2011/3/21 Marcus Buck <me(a)marcusbuck.org> ... So that's another opportunity to mention the request to enable it, open since September 2008: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15607 Are there still any technical barriers to enabling it? -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

2011/3/21 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>: For the Narayam extension, very short time passed from development to installation in a live Wikipedia and it happened just a few days ago, in the middle of the 1.17 work. I'm happy that it happened; Why can't the same happen with the Interlanguage extension? From the testing that i carried out, i saw that this extension, as it is now, doesn't break anything and the wiki in which it is installed just keeps working as it did (correct me if i'm wrong). FWIW, there is consensus that the functionality that the Interlanguage extension provides is very much needed. On the Meta talk page dedicated to it and in the bug comments no serious objections were expressed; several proposals to do similar things were created in the Strategy wiki; when i meet Wikipedians from around the world, they all tell me in person that they really, really want it. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

I opened a new blocker for #15607 (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/28194) that is based on Tim's comments on #15607 to make it easier to track the which issues block the deployment of the Interlanguage extension. Casey Brown <lists(a)caseybrown.org> writes: Thanks, Casey. Finally subscribed. I'm trying to find ways to track issues that are important to the community *now* and raise them to the attention of the Foundation as something the community cares about. Casey, Gerard and others have contacted via email and helped by pointing me to specific issues. I invite anyone who thinks there is an important issue that the Foundation isn't addressing to send it to me. Every week, I'm trying to send out a couple of emails to wikitech-l about the bugs that the Foundation and MediaWiki hackers can focus on. This past week, some mediawiki hackers helped me realize that my criteria probably isn't the best (http://hexm.de/1d) and I tried to save myself by refocusing on bugs that got the most votes (http://hexm.de/1e). Developers haven't (and probably shouldn't) paid much attention to bugs rated by popularity, but, since my job is help Foundation developers and MediaWiki hackers remember to focus on the needs of the community, I think I'll continue to look at the popularity of bugs as well as rely on feedback from other people in the community. By filling the Bugmeister position, the Foundation is (in part) trying to increase its responsiveness to the community. If you think there is a specific item the Foundation isn't paying enough attention to, let me know. I can't promise that everyone who sends me an email will find the attention of the Foundation is focused on their issue, but I can, at least, make sure you are heard. Mark.

On 03/23/2011 07:58 AM, Tim Starling wrote: I believe this is a community decision. People might prefer to continue doing things the old way, but if not it shouldn't be hard to update the extension. Or it could be possible to do it both ways... By the way, I don't think that the pages will be apparently-blank, the idea is that there would be a sentence or two describing the topic.

Marcus Buck wrote: I updated <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Review_queue>. As with general MediaWiki code, there's a review bottleneck for extension code review. And obviously the larger the extension and the bigger the target (e.g., all Wikipedias instead of just Meta-Wiki or just Wikiversities), the longer it takes to get it through. Bugzilla is a lot of noise, so it's way too easy to drown out the signal. The newish Bugmeister position is supposed to mitigate this. MZMcBride