On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:25 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Wikimedia is currently running OTRS version 2.4. The most recently released OTRS version is 3.2. There's been an outstanding request to update Wikimedia's OTRS installation for just shy of three years now:
Yes. May have been me, or at least I hope I joined the chorus. ;)
mounting volunteer frustration, I'm wondering whether this is an area where the Wikimedia chapters or some other group might be able to lend a hand in supporting the maintenance of this piece of important infrastructure. Broadly, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't acting on this issue and it seems to have little interest in maintaining or supporting this software any longer.
I have been administering a few medium sized installation of OTRS for quite a long time, and happened to contribute to the code as well. Several times I had the urge to offer a hand to upgrade it, and if people are in need I do it now: I am willing to upgrade it since the current version is horribly old, and the upgrade process has proven to work in the past for me between large version jumps as well.
(The required amount of project time is based on guesswork but if the size permits it's even possible to create a new installation with a copy of the old db and switch over, which is the safest way.)
My guess is that it's possible that the system needs serious review of configuration since there has been plenty of big changes (speedups) in the last years. It's doable.
However if anyone want to throw the work on me I most probably going to look for at least few people to watch over my typos. It can be done alone, no problem, but safer if there's someone else's watching. :-)
(For tech and administrative details feel free to contact me. I'm userid 1 on huwp, and my identity is recorded plenty of times already, as well as being an otrs member.)
Given recent discussion about various Wikimedia movement roles, I'm wondering whether a Wikimedia chapter or a grant or some other movement player could either take on supporting the existing OTRS installation (by hiring a contractor), evaluating and implementing better/different response software, and/or moving the response system elsewhere.
I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not interested suporting something I do not know.
(Judging by http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/OTRS there's plenty of possible improvement here, especially on the spamfiltering part...)
cya, Peter ([[user:grin]] / [[:hu:user:grin]] / Peter Gervai)
Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:04:
I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not interested suporting something I do not know.
Interesting. Has hu.wiki ever considered to use a WM-HU hosted instance of OTRS instead of the WMF one? Given that this was among the suggested solutions here, it would be useful to know about previous discussions on the matter. (The only thing I know is that WMIT considers WMF's OTRS so crappy that even our own – rather bad – instance is preferred to using theirs.)
Nemo
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:04:
I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not interested suporting something I do not know.
Interesting. Has hu.wiki ever considered to use a WM-HU hosted instance of OTRS instead of the WMF one?
Yes. It wasn't done because more often than not we got negative feedback from the foundation when we wanted to host some of our own services. Actually setting up a new one is quite simple, almost I'd say a matter of minutes, plus maybe a few hours with all the customisation (and thise we _severely_ miss by using the central administered one).
Given that this was among the suggested solutions here, it would be useful to know about previous discussions on the matter.
Indeed. I wasn't following the discussion since I supposed it's been handled.
(The only thing I know is that WMIT considers WMF's OTRS so crappy that even our own – rather bad – instance is preferred to using theirs.)
It is not really maintained on the sysadmin level, to put it mildly. I'm willing to change that if there's interest.
But your question may induce me to install one with the wikimedia config just to see how it works with the new one. :-)
Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:25:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:04:
I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not interested suporting something I do not know.
Interesting. Has hu.wiki ever considered to use a WM-HU hosted instance of OTRS instead of the WMF one?
Yes. It wasn't done because more often than not we got negative feedback from the foundation when we wanted to host some of our own services. Actually setting up a new one is quite simple, almost I'd say a matter of minutes, plus maybe a few hours with all the customisation (and thise we _severely_ miss by using the central administered one).
It's not surprising that you had negative feedback from the WMF, but it would be interesting to know if and why the hu.wiki community and the chapter discussed it and thought it was a good idea and under which conditions. The technical part is rather easy, but the organisation of a migration is not. I'm sure that the WMIT board would never agree to host an OTRS service for it.wiki even if the community begged it (which is highly unlikely to happen anyway ;) ): it would like begging people to sue us for a few more 20 M€ requests.
Nemo
2013/2/21 Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:04:
I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not interested suporting something I do not know.
Interesting. Has hu.wiki ever considered to use a WM-HU hosted instance of OTRS instead of the WMF one?
Yes. It wasn't done because more often than not we got negative feedback from the foundation when we wanted to host some of our own services. Actually setting up a new one is quite simple, almost I'd say a matter of minutes, plus maybe a few hours with all the customisation (and thise we _severely_ miss by using the central administered one).
Actually there will be legal problem with personal data protection - if it is going to be established in any EU country, as it will be applicable to EU directive of personal data protection and also local law regarding this issue, which is actually "harmonized" across EU countries.
The other problem is, that the old system should be somehow preserved, especially "permission" queues, because there are thousands of templates on Commons and Wikipedias leading to the relevant OTRS tickets.
I personally feel more comfortable if the OTRS system is maintained by WMF and not by any small (or even larger) Wikimedia chapter - even my own and even if it is done in very poor way....
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I personally feel more comfortable if the OTRS system is maintained by WMF and not by any small (or even larger) Wikimedia chapter - even my
We were talking about local versions.
Global OTRS _will_not_ be operated by wmhu (we neither want nor offer it); the question was who can support the administration of the _WMF_ OTRS. WMF can use south-sudanese contractors to run it if it pleases, or a chapter, or whoever, it's the same: all the responsibilities stay at WMF.
own and even if it is done in very poor way....
The current one you mean I hope. ;-)
2013/2/21 Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I personally feel more comfortable if the OTRS system is maintained by WMF and not by any small (or even larger) Wikimedia chapter - even my
We were talking about local versions.
Global OTRS _will_not_ be operated by wmhu (we neither want nor offer it); the question was who can support the administration of the _WMF_ OTRS. WMF can use south-sudanese contractors to run it if it pleases, or a chapter, or whoever, it's the same: all the responsibilities stay at WMF.
Yes.. sure organizing local OTRS system is up to the local chapters, but bear in mind we are talking about official E-mail addresses of relevant Wikimedia projects. The personal data included in these E-mails is subject of WMF privacy policy:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy
E-mails sent to OTRS contain quite often very fragile personal data - such as real names of editors, home addresses, phone numbers etc.
And I guess WMF will never let to operate it or store by any third party including chapters.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org