It was around 2014 when I dropped out of pywikibot (last time) partly due to a missing
management. Some people where working on compat some on core - depending on who you asked
the focus was either compat or core (or git migration). IMHO at that time a lot of
unecessary additional load was created by decicions that never have been discussed truly.
There was never a plan or schedule on how to proceed or what to work on. It was like
"Oh, did you see that API change? We have to catch up and fix wikipedia.py." An
thus some people kind of counteracted ("commit" war) each other. Essentially the
one having most free time to invest boarded the ship. As long as you work on your small
piece of code and do not interfere with others it's fine but if you do - good luck...
;) Everybody just works on and cares for its "own few pieces of code" in there
and thus prefer to judge the style most.
I would vote for some minimal leadership/management and that people working on basic or
fundamental code (affecting everybody else) have to come together and reach an agreement
first (before starting to code) and make it public. A long time ago I proposed a draft of
a code of conduct I wanted the community to write and then to (optionally) agree on. A
style guide should be part of that. We are to many developpers, having fluctuations etc.
we need to give us a constitution.
>Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 15:01:50 +0000
>From: Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com>
>To: Pywikibot discussion list <pywikibot(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [pywikibot] Vital sign
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>I've been worried about this project for a very long time. I checked
>slowly from pywikibot and I expressed my concerns to the developer
>relations team privately but after this bug , I think it's time to
>Disclaimer: I'm not saying pywikibot is dying or will die soon. I'm
>this project is going in unhealthy direction. I'm not de-valuing other
>people's work and I think they are great but they are missing a few
>that other projects don't.
>1- Pywikibot has the biggest number of open patchsets after
>You might say, it's okay. Pywikibot is completely volunteer-based but
>of distinct users / open patchsets is horrifyingly high. Meaning we
>some developers that make a patch and they don't engage in reviewing
>even if the patch got -1 or -2 (and funnier sometime they -1 or -2
>own patches) and move on to making other patches. Most of them end up
>obsolete situation needing a rebase or not needed anymore.
>2- Developers don't engage in dialogue in proper places so others don't
>know about issues. No one can subscribe to the phabricator board, it's
>big but it would be nice to bring some discussions here.
>3- No active developer is connected to other part of wikimedia projects
>like listening to api announcements.
>4- (Sometimes) It's a hostile environment. Behavior of other developers
>sometimes is demotivating.
>5- There's no ArchCom here. I have an approach which might be wrong but
>another developer comes and disagrees and suggests another approach. I
>don't like it but there is no place to give the last call so it'll stay
>-1 or -2 mode forever. TLDR: Sometimes I feel someone just owns the
>and makes patches stuck just by disagreeing on the approach.
>6- There is no, absolutely not, a single guide on how to code review. I
>know code review sucks in Wikimedia technical projects but this one is
>another level. People send out -2 because "the syntax is ugly" (and the
>patch is not a fifty nested loops, it's a['foo'] = 1 instead of
>True). Mostly they just care about style rather than bugs.
>I might be wrong and/or out-dated. Correct me please.
>On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 6:59 PM Bináris <wikiposta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> How is it possible that I haven't got any mail from this list since
>> January? Is it dead or have I dropped out?
>> pywikibot mailing list