In today's departmental weekly checkin, I asked if it might be worth spending more effort on documentation (e.g. TextCat). That brief discussion generated the following notes (which are already on wiki[1]):

• Should we have a semi-formal policy about the importance of documentation?
• Concerns about over-documenting (e.g. not agile)
• Move this conversation to email
• Dan is willing to prioritize phab tasks to write docs on specific topics
• Chris can alert us if he is answering the same question multiple times (feature-level)
• Multiple audiences (onboarding new staff, end-users on Wikimedia sites, end users on third party sites, other devs)

For now, it seems that our immediate next steps could be to create a phab task whenever you notice (or are informed of) a shortcoming with our documentation. That task can be prioritized by whoever manages the workflow of the person/people who would do the documentation.

If we end up in situations where documentation work ends up as eternal low priority, of if using phab proves unproductive, we can adapt and adjust.

Feel free to continue the discussion here, if there are additional questions, concerns, or suggestions.

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/Checkin_meeting_minutes/2016-03-15