Strainu, I, too, am glad for the discussion!
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 22:31, Strainu <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me start with a simple question, to put the references to wmf into > context. You keep talking below about volunteer developers and how they can > take over any project. I'm confused by this. I didn't mention volunteer teams taking over projects at all, and I don't think that'd work except in very rare and limited circumstances. I was talking about people helping with bug triage on Phabricator. > While that's true, how many fully-volunteer teams > are there? How does that number compare to the number of wmf teams? Am I > right to assume the ratio is hugely in favor of wmf teams? Note: teams, > not developers, since decisions on project management are usually done at > team level. > See above; this wasn't what I meant. > In my experience in b2b contracts they don't keep it a secret, they usually > have SLAs they respect, but ok, let's leave it at that. > Yes, I have more to say about this, but this would be tangential to this discussion. :-) > Responsibility for what? Developing and hosting MediaWiki? Helping > communities concentrate on creating and attracting content without having > to work around bugs? I'm sorry, but that's precisely one of the > responsibilities of the wmf and this is what's discussed here. > Well, in your earlier emails in this thread, you mentioned the bug backlog steadily increasing, so that was what I was talking about. Is that not what you were talking about in your subsequent emails? > This is one thing that we agree on: nobody committed on anything. Ever. > That's why I asked above: what does it take to have someone (anyone) at the > WMF act upon these discussions? > > My role in the Wikimedia tech community is tech ambassador above all else, > so I'm caught in the middle here: I have to explain new features and > technical decisions to people who don't care about php, js or server > performance , but I also feel obligated to relay their requirements, as I > see them, to the development team. This second process does not happen as > smoothly as it should. > > It's not healthy to ignore discussion after discussion and claim it's a > community issue. It's not. It's a governance issue and it's growing every > day. > I agree. It's not a community issue, it's a movement-wide one. I don't know how to solve it. > The projects belong to the community at large, not just the technical > subcommunity. They are the ones affected by the bugs and also they are the > ones that need our support. So why should they be ignored in taking this > decision? > I'm confused by this too. I wasn't talking about ownership of the Wikimedia projects, I was again talking about the bug backlog, which anyone is welcome to get involved in simply by registering an account. > My proposal is to begin the discussion here: how can we better relay issues > that are more important to communities than new features? How can we have a > "community whishlist for bugs"? > The community wishlist explicitly accepts requests to fix bugs, as well requests for new features. So, is what you're asking for some process to supplement that? Dan _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
