--- 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