Hoi, The problem is not so much in expected standards, it is in realistic standards. The latest announcement of the improvement in speed was welcomed by someone stating "I do not give a fuck because my tool does not woirk with this crap".
There are two issues, tools break and are not part of the product and it has become the way people approach development. There is hardly any appreciation or respect for the work done.
I am not convinced at al by your proposall, actually I feel quite the contrary. I expect this will be counter productive. My feeling is that it enables to score points in the blame games . Thanks, GerardM
On 21 September 2014 10:24, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Given longtime experience with problematic releases of MediaWiki features, I think that published quality standards that products must meet in order to become production releases could help to limit the number and seriousness of additional troubled launches. These standards would also reduce the ambiguity around terms like alpha and beta.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe