Hello all,
The first topic of discussion I want to start is also the most awkward to start with - it is akin to the question “Can you all hear me?” at the beginning of a talk. The ones who already hear will obviously be happy, and the ones who don’t won’t have a chance to chime in.
What communication channels should we start with?
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels: * First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents, plans, etc. * Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc. * Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions, office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
Let’s go through these.
First type of channel: persistent documentation and planning. Currently it is on Meta, but there are plenty of others that could be considered (criteria: Must enable translation): * Stay on Meta * MediaWiki.org * WikiSpore * Wikidata * Start our own wiki right away * A mix of the above * Others?
Second type of channel: asynchronous, ephemeral discussions. Currently it is this mailing list, and a growing number of metawiki talkpages (thanks Chris Cooley for starting a discussion about this here!). Here I don’t see that many possible channels: * A different existing mailing list * A second new mailing list to focus on technical aspects * Zulip * dropping this channel in favor of the first and third type of channel * Others?
Third channel: synchronous discussion. Currently, nothing is ‘blessed’ as such a channel, but there’s already a lively number of unofficial places that have been opened and discussed here (thanks ZI Jony!). As far as I can tell, there’s: * #wikipedia-abstract on IRC * #wikilambda on IRC * Zulip * AbstractWikipedia channel on Telegram is already quite lively * Dropping this channel in favor of the first and second channel * Others?
I have listed these options more with a goal of partial-completeness, not because I would be happy with all of them. Personally, I’d be so unhappy with e.g. blessing a Facebook group as the main official channel, so I have not included that. I am equally uneasy with a Telegram chat, but it’s also about going where the communities are - for example, my preference for the chat would be IRC, but I am a dinosaur.
Here are my thoughts: * I would like to keep the number of channels small, so we don’t frizzle our energy out. That’s particularly important for the beginning. * Any official channel may require additional Foundation approvals, but I don’t want to use resources evaluating all the possible channels beforehand if most of them are not of interest for us anyway. * We should have permanent records of all official channels. * All official channels should be under appropriate Terms of Services and Code of Conduct. * Ideally, the community would coalesce and grow on official channels. * Ideally, the channels we choose are aligned with our values.
No decision we make now is meant to be permanent, and as the project develops and the community grows, we expect to see this shift and change.
I am afraid that the main language for discussion in the beginning will be English. We will rely on community support to cover contributions in other languages as best as possible, but I am afraid it will not be possible to translate every discussion contribution and every essay. Sorry.
Besides these discussion channels, we will also have the usual stack of technologies supporting a Wikimedia development project: Phabricator for tasks, Git for version control, etc. For that, we’ll mostly follow Foundation best practices.
I am looking forward to hear from you, Denny
On 14 July 2020 at 14:27 Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Besides these discussion channels, we will also have the usual stack of technologies supporting a Wikimedia development project: Phabricator for tasks, Git for version control, etc. For that, we’ll mostly follow Foundation best practices.
Also a dinosaur, had to look up Zulip.
An archived mailing list is a basic good thing. I know some people like the Slack-type experience, but having used it at work, my impression is that it is not designed for institutional memory.
Wikis are good, and migrating pages from meta to a dedicated wiki is a reasonable thing to do, whenever.
Phabricator makes sense for planning at all levels.
Charles
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Third channel: synchronous discussion. Currently, nothing is ‘blessed’ as such a channel, but there’s already a lively number of unofficial places that have been opened and discussed here (thanks ZI Jony!). As far as I can tell, there’s:
* #wikipedia-abstract on IRC
- #wikilambda on IRC
- Zulip
- AbstractWikipedia channel on Telegram is already quite lively
- Dropping this channel in favor of the first and second channel
- Others?
An IRC channel with active contributors is essential for communicating effectively with the Wikimedia technical community, IMO, so I think having one is a must for long-term success of the project. We can bridge IRC and Telegram, if need be.
Dear all,
First we should start our own wiki right away for persistent documentation and planning.
As I know for Abstract wikipedia social media and live communication channels Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AbstractWikipedia/ operated by Denny and ZI Jony Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2907585129369780 operated by Denny and ZI Jony Twitter account https://twitter.com/wikilambda operated by Denny Telegram group https://t.me/AbstractWikipedia operated by Denny, ZI Jony and Mahir IRC #wikilambda and #wiipkedia-abstract (operated by Denny and Ori Livneh) #Abstract-wikipedia (operated by ZI Jony) But we should use only #wiipkedia-abstract because all channels of Wikimedia group must starts with one of those namespace, and currently #abstract and #wikilambda is not a Wikimedia namespace.
Regards, ZI Jony
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ori Livneh ori.livneh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Third channel: synchronous discussion. Currently, nothing is ‘blessed’ as such a channel, but there’s already a lively number of unofficial places that have been opened and discussed here (thanks ZI Jony!). As far as I can tell, there’s:
- #wikipedia-abstract on IRC
- #wikilambda on IRC
- Zulip
- AbstractWikipedia channel on Telegram is already quite lively
- Dropping this channel in favor of the first and second channel
- Others?
An IRC channel with active contributors is essential for communicating effectively with the Wikimedia technical community, IMO, so I think having one is a must for long-term success of the project. We can bridge IRC and Telegram, if need be. _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Hi!
I like Slack for synchronous conversations as well as small short-term task management functionalities.
Not a big fan of mailing lists...
Cheers
Tiago
Em ter, 14 de jul de 2020 às 13:17, ZI Jony zi.jony93@gmail.com escreveu:
Dear all,
First we should start our own wiki right away for persistent documentation and planning.
As I know for Abstract wikipedia social media and live communication channels Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AbstractWikipedia/ operated by Denny and ZI Jony Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2907585129369780 operated by Denny and ZI Jony Twitter account https://twitter.com/wikilambda operated by Denny Telegram group https://t.me/AbstractWikipedia operated by Denny, ZI Jony and Mahir IRC #wikilambda and #wiipkedia-abstract (operated by Denny and Ori Livneh) #Abstract-wikipedia (operated by ZI Jony) But we should use only #wiipkedia-abstract because all channels of Wikimedia group must starts with one of those namespace, and currently #abstract and #wikilambda is not a Wikimedia namespace.
Regards, ZI Jony
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ori Livneh ori.livneh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Third channel: synchronous discussion. Currently, nothing is ‘blessed’ as such a channel, but there’s already a lively number of unofficial places that have been opened and discussed here (thanks ZI Jony!). As far as I can tell, there’s:
- #wikipedia-abstract on IRC
- #wikilambda on IRC
- Zulip
- AbstractWikipedia channel on Telegram is already quite lively
- Dropping this channel in favor of the first and second channel
- Others?
An IRC channel with active contributors is essential for communicating effectively with the Wikimedia technical community, IMO, so I think having one is a must for long-term success of the project. We can bridge IRC and Telegram, if need be. _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Hi,
Our others two IRC channel #Abstract-wikipedia and #wikilambda has been redirected to #wikipedia-abstract.
Regards, ZI Jony
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 11:00 PM Tiago Timponi Torrent < tiago.torrent@ufjf.edu.br> wrote:
Hi!
I like Slack for synchronous conversations as well as small short-term task management functionalities.
Not a big fan of mailing lists...
Cheers
Tiago
Em ter, 14 de jul de 2020 às 13:17, ZI Jony zi.jony93@gmail.com escreveu:
Dear all,
First we should start our own wiki right away for persistent documentation and planning.
As I know for Abstract wikipedia social media and live communication channels Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AbstractWikipedia/ operated by Denny and ZI Jony Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2907585129369780 operated by Denny and ZI Jony Twitter account https://twitter.com/wikilambda operated by Denny Telegram group https://t.me/AbstractWikipedia operated by Denny, ZI Jony and Mahir IRC #wikilambda and #wiipkedia-abstract (operated by Denny and Ori Livneh) #Abstract-wikipedia (operated by ZI Jony) But we should use only #wiipkedia-abstract because all channels of Wikimedia group must starts with one of those namespace, and currently #abstract and #wikilambda is not a Wikimedia namespace.
Regards, ZI Jony
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ori Livneh ori.livneh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Denny Vrandečić < dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Third channel: synchronous discussion. Currently, nothing is ‘blessed’ as such a channel, but there’s already a lively number of unofficial places that have been opened and discussed here (thanks ZI Jony!). As far as I can tell, there’s:
- #wikipedia-abstract on IRC
- #wikilambda on IRC
- Zulip
- AbstractWikipedia channel on Telegram is already quite lively
- Dropping this channel in favor of the first and second channel
- Others?
An IRC channel with active contributors is essential for communicating effectively with the Wikimedia technical community, IMO, so I think having one is a must for long-term success of the project. We can bridge IRC and Telegram, if need be. _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
-- Tiago Timponi Torrent PPG-Linguística - FrameNet Brasil Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora http://tiagotorrent.com _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Thanks - and it looks like IRC and telegram are bridging now too.
Arthur
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:32 PM ZI Jony zi.jony93@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Our others two IRC channel #Abstract-wikipedia and #wikilambda has been redirected to #wikipedia-abstract.
Regards, ZI Jony
First type of channel: persistent documentation and planning.
I'd say stay on Meta for now, and move to "Wikilambda" or whatever it is called as soon as an initial version is ready for public use. Additionally there will presumably be detailed technical specifications and discussions flowing through phabricator and github/gitlab or whatever we are using for the actual extension code.
Second type of channel: asynchronous, ephemeral discussions.
Has somebody expressed concerns about this mailing list? Let's stick with it for now; we can add a technical one if this becomes too busy.
Third channel: synchronous discussion
I have never been happy with IRC, maybe because I haven't figured out how to get a reasonable client (what do people generally use for it?) that keeps me logged in for a reasonable amount of time. I'm not familiar with Zulip, but it sounds like it's an open-source version of Slack, so that could be good. But we have the Telegram channel active now, unless there are many people who really can't use that let's stick with that for the time being. The IRC bridge some people have mentioned could work well if there are people who can use one but not the other?
Arthur
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all,
The first topic of discussion I want to start is also the most awkward to start with - it is akin to the question “Can you all hear me?” at the beginning of a talk. The ones who already hear will obviously be happy, and the ones who don’t won’t have a chance to chime in.
What communication channels should we start with?
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents,
plans, etc.
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
Let’s go through these.
First type of channel: persistent documentation and planning. Currently it is on Meta, but there are plenty of others that could be considered (criteria: Must enable translation):
- Stay on Meta
- MediaWiki.org
- WikiSpore
- Wikidata
- Start our own wiki right away
- A mix of the above
- Others?
Second type of channel: asynchronous, ephemeral discussions. Currently it is this mailing list, and a growing number of metawiki talkpages (thanks Chris Cooley for starting a discussion about this here!). Here I don’t see that many possible channels:
- A different existing mailing list
- A second new mailing list to focus on technical aspects
- Zulip
- dropping this channel in favor of the first and third type of channel
- Others?
Third channel: synchronous discussion. Currently, nothing is ‘blessed’ as such a channel, but there’s already a lively number of unofficial places that have been opened and discussed here (thanks ZI Jony!). As far as I can tell, there’s:
- #wikipedia-abstract on IRC
- #wikilambda on IRC
- Zulip
- AbstractWikipedia channel on Telegram is already quite lively
- Dropping this channel in favor of the first and second channel
- Others?
I have listed these options more with a goal of partial-completeness, not because I would be happy with all of them. Personally, I’d be so unhappy with e.g. blessing a Facebook group as the main official channel, so I have not included that. I am equally uneasy with a Telegram chat, but it’s also about going where the communities are - for example, my preference for the chat would be IRC, but I am a dinosaur.
Here are my thoughts:
- I would like to keep the number of channels small, so we don’t frizzle
our energy out. That’s particularly important for the beginning.
- Any official channel may require additional Foundation approvals, but I
don’t want to use resources evaluating all the possible channels beforehand if most of them are not of interest for us anyway.
- We should have permanent records of all official channels.
- All official channels should be under appropriate Terms of Services and
Code of Conduct.
- Ideally, the community would coalesce and grow on official channels.
- Ideally, the channels we choose are aligned with our values.
No decision we make now is meant to be permanent, and as the project develops and the community grows, we expect to see this shift and change.
I am afraid that the main language for discussion in the beginning will be English. We will rely on community support to cover contributions in other languages as best as possible, but I am afraid it will not be possible to translate every discussion contribution and every essay. Sorry.
Besides these discussion channels, we will also have the usual stack of technologies supporting a Wikimedia development project: Phabricator for tasks, Git for version control, etc. For that, we’ll mostly follow Foundation best practices.
I am looking forward to hear from you, Denny
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents,
plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents,
plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play: 1) stay on Meta 2) go to Wikispore 3) start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it: * Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there * Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain * own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays,
documents, plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
I think staying on meta makes most sense for now in that it lets us focus on the content rather than the infrastructure.
/Jan Ainali (skickat på språng så ursäkta min fåordighet)
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 02:05 Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play:
- stay on Meta
- go to Wikispore
- start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it:
- Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't
go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there
- Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs
to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain
- own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will
take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays,
documents, plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
As new wiki will take a lot of time, I think staying on meta makes most sense for now.
Regards, ZI Jony https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ZI_Jony https://www.facebook.com/zijony.S/ https://twitter.com/zijonyS https://www.instagram.com/zi_jony/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/zi-jony-435594135 https://t.me/ZI_Jony https://zijonys.blogspot.com/
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:12 PM Jan Ainali ainali.jan@gmail.com wrote:
I think staying on meta makes most sense for now in that it lets us focus on the content rather than the infrastructure.
/Jan Ainali (skickat på språng så ursäkta min fåordighet)
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 02:05 Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play:
- stay on Meta
- go to Wikispore
- start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it:
- Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't
go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there
- Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs
to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain
- own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will
take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić < dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays,
documents, plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
I wasn't really aware of Wikispore before (I think I'd heard of it, but not looked at it). I wouldn't mind using it instead of Meta if the effort to move the existing pages over isn't huge, and it has maybe the advantage that we can explore extensions more easily?
Arthur
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 9:34 AM ZI Jony zi.jony93@gmail.com wrote:
As new wiki will take a lot of time, I think staying on meta makes most sense for now.
Regards, ZI Jony https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ZI_Jony https://www.facebook.com/zijony.S/ https://twitter.com/zijonyS https://www.instagram.com/zi_jony/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/zi-jony-435594135 https://t.me/ZI_Jony https://zijonys.blogspot.com/
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:12 PM Jan Ainali ainali.jan@gmail.com wrote:
I think staying on meta makes most sense for now in that it lets us focus on the content rather than the infrastructure.
/Jan Ainali (skickat på språng så ursäkta min fåordighet)
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 02:05 Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play:
- stay on Meta
- go to Wikispore
- start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it:
- Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't
go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there
- Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs
to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain
- own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will
take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić < dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays,
documents, plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
That's my impression -- the point of Wikispore is to allow extension + policy/scope experiments and effective history-preserving page-transfer once new wikis are launched.
Extensive examples of pages intended to go on new wikis isn't quite the current scope of Meta (though anything can be described in *meta *terms, and I personally am fine with Meta being an umbrella for all other things, I know not everyone shares that), and it has plenty of active uses + user groups which make it harder to experiment with wiki-wide features.
-- Sam
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:19 AM Arthur Smith arthurpsmith@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't really aware of Wikispore before (I think I'd heard of it, but not looked at it). I wouldn't mind using it instead of Meta if the effort to move the existing pages over isn't huge, and it has maybe the advantage that we can explore extensions more easily?
Hello,
One more vote to stay on Meta, at least for now. Against setting up new Wiki because this is energy that should be used for more productive things. No real opinion on Spore.
Regards, Louis Lecailliez ________________________________ De : Abstract-Wikipedia abstract-wikipedia-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org de la part de Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org Envoyé : jeudi 16 juillet 2020 00:04 À : General public mailing list for the discussion of Abstract Wikipedia (aka Wikilambda) abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org Objet : Re: [Abstract-wikipedia] Communication channels / locations
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play: 1) stay on Meta 2) go to Wikispore 3) start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it: * Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there * Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain * own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić <dvrandecic@wikimedia.orgmailto:dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote: I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.commailto:meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels: * First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents, plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
* Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
* Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions, office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopihttps://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
I support moving to WikiSpore. I like exciting new things, what can I say?
It's funny though — it seems like we should be doing this vote on Meta!
Thanks,
Chris Cooley
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:34 PM Louis Lecailliez < louis.lecailliez@outlook.fr> wrote:
Hello,
One more vote to stay on Meta, at least for now. Against setting up new Wiki because this is energy that should be used for more productive things. No real opinion on Spore.
Regards, Louis Lecailliez
*De :* Abstract-Wikipedia abstract-wikipedia-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org de la part de Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org *Envoyé :* jeudi 16 juillet 2020 00:04 *À :* General public mailing list for the discussion of Abstract Wikipedia (aka Wikilambda) abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org *Objet :* Re: [Abstract-wikipedia] Communication channels / locations
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play:
- stay on Meta
- go to Wikispore
- start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it:
- Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't
go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there
- Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs
to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain
- own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will
take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents,
plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Vote for Meta. Own Wiki: too premature WikiSpore: I see advantages for them, not for us. Keeping things together where they belong (in the history of the WMF-projects) seems to me as a big advantage.
RonnieV
Op do 16 jul. 2020 om 20:34 schreef Louis Lecailliez < louis.lecailliez@outlook.fr>:
Hello,
One more vote to stay on Meta, at least for now. Against setting up new Wiki because this is energy that should be used for more productive things. No real opinion on Spore.
Regards, Louis Lecailliez
*De :* Abstract-Wikipedia abstract-wikipedia-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org de la part de Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org *Envoyé :* jeudi 16 juillet 2020 00:04 *À :* General public mailing list for the discussion of Abstract Wikipedia (aka Wikilambda) abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org *Objet :* Re: [Abstract-wikipedia] Communication channels / locations
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play:
- stay on Meta
- go to Wikispore
- start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it:
- Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't
go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there
- Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs
to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain
- own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will
take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents,
plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
I am not the most informed but I wonder is it not possible to do both Meta for project-logic and discussion with Spore for project experiments and early implementations?
I'd prefer not to split us up too much. The community is still nascent and small.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:47 AM Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
I am not the most informed but I wonder is it not possible to do both Meta for project-logic and discussion with Spore for project experiments and early implementations?
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
+1 for Meta
Em sex, 17 de jul de 2020 às 13:43, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com escreveu:
I'd prefer not to split us up too much. The community is still nascent and small.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:47 AM Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
I am not the most informed but I wonder is it not possible to do both Meta for project-logic and discussion with Spore for project experiments and early implementations?
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
The whole concept of Wikispore is to be the counterpart of Incubator for new-WMF-projects, rather than new-WMF-languages.
It's hosted on wmflabs.org, and has no existence or ambition separate from the Wikimedia project context. We want to provide a home for developing new WMF-projects there, that's its only purpose.
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:46 PM Ronald Velgersdijk ronniev@wikimedia.nl wrote:
Vote for Meta. Own Wiki: too premature WikiSpore: I see advantages for them, not for us. Keeping things together where they belong (in the history of the WMF-projects) seems to me as a big advantage.
RonnieV
Op do 16 jul. 2020 om 20:34 schreef Louis Lecailliez < louis.lecailliez@outlook.fr>:
Hello,
One more vote to stay on Meta, at least for now. Against setting up new Wiki because this is energy that should be used for more productive things. No real opinion on Spore.
Regards, Louis Lecailliez
*De :* Abstract-Wikipedia abstract-wikipedia-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org de la part de Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org *Envoyé :* jeudi 16 juillet 2020 00:04 *À :* General public mailing list for the discussion of Abstract Wikipedia (aka Wikilambda) abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org *Objet :* Re: [Abstract-wikipedia] Communication channels / locations
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play:
- stay on Meta
- go to Wikispore
- start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it:
- Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't
go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there
- Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs
to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain
- own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will
take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić < dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents,
plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Dear All,
There is a top icon template at the top of the Abstract Wikipedia Meta page. Links of Abstract wikipedia social media and live communication channels are there.
Regards, ZI Jony https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ZI_Jony https://www.facebook.com/zijony.S/ https://twitter.com/zijonyS https://www.instagram.com/zi_jony/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/zi-jony-435594135 https://t.me/ZI_Jony https://zijonys.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:42 PM Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
The whole concept of Wikispore is to be the counterpart of Incubator for new-WMF-projects, rather than new-WMF-languages.
It's hosted on wmflabs.org, and has no existence or ambition separate from the Wikimedia project context. We want to provide a home for developing new WMF-projects there, that's its only purpose.
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:46 PM Ronald Velgersdijk ronniev@wikimedia.nl wrote:
Vote for Meta. Own Wiki: too premature WikiSpore: I see advantages for them, not for us. Keeping things together where they belong (in the history of the WMF-projects) seems to me as a big advantage.
RonnieV
Op do 16 jul. 2020 om 20:34 schreef Louis Lecailliez < louis.lecailliez@outlook.fr>:
Hello,
One more vote to stay on Meta, at least for now. Against setting up new Wiki because this is energy that should be used for more productive things. No real opinion on Spore.
Regards, Louis Lecailliez
*De :* Abstract-Wikipedia < abstract-wikipedia-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> de la part de Denny Vrandečić dvrandecic@wikimedia.org *Envoyé :* jeudi 16 juillet 2020 00:04 *À :* General public mailing list for the discussion of Abstract Wikipedia (aka Wikilambda) abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org *Objet :* Re: [Abstract-wikipedia] Communication channels / locations
If I see the discussion so far it seems:
Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.
Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group
I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.
ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!
Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play:
- stay on Meta
- go to Wikispore
- start our own wiki already
Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.
I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.
A bit of a breakdown as I see it:
- Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't
go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there
- Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs
to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain
- own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will
take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project
Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić < dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:
https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2020/05/04/using-zulip-an-open-source-tool-fo...
And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.
I have never tried it out before.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! My prefs:
My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
- First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays,
documents, plans, etc.
On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta. With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
- Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.
This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
- Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions,
office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback
IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each. I'm a fan of slopi https://github.com/good-labs/slopi-communication communication, even when synchronous.
SJ _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org