So, let me just get this straight.
Someone here bemoaned the fact that a full history dump of the English Wikipedia has been sought for 3 years, but is still forthcoming. That person mentioned, factually, that $1.7 million of budgeted money for "technology" was left unspent, with the suggestion that perhaps a portion of this money could have been directed to a contractor who would have been charged with crafting a successful full history dump. This budgetary fact was disdainfully questioned and the "troll" insult was whipped out with haste. The financial fact was then supported with a report from this very Foundation's Executive Director. The response then was that one "could care less" about what Sue Gardner has to say about budget. Then, the initial person offered that minimum wage plus $80 daily child care would buy his solution to a full history dump.
Now, assuming this might mean 8 working weeks of labor for this guy, that would be ($400 child-care + $280 wage) x 8 weeks = $5,440.
This sum is approximately three-tenths of ONE PERCENT of the budgeted money that was instead stored in the bank and set aside for some future staffing and technology needs.
But the person(s) making the factual statements, backing them up with referenced sources, and offering a potential eight-week solution to a three-year-old problem, at a cost of 3/10th of 1% of the allocated budget to problems exactly like this... IS REWARDED WITH THE "TROLL" epithet?
Do I have that correct? Because if I do, then I am beginning to see why so many people suggest that there is a serious freakin' PROBLEM with the tone of discourse on this mailing list.
Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500, give him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a full history dump of the English Wikipedia, then perhaps his penance could be a one-year ban from Wikimedia mailing lists? That would make a lot of "troll spotters" here quite happy, I'm sure. What do you have to lose? (Other than three-tenths of one percent of the 2007 technology budget, that is.)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500, give him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a full history dump of the English Wikipedia, then perhaps his penance could be a one-year ban from Wikimedia mailing lists?
That's a bit presumptuous of you, Greg.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500, give him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a full history dump of the English Wikipedia, then perhaps his penance could be a one-year ban from Wikimedia mailing lists?
That's a bit presumptuous of you, Greg.
I don't know the background of this, so I don't understand why this would be presumptuous of Greg.
The key question is whether the full history dump was ever considered to be a project that needs WMF funding to be allocated, as opposed to letting it be solved by the normal open source model.
Lots of people complain about the full history dump, but what importance has the WMF put on it, comparatively to other needs? How are these WMF software projects managed? Does Brion report yearly on key infrastructure and software dev objectives each year?
While Gregs recommendation to have WMF grant to develop certain functionality, I would prefer that WMF offers bounties.
I've just noticed that bounties are mentioned on this strategy proposal.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/strategy/wiki/Proposal:Track_bugs_in_...
-- John Vandenberg
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:47 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
The key question is whether the full history dump was ever considered to be a project that needs WMF funding to be allocated, as opposed to letting it be solved by the normal open source model.
Post the root password to the database servers and I'm sure that there will be no more dump problems.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:47 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com
wrote:
Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500,
give
him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a
full
history dump of the English Wikipedia, then perhaps his penance could be
a
one-year ban from Wikimedia mailing lists?
That's a bit presumptuous of you, Greg.
I don't know the background of this, so I don't understand why this would be presumptuous of Greg.
I never said I could do this in eight weeks, I never offered a "penance" of a one-year ban if I fail, and I certainly never committed to 40 hours a week. The penance especially doesn't make sense. The WMF can ban me for free if they want to.
While Gregs recommendation to have WMF grant to develop certain
functionality, I would prefer that WMF offers bounties.
It's not clear to me how a bounty for developing functionality would work, especially not for something complicated like fixing the dump system. A contracted out service as opposed to a per-hour rate, sure. But a bounty?
I've just noticed that bounties are mentioned on this strategy proposal.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/strategy/wiki/ Proposal:Track_bugs_in_other_projects_impeding_our_progress
A bug bounty is generally given for finding a bug, not for fixing it.
While I like the idea of bounties, this idea actually has merit. To make him work, I would give him the amount of money for childcare as a down payment, with the wages payable on delivery. Can someone from the Foundation look into this? We have quite a few talented mooks, who might be able to handle other miscellaneous projects, freeing up Brion and the crew both from tantrums about non completed requests and minor work.
________________________________ From: Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:12:48 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] The $1.7 million question
So, let me just get this straight.
Someone here bemoaned the fact that a full history dump of the English Wikipedia has been sought for 3 years, but is still forthcoming. That person mentioned, factually, that $1.7 million of budgeted money for "technology" was left unspent, with the suggestion that perhaps a portion of this money could have been directed to a contractor who would have been charged with crafting a successful full history dump. This budgetary fact was disdainfully questioned and the "troll" insult was whipped out with haste. The financial fact was then supported with a report from this very Foundation's Executive Director. The response then was that one "could care less" about what Sue Gardner has to say about budget. Then, the initial person offered that minimum wage plus $80 daily child care would buy his solution to a full history dump.
Now, assuming this might mean 8 working weeks of labor for this guy, that would be ($400 child-care + $280 wage) x 8 weeks = $5,440.
This sum is approximately three-tenths of ONE PERCENT of the budgeted money that was instead stored in the bank and set aside for some future staffing and technology needs.
But the person(s) making the factual statements, backing them up with referenced sources, and offering a potential eight-week solution to a three-year-old problem, at a cost of 3/10th of 1% of the allocated budget to problems exactly like this... IS REWARDED WITH THE "TROLL" epithet?
Do I have that correct? Because if I do, then I am beginning to see why so many people suggest that there is a serious freakin' PROBLEM with the tone of discourse on this mailing list.
Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500, give him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a full history dump of the English Wikipedia, then perhaps his penance could be a one-year ban from Wikimedia mailing lists? That would make a lot of "troll spotters" here quite happy, I'm sure. What do you have to lose? (Other than three-tenths of one percent of the 2007 technology budget, that is.)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org