As a long-time phabricator user (and long-time community member) I
really don't get the desire to push this to Phabricator. This is not
to say it is bad: it is good at what it is designed to do (handling
technical tasks in an all-encompassing sorta way). But lately it feels
like every conversation about a process involves debating whether that
too goes to Phabricator - in this case, a non-technical process.
Funded IdeaLab projects /that are technical/ ending up on Phabricator
sounds great: treat it as we would any other code. But the
consultations and discussions themselves are very deliberately
oriented towards our community - because IdeaLab projects are - a
community that tends not to have Phabricator accounts, not to have
experience using the system, and tends to conduct discussion in a much
more prose-based and conversational style than Phabricator easily
supports: it's designed for bug-tracking, not 100-comment threads.
MediaWiki, however, is designed (for a given value of "designed" ;p)
for those sorts of discussions, and additionally is software that
literally everyone people reach out to about the IdeaLab is likely to
be somewhat familiar with.
So I'd rather we kept the discussions there - in a venue that is
already used, for an audience that is familiar with that venue - than
shift them over to a project that isn't designed for these kinds of
interactions and doesn't offer familiarity to the users the IdeaLab
tries to reach. Phabricator should be for transparency and process
when a project with technical components is funded.
On 8 December 2015 at 01:14, Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Chris,
I wonder if we can use Phabricator as an incubator for IdeaLab proposals?
We already have the #possible-tech-projects tag in Phabricator [1], which
seems like a sensible place to discuss the ideas amongst the people who
have ideas in this area.
I know there is some cynicism about the upcoming Wikimedia Developer Summit
in January, because it seems like a great opportunity to talk about what we
want, but then not have a strategy for getting it done. That seems
justified, since "resourcing" seems a constant refrain in these
conversations. Would anyone from IdeaLab be available to be at WikiDev
'16, looking out for appropriate opportunities to get from ideas to
IdeaLab(tm) grant proposals?
Rob
[1] The board: <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/possible-tech-projects/> and the
description: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1042/>
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Chris Schilling <cschilling(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hey everyone,
I've recently initiated a consultation to help decide on topics for IdeaLab
campaigns for the future, and I'm very interested in your input on what
technical issues, gaps, or general features we could consider focusing our
attention upon. These campaigns can generate novel proposals for tools and
improvements to address needs in the Wikimedia projects to which you
contribute:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns>
You can offer feedback and add your own campaign topics through a survey
conducted through AllOurIdeas <
http://www.allourideas.org/idealab_campaigns>
in addition to participating on the IdeaLab talk page.
I’m looking forward to seeing your feedback and exploring potential
directions we can take IdeaLab campaigns starting next year.
Take care,
Jethro
--
Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF)>
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Oliver Keyes
Count Logula
Wikimedia Foundation