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
On 12/7/15, Chris Schilling cschilling@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Honestly, I don't think we're lacking in ideas (nor have we ever really been). We are lacking in people implementing ideas.
-- -bawolff
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/%3E and the description: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1042/
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Chris Schilling cschilling@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%3E 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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
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@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/%3E and the description: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1042/
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Chris Schilling cschilling@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%3E 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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
About the original topic of this thread, thank you Chris for the note about this survey. I was hesitating about forwarding the email to this list and/or feature the link in the Developer Relations Weekly Summary, and you moved faster. :)
A technical theme for IEG would be useful to channel efforts in a certain direction. I just wonder how much we can reuse / complement the ongoing Technical Wishlist survey that Community Tech is running as we speak. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Community_Wishlist_Survey_des...
I mean, once the results of the survey are public, there might be a theme or more that can be extracted, and these themes could inspire IEG grants focus, hackathons' focus, GSoC/Outreachy focus... Acquiring a bigger mass thanks to these orchestrated actions could also help influencing the WMF/WMDE developer teams backlogs, prioritizing their work on potential dependencies, code review, mentoring... Do you see the puzzle pieces and how they could be theoretically assembled? :)
On the collateral topic of where to publish project concepts... it's complicated. I think this deserves its own discussion in the context of the WMF product development process in the drafts. I have created a topic at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Su5sgwsd967s1nya. There are other ongoing discussions related to the first steps of proposals and experiments willing to be prioritized, and so far all of them are referenced at the related task https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115659.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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/%3E and the description: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1042/
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Chris Schilling cschilling@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%3E 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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the collateral topic of where to publish project concepts... it's complicated. I think this deserves its own discussion in the context of the WMF product development process in the drafts. I have created a topic at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Su5sgwsd967s1nya.
Hi Quim. How are IdeaLab ideas related to the WMF product development process?
There are other ongoing discussions related to the first steps of proposals and experiments willing to be prioritized, and so far all of them are referenced at the related task https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115659.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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/%3E and the description: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1042/
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Chris Schilling <
cschilling@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%3E
You can offer feedback and add your own campaign topics through a
survey
conducted through AllOurIdeas < http://www.allourideas.org/idealab_campaigns%3E 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)%3E
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I don't think it's complicated; I think it's very simple. Put it in the venue where the audience you're aiming at will see it. For the IdeaLab, that's on-wiki. For purely technical tasks, that's Phabricator. The movement is about transparency, and that's more than posting publicly; transparency is posting it where it will be read by your audience. If we put it in a venue that nobody whose opinion on the subject is valued can read, we have essentially posted it nowhere.
This isn't a big thing, and it feels like the discussion you've started turns it into one. This is, specifically, about where IdeaLab projects are located. We are not intending to solve for where any project in any field ever conceived might be located. If we were, it would be nothing to do with the WMF product development process, which is about the WMF and relates explicitly and exclusively to software.
On 8 December 2015 at 06:11, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
About the original topic of this thread, thank you Chris for the note about this survey. I was hesitating about forwarding the email to this list and/or feature the link in the Developer Relations Weekly Summary, and you moved faster. :)
A technical theme for IEG would be useful to channel efforts in a certain direction. I just wonder how much we can reuse / complement the ongoing Technical Wishlist survey that Community Tech is running as we speak. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Community_Wishlist_Survey_des...
I mean, once the results of the survey are public, there might be a theme or more that can be extracted, and these themes could inspire IEG grants focus, hackathons' focus, GSoC/Outreachy focus... Acquiring a bigger mass thanks to these orchestrated actions could also help influencing the WMF/WMDE developer teams backlogs, prioritizing their work on potential dependencies, code review, mentoring... Do you see the puzzle pieces and how they could be theoretically assembled? :)
On the collateral topic of where to publish project concepts... it's complicated. I think this deserves its own discussion in the context of the WMF product development process in the drafts. I have created a topic at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Su5sgwsd967s1nya. There are other ongoing discussions related to the first steps of proposals and experiments willing to be prioritized, and so far all of them are referenced at the related task https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115659.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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/%3E and the description: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1042/
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Chris Schilling cschilling@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%3E 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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hi Rob,
Oliver sums up my thoughts on this matter quite well; IdeaLab is pretty well-suited for building initial ideas, getting feedback from relevant communities at large, revising/expanding proposals, and preparing it for a WMF grant (we even have buttons that migrate IdeaLab proposals into official grant proposals) #possible-tech-projects is a great resource and I think it should continue to be used, but I see it as one avenue of gathering feedback on a proposal from a specific segment of Wikimedia communities.
As for the Wikimedia Developer Summit, that's a great suggestion. We're looking into either having myself or one of the grant program officers there to engage folks who could benefit from funding for their technical work.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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/%3E and the description: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1042/
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Chris Schilling <
cschilling@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%3E
You can offer feedback and add your own campaign topics through a survey conducted through AllOurIdeas < http://www.allourideas.org/idealab_campaigns%3E 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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org