Thanks.
On 17 Jan 2017 15:50, "John Lubbock" john.lubbock@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I never said they 'had to be' on a closed forum. I presented the idea a while ago, didn't get much feedback from anyone, and had already started using Slack in the office, so I just created another channel. If you would like to create a different channel for developers and have a separate lot of discussions elsewhere, there's nothing stopping you. I have only offered to try to coordinate the work of developers, and the door's open for those who want to participate.
John
On 17 January 2017 at 15:34, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still trying to understand why UK-based Wikimedia developer discussions have to be on a closed forum.
As an example, with global discussions around issues or changes on Phabricator, a key benefit is that it is easy to link to these discussions and information on-wiki so that anyone can review them, not just those that have set up accounts on Phabricator. Encouraging wiki-project developers to join an invite-only channel to discuss changes to their open projects behind closed doors, appears to force a contradiction in values and remain an ethical barrier for potential contributors.
At the point where any development might change Wikimedia projects, whatever was done on a closed forum would have to be presented publicly. Even abandoned ideas benefit the community by adding to our store of common knowledge, if the discussions are available for future reference rather than held in closed archives.
Fae
On 17 January 2017 at 14:51, John Lubbock john.lubbock@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
The other thing is that we have already started using Slack in the
office
for chat, and I have another slack channel for the Kurdish Wikipedia Project, so I've already gone down this path a bit of a way and to back
out
and start again because something else is open source would be quite disruptive for other work I'm doing. I'm trying to organise developers
to
come to one place to discuss this, and I've chosen Slack because it's
easy
and lots of people use it. I appreciate that it might not be ideal for
some
people, but I really can't spare the time and effort to start this all
again
from scratch.
John
On 17 January 2017 at 13:19, Katherine Bavage <
katherine.bavage@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not planning to join because I don't code (though I'm happy to
join a
channel if you get to a stage where end user or design process
feedback is
useful) but I would note that asking people to adopt new platforms
'just
because they are open source', rather than ones that are used by a lot
of
people/ a lot of people are already familiar with, is pretty daft when
your
ultimate goal is to benefit the open source community through the work
the
channel fosters.
As far as I know, for this type of work, Slack is the go to for most
devs.
The Foundation use it without issue.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 at 12:24 Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com
wrote:
On 17/01/17 00:38, John Lubbock wrote:
It costs a lot of money, as far as I can see (it says Try for Free
and
then takes you to a page where it asks you to pay $100 a month).
We wrote Discourse, and we can host it for you, too.
Yes, that is a hosting option. You can download and install for free.
I
am suggesting WMUK host the code on their own server...
Gordo
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk