EE February 2015

ee@lists.wikimedia.org

13 participants
26 discussions

Collaboration scrum notes, Thurs Feb 5
by Danny Horn 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

*Matt*: Hygiene patch for Erik, fixed translation Followed up on GlobalUserPage -- more complete than we thought. Tim S wants to figure out how to batch it. Kunal is helping. Responding to Mitre questions on Wikimedia-L -- is the user contributions API not supporting Flow? Erik and Matt will look into it. Reviewing Matthias' pagination patch, started merging. *Erik*: Yesterday, worked on the LQT conversion problems. Updates started causing errors. We'll suppress RC messages and just make one message. Still figuring out how to format it, Aaron H suggested it would go in Special:Logs. Increasing the verbosity of the LQT code. Wiring up more stuff to output debug messages, start looking into why some don't have content. *Matthias*: Working on tests for Echo mentions and signature extraction Tomorrow -- finish Echo tests, then work on task we brought into sprint yesterday. Also brought in bug -- fix byte counts. When it's merged, we'll have to run a maintenance script.

1 0

Collaboration scrum notes, Wed Feb 4
by Danny Horn 04 Feb '15

04 Feb '15

*Erik*: Interviews with front-end P2. Category support -- works in Jenkins, up for code review Code review on Elastic search, learning more Today: P1 -- Debug problems with importing LQT threads on Translatewiki *Matthias*: Put up patch to remove lightncandy (P5) A couple minor hygiene patches, fixed exceptions Responded to initial feedback on search patches We're kicking ass on this sprint, so we're moving in another ticket -- P7. Contributions with Flow aren't included in a user's edit count. Matt's at scrum of scrums.

1 0

Re: [EE] [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives
by Tilman Bayer 04 Feb '15

04 Feb '15

Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review meeting of the Foundation's Collaboration team (which was formerly called the Core features team and is working on the Flow project) have appeared here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarter… On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi folks, > > to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course > corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me > and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process, > starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according > to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the > Board [1]: > > - Visual Editor > - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero) > - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams) > - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity > > I'm proposing the following initial schedule: > > January: > - Editor Engagement Experiments > > February: > - Visual Editor > - Mobile (Contribs + Zero) > > March: > - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects) > - Funds Dissemination Committee > > We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly > metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on > their recent progress, which will help set some context that would > otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will > also create open opportunities for feedback and questions. > > My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly > review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as > meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this > discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here > which we can use to discuss the concept further: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_r… > > The internal review will, at minimum, include: > > Sue Gardner > myself > Howie Fung > Team members and relevant director(s) > Designated minute-taker > > So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual > Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker. > > I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a > duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks: > > - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter, > compared with goals > - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would? > - Review of challenges, blockers and successes > - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other > action items > - Buffer time, debriefing > > Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved > structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases > where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world. > > In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be > to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than > a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews > may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally > to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in > engineering. > > As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can > help inform and support reviews across the organization. > > Feedback and questions are appreciated. > > All best, > Erik > > [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings > -- > Erik Möller > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB

1 0

Not qualified to edit Wikipedia
by Quim Gil 04 Feb '15

04 Feb '15

This weekend I was at the Wikimedia stand in https://fosdem.org (+5000 free software geeks in Brussels). We asked every single person stopping by whether they had edited Wikipedia. The majority had not, thinking that they were not really qualified, or not knowing where to start. We showed them the "Help out" section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal, which nobody had seen before, and they found it interesting. However, a significant minority had edited, but the conversation always had this pattern: - Have you edited Wikipedia? - Yes... (silence), but then my edits were gone (shrug with a kind of embarrassed smile). I didn't ask, but the average impression these people left me was that they believed that maybe they were not qualified to edit Wikipedia after all. What a missed opportunity for Wikimedia!!! During the whole weekend I only found one successful regular editor that was not involved in other Wikimedia activities. And one photographer that contributed to Commons contests. I'm not saying those reverts / deletions were wrong. However, maybe a better UI would not send new editors to a cliff so consistently? People seem to understand the benefit of starting with "Help out" types of action as a training, if only they knew such thing existed. Also, would it be useful to warn new editors adding more than NNN characters about the likely need of citations? PS: and another article about forking/federating Wikipedia as an alternative to deletionism http://blog.jonudell.net/2015/01/22/a-federated-wikipedia/ -- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

5 6

Collaboration team scrum notes, Tues Feb 3
by Danny Horn 04 Feb '15

04 Feb '15

*Matt*: Reviewed a core patch for Nuria about generating random IDs Put up two patches for GlobalUserPage issue Reviewed Today: Code review, start with Matthias' pagination patch Finalize GlobalUserPage *Erik*: Category support is mostly ready to go. Found a problem with moderation actions -- the links still appear even if the topic is invisible. Fixed that, going to code review today. Today: finish up category support, reviewing Matthias' Echo patch Erik has done a review of Matthias' search patches, comfortable with merging most of them if Nik & Chad are okay with them. Matt will ping Nik & Chad today for an update. The diacritics patch that improves signature detection looks good. There are some other issues, including users who link to subpages, but that's more a feature request than a bug. Erik & Matt will work together on P1 - Translatewiki problems. *Bug triage*: T88448 -- reported by Chris, NewPagesFeed broken -- Erik can't reproduce it, but Matt can. Matt will move it into the sprint, should only take an hour or so. Matthias has been traveling back from SF.

2 1

Collaboration team scrum notes, Mon Feb 2
by Danny Horn 03 Feb '15

03 Feb '15

*Matt*: Vision quest meeting with Editing team, we're going to put in a spike card to figure out MVP Put in remaineder of Jquery upgrade fixes Worked on issue - red links for global user page extension. Taking a little longer than expected. Put up a fix for Phabricator notifications not going to IRC. Today: Finish global user page fix, then code review. *Matthias*: Fixed diacritics bug (Catalan) Working on P4, spike for notifications not sending. *Erik*: Working on P2 - Category support Reverting fix, to make links come from the topic rather than the board. This will help with moving topics between boards. (very interesting sounding discussion that I couldn't hear at all) talked to Aaron Schulz about a secondary data center. There's problems with our cacheing, and we'll have to re-evaluate how we're using it. We should probably move our cacheing to the database for now.

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

EE February 2015