<quote name="C. Scott Ananian" date="2016-09-23" time="16:10:37 -0400"> > The suggestion has been raised ( > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Tbyqbjcuihhkhtk8) that one of the > Topics for the upcoming Developer Summit be the Community Wishlist. > > It seems to me that the community wishlist is still not completely embraced > by engineering/devs, perhaps partly because some of the items are > impossible, or already on a roadmap, or others have priorities which are > out of sync with implementation difficulty. It is excellent work by the > Community Tech team that somehow still feels "not completely integrated".
I'm curious what "completely embraced by engineering" would be? Isn't it enough to have a full team structure with management (both engineering and product) to be considered embraced? Do we need to do a group hug? ;) Also, why does it need to be completely embraced by all devs? I know many more fully staff projects that are even less embraced (by the development community as a whole). Also, what is "completely integrated" mean in this context? I don't see the tools that they are developing as being oddly non-integrated within the workflows they are working with. tl;dr: I'm trying to figure out why those concerns should demote it? > Perhaps one way to structure a "wishlist" topic at the dev summit would be > to collaborate to improve the 'status' category of > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results. It > would be helpful to have an engineering assessment for each wishlist item > detailing either: > > (a) this is being actively worked on now by WMF staff > (b) this is on a roadmap for (roughly) XYZ date (with a link to the > roadmap), > (c) this depends on some other prior work (which is on a roadmap) > (d) this is technically sound but not a priority of the WMF (for > <reasons>, spelled out) so we are eager for community assistance > (e) there is serious disagreement about how to best accomplish this, > technically > (f) there is serious disagreement about how to best accomplish this, > non-technically (UX, social factors, mission creep, ongoing maintenance, > community A disagrees with community B, etc) > (g) this is, in the judgement of engineering, impossible or unwise. > > It seems that this has been done for the top ten wishlist items, but we > could collaborate on filling out details on more of the items. Would that need to be a DevSummit session? Or a pre-Summit call to action/project? > A follow up session could concentrate on items in categories (d) and (e), > attempting to resolve roadblocks. Category (f) would need non-engineering > participation, perhaps at the next Wikimania. This sounds like a reasonable use of time at the DevSummit. Most of those 'non-technically' aspects are in-fact represented at the DevSummit (UX, maintenance concerns, mission creep), and the others that aren't decided represented there would, based on past experience, still benefit from a conversation with the DevSummit group (social factors, community disagreement). Greg -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | Release Team Manager A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
