I'm speculating that an analogue for Flow's situation will be Echo's situation: somewhat maintained, but on the back burner for feature development. (Although I occasionally hear rumors of feature additions to Echo, and I think Echo might play well with improved discussion tools. I'd also like to see global watchlists and global notifications.) Hopefully we'll get a reply from Danny in the near future with more definitive answers about Flow's situation. (:
Pine On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Brian Wolff <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think putting a $$ value on it is necessary to answer David's > question (Or even sufficient from a user perspective). The core of it > is: > > *Will anyone (from WMF) be coding any new features, that don't exist yet. > *Will features that half work or are currently in the process of being > developed, be completed (Assuming there are any, I'm not following > flow development that closely). > *Will someone be working on existing bugs during this time (Or at > least existing bugs at some level of seriousness. And if so, what > level of seriousness would be required for someone to do it) > *Will someone be triaging and fixing new bugs as they come in (And > again, how does the answer vary depending on the seriousness of the > bug). > *Is the team planning to come back to Flow at a later date in a > serious way, or is this the end of active development for the > foreseeable future. > > -- > bawolff > > On 9/4/15, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regarding specific resource-level commitments: I've always had a hard > time > > with getting project-level financial data from WMF. I'm still waiting for > > replies to questions that I asked about the Annual Plan a couple of > months > > ago. I do think that information like that should be public, and it would > > be nice if WMF would move toward more financial transparency that's at > > least on par with what's provided by US government agencies. I'd like to > > keep the financial transparency discussion a bit separate from the > > discussion about Flow's status. If WMF starts to provide public details > > about project-level accounting in general, I would welcome that. > > > > Pine > >> > >> > >> It read to me and many others like a fairly standard set of euphemisms > >> for when a project is killed but nobody wants to say "killed". Perhaps > >> we're all reading it wrong. > >> > >> So, non-euphemistically: could someone please detail what, precisely, > >> is and is not the level of resource commitment to Flow? (And how it > >> compares to e.g. the level of resource commitment to LQT.) > >> > >> > >> - d. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
