"I came across a patch from a user who was keen to move himself from "Patch contributors" to "Developers" in the MediaWiki CREDITS file [1]. It had been sitting there for over a year. He doesn't seem to have been active since. I don't know what to do with it. It made me think.
Do we have it documented anywhere how we use this credits file and why we feel the need to distinguish between Developers and Patch Contributors? It seems like a recipe for disaster in my opinion as it can only lead to hurt feelings due to contributors feeling unfairly treated. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits leads with 'We would like to recognize the following persons for their contribution to MediaWiki." - if someone is not in that list are they not as important?
If we keep these files we should probably explain the rules to what adding names looks like within these files and what the process to adding your name is (can I add myself? Is there a process like getting +2?)
To take another extreme, we might consider abandoning such a file in favour of something automatically generated. Things like https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors do a far better job at allowing people to see who contributed to a tool and making people feel like their work is rewarded.
On a slightly related note, can we abandon the practice of putting names inside files themselves? I see this practice in JavaScript and PHP files throughout core (grep for @author). As Team Geek [2] (great read btw) says "unlike other collaborative pieces of creative work... software keeps changing even after it's "done". So while listing contributors credits at the end of a movie is a safe and static thing, attempting to add and remove names from a source file is a never-ending exercise in insanity". For similar reasons this practice gives an impression of ownership of a file/code review responsibilities (which are not always true) and risks hurt feelings.
[1] https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/master/CREDITS [2] http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=978...
On Monday, May 30, 2016, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
"I came across a patch from a user who was keen to move himself from "Patch contributors" to "Developers" in the MediaWiki CREDITS file [1]. It had been sitting there for over a year. He doesn't seem to have been active since. I don't know what to do with it. It made me think.
Do we have it documented anywhere how we use this credits file and why we feel the need to distinguish between Developers and Patch Contributors? It seems like a recipe for disaster in my opinion as it can only lead to hurt feelings due to contributors feeling unfairly treated. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits leads with 'We would like to recognize the following persons for their contribution to MediaWiki." - if someone is not in that list are they not as important?
If we keep these files we should probably explain the rules to what adding names looks like within these files and what the process to adding your name is (can I add myself? Is there a process like getting +2?)
To take another extreme, we might consider abandoning such a file in favour of something automatically generated. Things like https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors do a far better job at allowing people to see who contributed to a tool and making people feel like their work is rewarded.
On a slightly related note, can we abandon the practice of putting names inside files themselves? I see this practice in JavaScript and PHP files throughout core (grep for @author). As Team Geek [2] (great read btw) says "unlike other collaborative pieces of creative work... software keeps changing even after it's "done". So while listing contributors credits at the end of a movie is a safe and static thing, attempting to add and remove names from a source file is a never-ending exercise in insanity". For similar reasons this practice gives an impression of ownership of a file/code review responsibilities (which are not always true) and risks hurt feelings.
[1] https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/master/CREDITS [2]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=978...
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I think historically the split was between people with (svn) commit access vs those who had to submit patches via bugzilla.
In modern times, this makes less sense as +2 is a much higher bar than commit access.
I agree we should formalize it, or remove the distinction. I think there is a value in recognizing those who have been contributing in the long term vs those who made a 1 off contribution once. Maybe something like if you have 50 patches merged into core you can be in the developer section (number picked arbitrary).
As for @author annotations. Ive never really seen the point. Ive usually looked at them as who started this area of code rather then who neccesarily "wrote" it. They dont bother me, but if we got rid of them i wouldnt particularly care either. Except if the code was originally from somewhere else, then we should probably keep them.
-- bawolff
Other projects don't do this, do they? Mozilla and LibreOffice just list *everyone* in alphabetical order. (I'm still in the Mozilla credits list for my work on the Mozilla 1.0 FAQ in 2002: https://www.mozilla.org/credits/ )
On 30 May 2016 at 17:40, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
"I came across a patch from a user who was keen to move himself from "Patch contributors" to "Developers" in the MediaWiki CREDITS file [1]. It had been sitting there for over a year. He doesn't seem to have been active since. I don't know what to do with it. It made me think.
Do we have it documented anywhere how we use this credits file and why we feel the need to distinguish between Developers and Patch Contributors? It seems like a recipe for disaster in my opinion as it can only lead to hurt feelings due to contributors feeling unfairly treated. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits leads with 'We would like to recognize the following persons for their contribution to MediaWiki." - if someone is not in that list are they not as important?
If we keep these files we should probably explain the rules to what adding names looks like within these files and what the process to adding your name is (can I add myself? Is there a process like getting +2?)
To take another extreme, we might consider abandoning such a file in favour of something automatically generated. Things like https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors do a far better job at allowing people to see who contributed to a tool and making people feel like their work is rewarded.
On a slightly related note, can we abandon the practice of putting names inside files themselves? I see this practice in JavaScript and PHP files throughout core (grep for @author). As Team Geek [2] (great read btw) says "unlike other collaborative pieces of creative work... software keeps changing even after it's "done". So while listing contributors credits at the end of a movie is a safe and static thing, attempting to add and remove names from a source file is a never-ending exercise in insanity". For similar reasons this practice gives an impression of ownership of a file/code review responsibilities (which are not always true) and risks hurt feelings.
[1] https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/master/CREDITS [2] http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=978...
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Is there a Phabricator task so this topic does not get forgotten?
andre
On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 09:40 -0700, Jon Robson wrote:
"I came across a patch from a user who was keen to move himself from "Patch contributors" to "Developers" in the MediaWiki CREDITS file [1]. It had been sitting there for over a year. He doesn't seem to have been active since. I don't know what to do with it. It made me think.
Do we have it documented anywhere how we use this credits file and why we feel the need to distinguish between Developers and Patch Contributors? It seems like a recipe for disaster in my opinion as it can only lead to hurt feelings due to contributors feeling unfairly treated. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits leads with 'We would like to recognize the following persons for their contribution to MediaWiki." - if someone is not in that list are they not as important?
If we keep these files we should probably explain the rules to what adding names looks like within these files and what the process to adding your name is (can I add myself? Is there a process like getting +2?)
To take another extreme, we might consider abandoning such a file in favour of something automatically generated. Things like https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors do a far better job at allowing people to see who contributed to a tool and making people feel like their work is rewarded.
On a slightly related note, can we abandon the practice of putting names inside files themselves? I see this practice in JavaScript and PHP files throughout core (grep for @author). As Team Geek [2] (great read btw) says "unlike other collaborative pieces of creative work... software keeps changing even after it's "done". So while listing contributors credits at the end of a movie is a safe and static thing, attempting to add and remove names from a source file is a never-ending exercise in insanity". For similar reasons this practice gives an impression of ownership of a file/code review responsibilities (which are not always true) and risks hurt feelings.
[1] https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/master/CREDITS [2] http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=978...
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Andre Klapper aklapper@wikimedia.org wrote:
Is there a Phabricator task [associated with MediaWiki CREDITS file membership] so this topic does not get forgotten?
Not that I'm aware of. It's easy to get lost looking through the various attempts to objectively characterize contributions (he says, just emerging from the fog of doing so himself). Here's a few places a person could go: * https://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/scm.html * https://www.openhub.net/p/mediawiki/contributors * https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors * http://koti.kapsi.fi/~federico/crstats/core.txt
...and that's hardly comprehensive. The "productivity of mediawiki developers" thread from April[1] probably has some other sources I've missed. If I were to spend more time on this, I would start looking for the Phab tickets associated with the stats on Korma.
I concur with Jon that we should endeavor to move to a more objective (and ideally, more automated) mechanism for acknowledgement, so that we don't have to rely on contributors confidently declaring that they deserve acknowledgement.
Rob [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/86127
Rob and Wikimedians,
To further credit the work of Wikimedia community members, could we explore using the Douglas Adams' SQID example (which Markus shared with the Wikidata list recently ... [Wikidata] SQID evolved again: references http://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/view?id=Q42 ) ... and build upon this incorporating the Wikipedia user pages (and your above examples) a Wikipedia crediting process anticipating/planning for all 11 billion people (an estimate from Swedish statistician Hans Rosling and many others) in all 8,000 languages. (CC World University and school is planning in parallel to be in all 8,000 languages and plan for all people on earth by 2100, as well as seek to build in Bitcoin and Blockchain in conjunction with developing best STEM CC OpenCourseWare centric law schools in all countries' main languages, even as WUaS develops CC university degrees accrediting on CC MIT OCW in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC).
This would potentially lead to further planning for integrating Wikidata/Wikibase via SQID with Wikitech/Wikimedia/Wikipedia community members' contributions and in many languages.
Cheers, Scott
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Andre Klapper aklapper@wikimedia.org wrote:
Is there a Phabricator task [associated with MediaWiki CREDITS file
membership] so this topic does not get forgotten?
Not that I'm aware of. It's easy to get lost looking through the various attempts to objectively characterize contributions (he says, just emerging from the fog of doing so himself). Here's a few places a person could go:
- https://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/scm.html
- https://www.openhub.net/p/mediawiki/contributors
- https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors
- http://koti.kapsi.fi/~federico/crstats/core.txt
...and that's hardly comprehensive. The "productivity of mediawiki developers" thread from April[1] probably has some other sources I've missed. If I were to spend more time on this, I would start looking for the Phab tickets associated with the stats on Korma.
I concur with Jon that we should endeavor to move to a more objective (and ideally, more automated) mechanism for acknowledgement, so that we don't have to rely on contributors confidently declaring that they deserve acknowledgement.
Rob [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/86127
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Sorry I dropped the ball on this. I've created the following 2 actionable tasks: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139300 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139301
I hope we can reach a decision somewhat promptly with this. Jon
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Scott MacLeod helianth@gmail.com wrote:
Rob and Wikimedians,
To further credit the work of Wikimedia community members, could we explore using the Douglas Adams' SQID example (which Markus shared with the Wikidata list recently ... [Wikidata] SQID evolved again: references http://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/view?id=Q42 ) ... and build upon this incorporating the Wikipedia user pages (and your above examples) a Wikipedia crediting process anticipating/planning for all 11 billion people (an estimate from Swedish statistician Hans Rosling and many others) in all 8,000 languages. (CC World University and school is planning in parallel to be in all 8,000 languages and plan for all people on earth by 2100, as well as seek to build in Bitcoin and Blockchain in conjunction with developing best STEM CC OpenCourseWare centric law schools in all countries' main languages, even as WUaS develops CC university degrees accrediting on CC MIT OCW in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC).
This would potentially lead to further planning for integrating Wikidata/Wikibase via SQID with Wikitech/Wikimedia/Wikipedia community members' contributions and in many languages.
Cheers, Scott
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Andre Klapper aklapper@wikimedia.org wrote:
Is there a Phabricator task [associated with MediaWiki CREDITS file
membership] so this topic does not get forgotten?
Not that I'm aware of. It's easy to get lost looking through the various attempts to objectively characterize contributions (he says, just emerging from the fog of doing so himself). Here's a few places a person could go:
- https://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/scm.html
- https://www.openhub.net/p/mediawiki/contributors
- https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors
- http://koti.kapsi.fi/~federico/crstats/core.txt
...and that's hardly comprehensive. The "productivity of mediawiki developers" thread from April[1] probably has some other sources I've missed. If I were to spend more time on this, I would start looking for the Phab tickets associated with the stats on Korma.
I concur with Jon that we should endeavor to move to a more objective (and ideally, more automated) mechanism for acknowledgement, so that we don't have to rely on contributors confidently declaring that they deserve acknowledgement.
Rob [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/86127
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- 415 480 4577
- http://scottmacleod.com
- Please donate to tax-exempt 501 (c) (3)
- World University and School
- via PayPal, or credit card, here -
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- or send checks to
- PO Box 442, (86 Ridgecrest Road), Canyon, CA 94516
- World University and School - like Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry I dropped the ball on this. I've created the following 2 actionable tasks: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139300 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139301
I hope we can reach a decision somewhat promptly with this.
Jon, I like both of these.
First one: deciding what to do with CREDITS as a format process. On some of my smaller projects I've started adding more patch contributors into a main CREDITS file, which I think is a lot better than trying to distinguish who's More Creditable. I lean towards putting in everyone who submits a patch, in alpha order.
(I will say when I was asked to add my name to the AUTHORS file on the 'emscripten' cross-compiler for what I felt was a small patch, it made me feel very appreciated -- and made me want to contribute more!)
I think we should either adopt that, or at least adopt _some_ consistent process, and update the file to match based on what we can see.
Second one: removing the @author attributions on individual files. While it can be nice to go back and say "hey it says I wrote this code!" it's also very misleading to people who see attributions from 10 years ago and then ask those people for help, and we have to say "sorry it's been completely refactored since, but I'll try!" :) Major refactors may, or may not, update the @authors bits.
I suspect either we should remove them, or have a rule that we're much more amenable about including patchers and refactorers in them.
These should probably both go through our ArchCom RfC process, which we're trying to get more involvement in both from WMFers and others.
-- brion
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Scott MacLeod helianth@gmail.com wrote:
Rob and Wikimedians,
To further credit the work of Wikimedia community members, could we
explore
using the Douglas Adams' SQID example (which Markus shared with the Wikidata list recently ... [Wikidata] SQID evolved again: references http://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/view?id=Q42 ) ... and build upon this incorporating the Wikipedia user pages (and your above examples) a Wikipedia crediting process anticipating/planning for all 11 billion
people
(an estimate from Swedish statistician Hans Rosling and many others) in
all
8,000 languages. (CC World University and school is planning in parallel
to
be in all 8,000 languages and plan for all people on earth by 2100, as
well
as seek to build in Bitcoin and Blockchain in conjunction with developing best STEM CC OpenCourseWare centric law schools in all countries' main languages, even as WUaS develops CC university degrees accrediting on CC MIT OCW in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC).
This would potentially lead to further planning for integrating Wikidata/Wikibase via SQID with Wikitech/Wikimedia/Wikipedia community members' contributions and in many languages.
Cheers, Scott
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Andre Klapper aklapper@wikimedia.org wrote:
Is there a Phabricator task [associated with MediaWiki CREDITS file
membership] so this topic does not get forgotten?
Not that I'm aware of. It's easy to get lost looking through the various attempts to objectively characterize contributions (he says, just emerging from the fog of doing so himself). Here's a few places a person could go:
- https://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/scm.html
- https://www.openhub.net/p/mediawiki/contributors
- https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors
- http://koti.kapsi.fi/~federico/crstats/core.txt
...and that's hardly comprehensive. The "productivity of mediawiki developers" thread from April[1] probably has some other sources I've missed. If I were to spend more time on this, I would start looking for the Phab tickets associated with the stats on Korma.
I concur with Jon that we should endeavor to move to a more objective (and ideally, more automated) mechanism for acknowledgement, so that we don't have to rely on contributors confidently declaring that they deserve acknowledgement.
Rob [1]
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/86127
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- 415 480 4577
- http://scottmacleod.com
- Please donate to tax-exempt 501 (c) (3)
- World University and School
- via PayPal, or credit card, here -
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- or send checks to
- PO Box 442, (86 Ridgecrest Road), Canyon, CA 94516
- World University and School - like Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational
organization.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jon Robson
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
I've created the following 2 actionable tasks: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139300 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139301
I hope we can reach a decision somewhat promptly with this.
Jon, I like both of these.
[...]
These should probably both go through our ArchCom RfC process, which we're trying to get more involvement in both from WMFers and others.
That sounds like a good idea. Jon, are you amenable to that? If so, one of us should add the #ArchCom-RFC project tag to one or both of these.
Rob
Yes! And thank you Brion for such a thoughtful well-thought out reply!
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
I've created the following 2 actionable tasks: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139300 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139301
I hope we can reach a decision somewhat promptly with this.
Jon, I like both of these.
[...]
These should probably both go through our ArchCom RfC process, which we're trying to get more involvement in both from WMFers and others.
That sounds like a good idea. Jon, are you amenable to that? If so, one of us should add the #ArchCom-RFC project tag to one or both of these.
Rob
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hey,
No @author tags? But then we won't have treasures like this https://twitter.com/JeroenDeDauw/status/750841758733463552 :(
Do you not somehow need them for the license info? Apart from that I can't think of a good reason to add them. Finding out who wrote some code is what git blame is for, and attribution can be done on a higher level.
Cheers
-- Jeroen De Dauw | https://entropywins.wtf | https://keybase.io/jeroendedauw Software craftsmanship advocate | Developer at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org