Bryan Davis bd808@wikimedia.org writes:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroendedauw@gmail.com wrote:
What exactly justifies such an authoritarian "need to go though some permission process" setup? Exactly what problems are we currently seeing?
I would certainly welcome an RfC discussion of the current policy and a potential replacement. From my point of view, use of the MediaWiki brand implies endorsement by the MediaWiki community and thus should only be easily available to projects that are able to be contributed to and managed by that community. If for example a serious security flaw was found in a mediawiki/foo package on Packagist the community should be empowered to fix it.
This discussion is at least tangentially related to the IdeaLab project that Chris Koerner and I formulated at Wikimania:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Making_Gerrit_access_easier_f...
There are benefits to using the Gerrit.w.o -- the git repository that most MW-experienced developers are using, and where they have rights to upgrade code (e.g. the i18n conversion to json) -- instead of Github, Assembla, Kiln, or Bitbucket.
We've done a poor job of explaining the benefits, though, and, more than that, providing an infrastructure that developers not deeply involved with the WMF can use, though.
I invite your comments on the IdeaLab proposal page. Maybe it means improving MediaWiki support for developers on GitHub, but if that is the route we go, then we need to figure out a way to do that.
Mark.