--- On Mon, 10/12/09, Michael Jörgens <joergens.mic(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens <joergens.mic(a)googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library"
<wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 2:00 PM
Thanks teak for you trying to moderate that problem.
Even if we are complaining about ThomasV attitudes, in general we (I hope I speak for the
majority of the community- but I'm sure about that) like the tool, and we also would
like to take benefit of it's advantages if possible even in the future. In general
terms spoken it is an improvement in comparison to the old tool. That is the reason why we
convert our old projects.
ThomasV basic ideas in the human interface of the tool are not so bad . His new ideas with
the index-page are good to (smaller quirks can be eliminated).
Our problem is, that there is no communication in advance what will happen and when. Every
time we see the reaults after the change. The second thing is that ThomasV exactly knows
what our key points are - they have been discussed to often, everytime he made an
incompatible change in his tool - but from my personal point of view is not willing to
find a solution which would be best for both sides.
***
The thing you are missing is that this is not what ThomasV wants vs. what de.WS wants. It
is making the tool compatible with the workings of multiple Wikisources or one Wikisource.
That he has chosen to no longer spend time on custom configurations for the one
Wikisource that wants it differently is his choice. It is his time after all.
Regarding advance communication. Certainly there must be advance copies of these updates
out there in test environments if you were to look for them, just as there is with any
code updates. No one makes such advance announcements about any changes in code that I
have ever seen. At least no one tells en.WS. Yet I am sure the information is being
discussed and tested somewhere in development circles. I can't understand why ThomasV
should be obliged to go around to all the different Wikisources announcing his plans when
no other developer does this. While I agree that communication about these things could
be better, it is not a fault against ThomasV but rather a systematic issue. There should
be a central place to follow all updates in the pipeline. (Maybe there even is one
already, but I don't know about it)
Birgitte SB
Show replies by thread
Thanks Thomas for your big reply
I have seen it after I've written my last reply.
The first thing is, the rule of proofreading twice is one of the lowest
level to achieve quality.
The question wether it must be enforced by software or not. If it would be
easy to configure this problem will be solved. The default setting should be
software control enabled.
The solution we had with horizontal and vertikal layot (nearly the same as a
fork) was not the best at all - you mentioned the problems correctly. The
new solution to incorporate as an integral part of the system is perfect.
Using horizontal on a pivot 24" monitor and vertical on 22" widescreen is
perfect.
The next thing. OK your not the guy who decides when a code update goes
alive, but if you could tell everbody that there is a code change to come in
the near future, because you've finished your work for the next update,
together with an information what is new or what will change, would help to
inform the people in advance that something will happen. Frustration will be
minimised by that. A link in the scriptorium to the information would be
enough. The information should be in english, because we are laking french
speakers, but even german will fit :)
One of the things we are really missing are programmers with good kowledge
of js. We will have a look at your idea within the bugzilla 20817#c7 an may
come up with a lot of questions.
I could understand your frustration, because of the ''dictating" local
admins. I m sure that I am one of these bad guys.
But we have to cope with the frustration of our community members, when
things don't work the same way they are used to, or when the aren't allowed
to proofread any more. And things like that su... If there is information
in advance, i could say didn't you read the scriptorium, instead of
searching for the reasons. After some research - uups there was an update, I
for my person need in such a situation someone to blame it on, especially if
this is not the first time for this special extension. Hopefully
understandable.
We should find a way of cooperating. I think when the information flow
increases, and you give us hints (preferably in advance) how we can achieve
our goals with your new releases, we could have a much better climate. A lot
of good things in your extension will not be recognised, because of the
things were are upset
And I agree ThomasV it would be more than foolish working on a fork - and
loosing the future enhancements - or on a new proofread extension (Version
3). There is an existing system which works (except for our principal
differences) really well. And one configurable extension for all is the only
usefull system.
And if you can tell me names of js specialists which are
*active*administrators on
de.ws I would be really happy.
greetings
joergens.mi