I never said they 'had to be' on a closed
forum. I presented the idea a
while ago, didn't get much feedback from anyone, and had already started
using Slack in the office, so I just created another channel. If you would
like to create a different channel for developers and have a separate lot
of discussions elsewhere, there's nothing stopping you. I have only offered
to try to coordinate the work of developers, and the door's open for those
who want to participate.
John
On 17 January 2017 at 15:34, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still trying to understand why UK-based
Wikimedia developer
discussions have to be on a closed forum.
As an example, with global discussions around issues or changes on
Phabricator, a key benefit is that it is easy to link to these
discussions and information on-wiki so that anyone can review them,
not just those that have set up accounts on Phabricator. Encouraging
wiki-project developers to join an invite-only channel to discuss
changes to their open projects behind closed doors, appears to force a
contradiction in values and remain an ethical barrier for potential
contributors.
At the point where any development might change Wikimedia projects,
whatever was done on a closed forum would have to be presented
publicly. Even abandoned ideas benefit the community by adding to our
store of common knowledge, if the discussions are available for future
reference rather than held in closed archives.
Fae
On 17 January 2017 at 14:51, John Lubbock <john.lubbock(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
wrote:
The other thing is that we have already started
using Slack in the
office
for chat, and I have another slack channel for
the Kurdish Wikipedia
Project, so I've already gone down this path a bit of a way and to back
out
and start again because something else is open
source would be quite
disruptive for other work I'm doing. I'm trying to organise developers
to
come to one place to discuss this, and I've
chosen Slack because it's
easy
and lots of people use it. I appreciate that it
might not be ideal for
some
people, but I really can't spare the time and
effort to start this all
again
from scratch.
John
On 17 January 2017 at 13:19, Katherine Bavage <
katherine.bavage(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I'm not planning to join because I don't code (though I'm happy to
join a
> channel if you get to a stage where end user
or design process
feedback is
> useful) but I would note that asking people
to adopt new platforms
'just
> because they are open source', rather
than ones that are used by a lot
of
> people/ a lot of people are already familiar
with, is pretty daft when
your
> ultimate goal is to benefit the open source
community through the work
the
> channel fosters.
>
> As far as I know, for this type of work, Slack is the go to for most
devs.
> The Foundation use it without issue.
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 at 12:24 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On 17/01/17 00:38, John Lubbock wrote:
>> > It costs a lot of money, as far as I can see (it says Try for Free
and
>> > then takes you to a page where it
asks you to pay $100 a month).
>>
>> ****
>> We wrote Discourse, and we can host it for you, too.
>> ****
>>
>> Yes, that is a hosting option. You can download and install for free.
I
>> am suggesting WMUK host the code on their
own server...
>>
>> Gordo
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org