Anthere-
first, a note: please use foundation-l for project wide discussions.
I personally do not think adding a "real name" field
I also think it is unnecessary, especially in light of the fact that many thousands of edits are merely assigned to numbers.
Mostly I want to keep the sign-up form as simple as possible. But I have no problem with Wikitravel activating it. Of course we must be wary of "feature clutter".
- instead of writing "will be down in a few minutes", writing something a
bit more specific
That's of course desirable, but oftentimes specifics will not be available, and sometimes shit happens without anyone expecting it. We seem to be particularly unlucky when it comes to server stability.
However, it will be difficult to have both - informative *and* internationalized messages. Because I don't think we can get someone to translate "There are problems with the Squid proxy server on coronelli, a new machine is being set up and will hopefully be installed by 20:00 UTC; in the meantime, cached pages will remain available" into Maori within 5 minutes (just making up an example, don't know what the actual problem was today).
Recently, I looked at the bug report on fr:, and I saw an awful mess, that was going up to october 2002, where we were switched to phase III. There was no way to know what was still valid, and what was not (it has been cleaned now).
Not sure what you mean here, bugs are managed using the SourceForge bug tracker and closed when fixed.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Anthere-
first, a note: please use foundation-l for project wide discussions.
This is exactly what I said very recently. Till recently, wikipedia-l was the list to discuss project wide discussion. Now, we are beginning to cross post, because we do not see where this discussion is supposed to take place.
Typically, discussion over list of contributors, is related to gfdl, so should go to foundation, while discussion over a message to display during down time is rather wikitech or wikipedia-l.
In short, Erik, the difference between wikipedia-l and foundation-l is now difficult to define. Either we define it much better, or we should just remove a list.
- instead of writing "will be down in a few
minutes", writing something a
bit more specific
That's of course desirable, but oftentimes specifics will not be available, and sometimes shit happens without anyone expecting it. We seem to be particularly unlucky when it comes to server stability.
Obviously, this is not for urgent situation.
However, it will be difficult to have both - informative *and* internationalized messages. Because I don't think we can get someone to translate "There are problems with the Squid proxy server on coronelli, a new machine is being set up and will hopefully be installed by 20:00 UTC; in the meantime, cached pages will remain available" into Maori within 5 minutes (just making up an example, don't know what the actual problem was today).
Nod. Perhaps between this type of message and short information, there can be a middle ? Perhaps part of the message could be language specific and part in english ? Not everyone speaks english.
Recently, I looked at the bug report on fr:, and I
saw an awful mess, that
was going up to october 2002, where we were
switched to phase III. There was
no way to know what was still valid, and what was
not (it has been cleaned
now).
Not sure what you mean here, bugs are managed using the SourceForge bug tracker and closed when fixed.
Simple. Users who report bugs, do it on the pump. Soon enough the pump is clogged; Only a couple of people do make the effort to try to clean it up. Now, there is a bug report page on each wikipedia. So, it would be nice if users reported bugs on the bug report page, instead of the pump. So, we sent them to the bug report page. And there, all they could see is a 70 ko page, with first messages 18 months old, and absolutely no idea whether the problems reported has been fixed or not; And the place was actually so clogged, that they report bugs that are already reported. That is a loss of time. I am wondering if that bug report page is very wise, and if we should not just redirect it simply to SourceForge.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Anthere wrote in part:
Erik Moeller wrote:
first, a note: please use foundation-l for project wide discussions.
This is exactly what I said very recently. Till recently, wikipedia-l was the list to discuss project wide discussion. Now, we are beginning to cross post, because we do not see where this discussion is supposed to take place.
Typically, discussion over list of contributors, is related to gfdl, so should go to foundation, while discussion over a message to display during down time is rather wikitech or wikipedia-l.
In short, Erik, the difference between wikipedia-l and foundation-l is now difficult to define. Either we define it much better, or we should just remove a list.
Arguably, <wikipedia-L> should only be for issues that relate to the Wikipedia encyclopaedia projects, while anything that equally affects Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc sould go to <foundation-L> instead.
OTOH, what I thought was the purpose of <foundation-L> is to discuss matters related to the Wikimedia Foundation, while anything about the Wikimedia projects themselves would go to <wikipedia-L> as before.
Now, we could create a /new/ list <wikimedia-L> (with an "m"). Then people posting to <wikipedia-L> could be told "Hey, this affects Wiktionary too! Take it to <wikimedia-L>.", while people posting to <wikimedia-L> could be told "Hey, this is only about Wikipedia! Take it to <wikipedia-L>.". And people posting to <foundation-L> could be told "Hey, this is about the project content, not Foundation management! Take it to <wikimedia-L>.", while people posting to <wikimedia-L> could be told "Hey, this requires official action by the Foundation! Take it to <foundation-L>.".
What fun that would be! ^_^
-- Toby
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 11:29:17AM -0700, Anthere wrote:
In short, Erik, the difference between wikipedia-l and foundation-l is now difficult to define. Either we define it much better, or we should just remove a list.
Why hard to define? wikipedia-l is for topics concering all wikipedias while foundation-l is for topics concering all projects of the foundation and for projects which have no own mailing-list yet.
Simple. Users who report bugs, do it on the pump. Soon enough the pump is clogged; Only a couple of people do make the effort to try to clean it up. Now, there is a bug report page on each wikipedia.
We should close the bug-report page on en: On the other languages it makes sense because not everyone speaks english and sysops from the non-en: must do the job of translating and transfering the bug-reports to SF
ciao, tom
Anthere-
This is exactly what I said very recently. Till recently, wikipedia-l was the list to discuss project wide discussion.
It is now, as the name suggests, the list to discuss project wide issues for *WIKIPEDIA*. There is also Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, etc. The issues discussed in your post affect *all* these projects. Such matters belong on foundation-l.
In short, Erik, the difference between wikipedia-l and foundation-l is now difficult to define.
It is very easy to define. foundation-l is intended for Wikimedia-wide issues, wikipedia-l is intended for Wikipedia-wide issues, wikitech-l is the technical equivalent to foundation-l. So a post regarding server messages would be appropriate on wikitech-l and foundation-l, but not on wikipedia-l.
The only reason I called it foundation-l and not wikimedia-l is to avoid constant wikimedia/wikipedia typos.
I am wondering if that bug report page is very wise, and if we should not just redirect it simply to SourceForge.
SourceForge is our bug tracking mechanism. The only other bug reports page that matters is on test.wikipedia.org. What might make sense is a kind of queue where people who don't speak English can report bugs, and people who do can translate this into English and enter it into the tracker.
Regards,
Erik
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org