Forwarding this to wikimedia-l as it doesn't seem to be very technical in nature, but definitely seems worthy of discussion.
MZMcBride
Danny Horn wrote:
For a while now, the Collaboration team has been working on Flow, the structured discussion system. I want to let you know about some changes in that long-term plan.
While initial announcements about Flow said that it would be a universal replacement for talk pages, the features that were ultimately built into Flow were specifically forum-style group discussion tools. But article and project talk pages are used for a number of important and complex processes that those tools aren't able to handle, making Flow unsuitable for deployment on those kinds of pages.
To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now focusing our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex workarounds -- templates, categories, transclusions, and lots of instructions -- that turn blank wikitext talk pages into structured workflows. There are gadgets and user scripts on the larger wikis to help with some of these workflows, but these tools aren't standardized or universally available.
As these workflows grow in complexity, they become more difficult for the next generation of editors to learn and use. This has increased the workload on the people who maintain those systems today. Complex workflows are also difficult to adapt to other languages, because a wiki with thousands of articles may not need the kind of complexity that comes with managing a wiki with millions of articles. We've talked about this kind of structured workflow support at Wikimania, in user research sessions, and on wikis. It's an important area that needs a lot of discussion, exploration, and work.
Starting in October, Flow will not be in active development, as we shift the team's focus to these other priorities. We'll be helping core contributors reduce the stress of an ever-growing workload, and helping the next generation of contributors participate in those processes. Further development on these projects will be driven by the needs expressed by wiki communities.
Flow will be maintained and supported, and communities that are excited about Flow discussions will be able to use it. There are places where the discussion features are working well, with communities that are enthusiastic about them: on user talk pages, help pages, and forum/village pump-style discussion spaces. By the end of September, we'll have an opt-in Beta feature available to communities that want it, allowing users to enable Flow on their own user talk pages.
I'm sure people will want to know more about these projects, and we're looking forward to those conversations. We'll be reaching out for lots of input and feedback over the coming months.
Danny Horn Collaboration team, PM
MZMcBride <z <at> mzmcbride.com> writes:
Forwarding this to wikimedia-l as it doesn't seem to be very technical in nature, but definitely seems worthy of discussion.
MZMcBride
Danny Horn wrote:
For a while now, the Collaboration team has been working on Flow, the structured discussion system. I want to let you know about some changes in that long-term plan.
While initial announcements about Flow said that it would be a universal replacement for talk pages, the features that were ultimately built into Flow were specifically forum-style group discussion tools. But article and project talk pages are used for a number of important and complex processes that those tools aren't able to handle, making Flow unsuitable for deployment on those kinds of pages.
To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now focusing our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex workarounds -- templates, categories, transclusions, and lots of instructions -- that turn blank wikitext talk pages into structured workflows. There are gadgets and user scripts on the larger wikis to help with some of these workflows, but these tools aren't standardized or universally available.
Nearly every ambitious project starts with huge promises and fizzles out with a "change in focus". What's the underlying issue here? How can we get a product to a point where it's deployed and usable? I know there's a problem with scope creep for Wikimedia projects (due to design by committee), but that alone can't be the reason.
I know no one wants to admit failure, but when WMF says something is in maintenance mode they really mean they're killing the project. Can there be a postmortem for this, so that we can at least learn something from the failure?
- Ryan
Something that I would find interesting is a more detailed explanation of the reasoning behind the decision to put Flow into maintenance mode instead of continuing efforts to make it suitible for more diverse purposes. I'm not sure that Flow could ever fully replace all talk pages, but I tilt in favor of simplified interfaces for newcomers.
Pine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org