> If we're going to be investing money into improving Phabricator upstream...
It's really good that we're having a healthy debate about the usability of Phabricator. I've enjoyed working with Phab a lot more than the tools that it has replaced, but it is by no means perfect. We have a role to play in helping Phab upstream make Phab more perfect. That said, I think we should be careful with our assumptions about how much influence we can buy with the money we have. We need to be smart about how we spend it, but we also need to respect that we don't know what our role is in upstream's priority setting and roadmap. We shouldn't assume we're their most important customer. Without identifying specific issues, let's assume that we have a feature list ordered like this: * Feature A * Feature B * Feature C ----- cut line for what we'd pay for ---- * Feature D * Feature E ----- cut line for features that we care about at all ---- * Feature F * Feature G My (admittedly limited) understanding is that upstream is choosing between Feature C and Feature G as the next big thing they work on. If we chip in for Feature C, we could tip the balance and cause them to choose Feature C over Feature G. I fear that a lot of the feedback seems to be "stop worrying about Feature C; Feature A is *way* more important". If upstream is making a C vs G decision, and we try distracting them with A, they may choose to ignore us and opt for Feature G. There is a significant opportunity cost in time and energy to spend influencing upstream to pay attention to Feature A. So....getting out of the abstract and into the specific: is improving calendaring (T1035) important enough to invest a little money in, *considered independently* of the other features we may want? Is it above the "cut line for what we'd pay for" or is it less than that? Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
