It seems there was a problem in what the definition of success is. For the WMF success was to deploy the VE according to the plan and budget and to reach certain usage percentage. For the community it was a different kind of metric, maybe a more thoroughly tested product or a slower and progressive deployment?
These kinds of misunderstandings are not uncommon, and no bad faith or negligence should be assumed from either side: http://www.cio.com/article/440721/Common_Project_Management_Metrics_Doom_IT_...
If the deployment had been delayed or slowed down, the WMF would have considered it a failure according to their metrics, but maybe the comunity would had taken it better according to theirs...
Micru
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:29 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Lodewijk wrote:
To be totally clear: the poll is to make the visual editor *invisible*, with an opt-in for testing purposes. I am assuming this was to be achieved through either not rolling it out on nlwiki, or through js/css.
It's incredibly frustrating and upsetting that VisualEditor already has this functionality built in to it.
When VisualEditor was first introduced on the English Wikipedia, this was the behavior: it was completely opt-in based on a user preference in Special:Preferences. This user preference was subsequently hidden in order to force users to either try VisualEditor or add additional JavaScript via an unsupported JavaScript gadget to disable VisualEditor altogether. This has further eroded both community support for VisualEditor and trust between the Wikimedia Foundation and editors.
There's an active discussion on wikitech-l about this.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe