This might be a good discussion for the dev summit? I talked to Moriel about this a couple of days ago. I too am a bit concerned and feel like this needs a dedicated team, preferably without a product to manage and mediate/prioritise requests against it as otherwise the library will be biased towards a single product rather than all our products.
Ideally, I feel that we need a team determining how it evolves and its architecture. A big rewrite to split out OOjs UI into components/making it support mobile /adding a new component to OOjs UI is not something that should be done in an ad-hoc nature - it should be done by people with a vision of what this library needs to grow into, the problem it is solving and knowledge of its history and mistakes of the past - guardians as such - ensuring that the library is the best it can be. I worry about its success if arranged in a cross-functional skunkworks team. On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:40 PM, James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> Short-cut answer to the title question: Me. >> > > I'm glad to hear that you are accepting responsibility for OOjs UI > development! Do you have a timeline on a fix for T113681, or a page that > indicates what higher-priority development you and your team are working on > in the near future? > > >> > If OOjs UI is the thing that we're supposed to be using in the future for >> > our UI stuff, it's very concerning that further development is blocked on >> > T113681 >> >> "Further development" is not blocked on this task. A few things that some >> people want to do are. > > > Let's not chop logic here. If "a few things that some people want to do" > cannot be done due to T113681, then T113681 is indeed blocking some further > development even if other further development isn't blocked. This email > thread isn't even about > T113681 specifically, it's about that there are no development resources > for fixing things in OOjs UI unless someone is willing to do it as a > skunkworks project, and OOjs UI isn't yet a finished product where we might > be able to justify that. > > I'm disappointed that you don't think that the fact that "some things > people want to do" are blocked and no development resources are available > to remedy the situation is cause for concern. When the situation was > brought up in today's Scrum of Scrums, the consensus was that it is indeed > concerning. > > >> Please do not exaggerate for effect to try to get your way. I'm sorry that >> we disagree as to whether your patch belongs in the library in its current >> form. >> > > Since you brought it up, let's look at my patch. There are two concrete > blockers that have been raised on my patch. Neither of them actually have > to do with the form of the patch itself. > > The long-standing blocker has been disagreement over how the widget can be > internationalized in the context of OOjs UI: The Language and translatewiki > faction wants OOjs UI developers to integrate cldrjs, while the OOjs UI > developers are unwilling to make any decision as to whether cldrjs is the > way to go or translatewiki will just have to deal with providing > translations for month and weekday names as they do for everything else. > The closest we have to a decision is really a cop-out: "shove it into > MediaWiki even though it doesn't belong there, because MediaWiki already > happens to have most of the needed i18n strings and we can't make any > decision here". > > In last week's Scrum of Scrums, you brought up T113681 as a new blocker: > OOjs UI is already too large, so we can't add new stuff until someone > reworks it to be able to load individual components. MatmaRex then stated > that no one owns or maintains OOjs UI to the extent that we can expect T113681 > to be solved any time soon, which brought the lack of maintainership in > OOjs UI into clear view. > > MatmaRex also raised some other objections (disagreement with Design's > design, non-use of moment.js despite moment.js not gaining us anything, > doubt that anyone actually needs <input type="datetime"> despite evidence > to the contrary), but no one else has agreed with those and he hasn't > deigned to respond to attempts at further discussion in Gerrit. > > If you have objections to the actual form of my patch, as opposed to lack > of a willingness to make any decision on the i18n issue or any progress on > the form of OOjs UI as a whole, you should raise them in Gerrit instead of > continuing to sit on them. Although I wonder why you haven't done so > already. > > > -- > Brad Jorsch (Anomie) > Senior Software Engineer > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > 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
