On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
That said, I think we should be careful with our assumptions about how much influence we can buy with the money we have.
Sure. Let's not make assumptions at all then: what makes someone think that calendar is amenable to WMF-mandated development? Already one year ago, I proposed that Phacility be hired to upstream our issues (and triage them upstream). https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/2015-March/000642.html
The reason is that so far I'm not aware of a single person in Wikimedia being able to talk with upstream (as opposed to talking past each other). https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/board/6/query/all/ seems to prove none exists, as the "Solved upstream" column lists a whopping 2 issues out of 500+ upstream issues.
And of those two tasks, one is a regression and the other is an exception. i.e. not functional improvements.
I have added T109956 to that column, and would do more to help categorisation of solved tasks, but I note that "Solved upstream" is not explained at the documentation https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Code , so I wonder if I am doing something wrong.
It should be noted that we have successful built some local extensions/customisations, such as the Sprint. If we are having difficulty providing improvements to the core product, then funding incomplete extensions (like Calendar) is a good approach.
-- John Vandenberg