Minutes and slides from Thursday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Multimedia team are now available at
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
> corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
> and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
> starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
> to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
> Board :
> - Visual Editor
> - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
> - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
> - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity
> I'm proposing the following initial schedule:
> - Editor Engagement Experiments
> - Visual Editor
> - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)
> - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
> - Funds Dissemination Committee
> We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
> metrics meetings , since the team(s) will give a presentation on
> their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
> otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
> also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.
> My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
> review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
> meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
> discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
> which we can use to discuss the concept further:
> The internal review will, at minimum, include:
> Sue Gardner
> Howie Fung
> Team members and relevant director(s)
> Designated minute-taker
> So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
> Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.
> I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
> duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:
> - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
> compared with goals
> - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
> - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
> - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
> action items
> - Buffer time, debriefing
> Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
> structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
> where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.
> In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
> to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
> a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
> may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
> to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
> As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
> help inform and support reviews across the organization.
> Feedback and questions are appreciated.
> All best,
>  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
I am Ankita Shukla, a Computer Science and Engineering student pursuing
the junior year of Bachelor of Technology at the Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, India. I had posted my announcement for the
spelling dictionary building tool' here
I have also set up the proposal page
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Ankitashukla/Proposal> for the project
with help and guidance from my mentors. Since the project itself is quite
dependent on the community support and crowd-sourcing, therefore it would
be great to get started with considering the views of the community about
I'd be happy to have reviews and feedback from the community regarding the
proposal and the (feasibility of the) timeline in particular. I welcome any
suggestion towards the betterment of the project and am also ready to
discuss about any point which might not be very clear in the proposal. :)
On Thu Oct 23 13:31:31 UTC 2014 Andre wrote :
>> Further information about the project has been provided on the Proposal
>Is that information available as a wikipage somewhere? PDF is quite
>static and does not automatically have a discussion page plus I wouldn't
>be able to easily identify changes between versions of that proposal.
All the above mentioned details in the PDF are available as wikipage
at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Prianka .
>> We need community's valuable suggestions to improve the proposal, add
>> possible features, and views on the project so that this project can be
>Do you have specific questions? When you write "add possible features",
>are you concerned that your proposal is not "enough work" yet?
I have received much guidance from my mentors and had made that
proposal. It would be really great to get reviews from the community
on the proposal.
Hoping to hear soon.
Third Year Undergraduate Student
Department of Mathematics
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
MediaWiki is upgrading its plural rules to match CLDR version 26. The
updates include incompatible changes for plural forms in Russian,
Prussian, Tagalog, Manx and several languages that fall back to
Russian . In addition there are minor changes for other languages.
In January 2014, CLDR 24 had introduced several changes in the plural
forms for some of these languages, including Russian, and we had
updated MediaWiki's plural rules to comply with the CLDR standard.
Some of these changes are now being reverted. Below is a detailed
explanation of the changes.
For the migration period, from Monday, 27th October 2014 to Thursday
6th November 2014, we have disabled LocalisationUpdate at Wikimedia
wikis to reduce the chance of ungrammatical translations being
displayed in the interface.
Developers do not need to take special actions, but if you use master
and do not update core, extensions and skins all at the same time, you
might see ungrammatical translations in the languages mentioned above.
I recommend sysadmins to avoid mixing different versions of core and
extensions for the same reason as above. If you have users in above
languages and are also using LocalisationUpdate extension, you should
consider disabling the extensions until your version of core includes
the plural rule patch: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/161920/
More details of the actual rule changes can be found at
 Abkhaz (ab), Avaric (av), Bashkir (ba), Buryat (bxr), Chechen
(ce), Crimean Tatar (crh-cyrl), Chuvash (cv), Inguish (inh),
Komi-Permyak (koi), Karachay-Balkar (krc), Komi (kv), Lak (lbe),
Lezghian (lez), Eastern Mari (mhr), Western Mari (mrj), Yakut (sah),
Tatar (tt), Tatar-Cyrillic (tt-cyrl), Tuvinian (tyv), Udmurt (udm),
Found this today: https://twitter.com/symfony_en/status/525222757567827968
It's probably a useless statistic, but I still found it amusing. Good to
know we still have less technical debt than WordPress. ;)
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
I´m Anke Nowottne a Berlin based designer and teacher and I´m applying for Outreach Program for Women Round 9.
I chose a Mentorship task part of the Wikipedia Education Program, which links to both my design and my educational skills and interests.
»Conduct need-finding interviews, then create a new design for course pages that better meets user needs.«
I have been in contact with mentor Sage Ross and we have created a rough proposal, some sketches and ideas based on our discussions and thoughts.
Find the wiki proposal and more about me here:
Any ideas, comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. Please contact me.
I am Alisha Jain and I am quite interested in contributing to
Extensive and robust localisation file format coverage for FOSS OPW
round - 9. I have selected this project because of my interest in
parsers. I have been in contact with my mentors Niklas Laxström and
Federico Leva and tried to design a proposal based on my thoughts.
Below is the link to my proposal:-
I need all your worthy suggestions on my proposal so that I can give
my best to make this project a success.
"Your Failure does not define you, but your determination does."
Il 26/10/2014 20:45, Amir E. Aharoni ha scritto:
> In the Hebrew Wikipedia there's a discussion about the "Thanks" feature,
> which raises the following confusion among other things: Why does the
> person who is sending the thank-you gets a message saying "$1 was notified
> that you liked his/her edit.", and the person who receives the thank-you
> notification sees a message that uses the verb "thank"?
> The difference is in the original message in English, and I translated them
> accordingly, but I am wondering: Is this really good? Maybe both should use
> the same verb - "thank"?
> I can just send a Gerrit patch or open a bug, but it may be worth to
> discuss it a bit on the wide community level and not only with tech people
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> “We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Let's use "thank", please. We're not Farcebook.