On 14.08.2014 15:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca
<dacuetu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It would be more sensible to let contributors
participate in the tech
roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without
that
early participation there is no possibility for later consensus.
A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.
- d.
This is actually not correct. Take pending changes on the English
Wikipedia as an example - people used to complain a lot on how RfC's
were closed, but this is the business of the community. I have never
heard anybody complaining that the trial sucked, or that PC itself does
not work properly. There was a discussion, there was a trial, everything
was properly announced, and everything from the developers's side was
done perfectly or close to perfectly.
Take Phase I Wikidata - this is smth I was actively participating in
and watched it from the close distance. Everything went smoothly, with
the Hungarian Wikipedia trial starting first, the Italian Wikipedia a
bit later, when feedback was taken into account, and then other
Wikipedias followed. Again, no problem with the developers whatsoever.
Now compare this with VE, AFT, Mediaviewer, and Flow will be probably
the next disaster of a comprable scale - despite the fact that WMF is
pretty open about Flow, and there are many people answering questions
basically in real time.
Cheers
Yaroslav