't have raised anyone's hackles. > >> > > > >> > > Ryan Kaldari > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jon Robson <jdlrob...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Trevor, > >> > > > That email you quote was about totally different code and a > proposal > >> > > > to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T > >> > > > Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this > >> > > > misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not > >> effectively > >> > > > communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work > >> out > >> > > > why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you > >> > > > yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence > >> my > >> > > > lack of reply to that thread. > >> > > > > >> > > > The main problem Mantle currently solves is: > >> > > > "... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the > >> > > > client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year, > >> and > >> > > > rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel, > we > >> > > > decided it was time to share code." > >> > > > > >> > > > To put it this way: > >> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages > >> > > > (Hogan, Handlebars) into core > >> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no > >> > > > templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still > >> > > > unresolved. > >> > > > * it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the > same > >> > > > code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions. > >> > > > > >> > > > Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this > code > >> in > >> > > > core in current form and I agreed with him. > >> > > > > >> > > > "We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code > that > >> > > > provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, > doesn't > >> > > > break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions" > >> > > > > >> > > > This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and > of > >> > > > course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet > coding > >> > > > standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to > Wikimedia > >> > > > servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised > >> > > > code to core. > >> > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
