Strainu,
I, too, am glad for the discussion!
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 22:31, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Let me start with a simple question, to put the
references to wmf into
context. You keep talking below about volunteer developers and how they can
take over any project.
I'm confused by this. I didn't mention volunteer teams taking over projects
at all, and I don't think that'd work except in very rare and limited
circumstances. I was talking about people helping with bug triage on
Phabricator.
While that's true, how many fully-volunteer teams
are there? How does that number compare to the number of wmf teams? Am I
right to assume the ratio is hugely in favor of wmf teams? Note: teams,
not developers, since decisions on project management are usually done at
team level.
See above; this wasn't what I meant.
In my experience in b2b contracts they don't keep
it a secret, they usually
have SLAs they respect, but ok, let's leave it at that.
Yes, I have more to say about this, but this would be tangential to this
discussion. :-)
Responsibility for what? Developing and hosting
MediaWiki? Helping
communities concentrate on creating and attracting content without having
to work around bugs? I'm sorry, but that's precisely one of the
responsibilities of the wmf and this is what's discussed here.
Well, in your earlier emails in this thread, you mentioned the bug backlog
steadily increasing, so that was what I was talking about. Is that not what
you were talking about in your subsequent emails?
This is one thing that we agree on: nobody committed
on anything. Ever.
That's why I asked above: what does it take to have someone (anyone) at the
WMF act upon these discussions?
My role in the Wikimedia tech community is tech ambassador above all else,
so I'm caught in the middle here: I have to explain new features and
technical decisions to people who don't care about php, js or server
performance , but I also feel obligated to relay their requirements, as I
see them, to the development team. This second process does not happen as
smoothly as it should.
It's not healthy to ignore discussion after discussion and claim it's a
community issue. It's not. It's a governance issue and it's growing every
day.
I agree. It's not a community issue, it's a movement-wide one. I don't know
how to solve it.
The projects belong to the community at large, not
just the technical
subcommunity. They are the ones affected by the bugs and also they are the
ones that need our support. So why should they be ignored in taking this
decision?
I'm confused by this too. I wasn't talking about ownership of the Wikimedia
projects, I was again talking about the bug backlog, which anyone is
welcome to get involved in simply by registering an account.
My proposal is to begin the discussion here: how can
we better relay issues
that are more important to communities than new features? How can we have a
"community whishlist for bugs"?
The community wishlist explicitly accepts requests to fix bugs, as well
requests for new features. So, is what you're asking for some process to
supplement that?
Dan