Hello everybody!
For the past couple months, Joel Aufrecht and I have been working on a project to document and improve the VisualEditor team's processes; we just published a draft of our report https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Process_Review on mediawiki.org. If you're interested, please read it over and, of course, shout at us on the talk page if we wrote anything stupid.
In addition to the team's significant strengths, we identified three major challenges we'd like to work on:
- Consulting stakeholders like Analytics and Design Research often have trouble engaging with VE’s development. - The process for early-stage requirements and design decision-making is informal and incomplete. - The team has a high reporting load which may no longer be justified.
Next week, we'll start to expand the report with some proposed solutions (suggestions welcome!)
Have a good weekend! ————— Neil P. Quinn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation +1 (202) 656 3457
<quote name="Neil P. Quinn" date="2015-06-05" time="16:56:07 -0700">
Hello everybody!
For the past couple months, Joel Aufrecht and I have been working on a project to document and improve the VisualEditor team's processes; we just published a draft of our report https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Process_Review on mediawiki.org. If you're interested, please read it over and, of course, shout at us on the talk page if we wrote anything stupid.
Neil et al, this is great! Thanks for the very informative read, even as someone who works closely with the VE team on a semi-daily basis (at least!). I think it is great that the time and energy was devoted to developing this report.
The plan at [0] suggests that this is a one-time process with a conclusion (which is good), thus it isn't tied in, explicitly, with the quarterly goal planning process, correct?
Best,
Greg
[0] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Team_Process_Review#Plans
Hey Greg!
Yes, this is meant to be a one-time process. We've been spending a significant proportion of our time on it ever since we joined in mid-April (I'd say about 30% for me, and probably more for Joel)—too much to make it a regular thing. And hopefully, if we manage to address these problems, we won't find them replaced by new ones the very next quarter :)
Thanks for the question—it feels great to know that someone is out there reading our child of the mind! ————— Neil P. Quinn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation +1 (202) 656 3457
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Neil P. Quinn" date="2015-06-05" time="16:56:07 -0700"> > Hello everybody! > > For the past couple months, Joel Aufrecht and I have been working on a > project to document and improve the VisualEditor team's processes; we > just published a draft of our report > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Process_Review> on > mediawiki.org. If you're interested, please read it over and, of > course, shout at us on the talk page if we wrote anything stupid.
Neil et al, this is great! Thanks for the very informative read, even as someone who works closely with the VE team on a semi-daily basis (at least!). I think it is great that the time and energy was devoted to developing this report.
The plan at [0] suggests that this is a one-time process with a conclusion (which is good), thus it isn't tied in, explicitly, with the quarterly goal planning process, correct?
Best,
Greg
[0] < https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Team_Process_Review#Plans
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
As a non-technical volunteer, I've drifted in and out of the VE discussion, and have participated at wildly variable levels over the past few years.
I found this to be a very interesting and informative read - especially as it came from people new to the entire history. It's good to have fresh eyes on a situation. Thank you for your work on this, it was quite enlightening.
Risker/Anne
On 7 June 2015 at 00:09, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Greg!
Yes, this is meant to be a one-time process. We've been spending a significant proportion of our time on it ever since we joined in mid-April (I'd say about 30% for me, and probably more for Joel)—too much to make it a regular thing. And hopefully, if we manage to address these problems, we won't find them replaced by new ones the very next quarter :)
Thanks for the question—it feels great to know that someone is out there reading our child of the mind! ————— Neil P. Quinn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation +1 (202) 656 3457
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Neil P. Quinn" date="2015-06-05" time="16:56:07 -0700"> > Hello everybody! > > For the past couple months, Joel Aufrecht and I have been working on a > project to document and improve the VisualEditor team's processes; we > just published a draft of our report > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Process_Review> on > mediawiki.org. If you're interested, please read it over and, of > course, shout at us on the talk page if we wrote anything stupid.
Neil et al, this is great! Thanks for the very informative read, even as someone who works closely with the VE team on a semi-daily basis (at least!). I think it is great that the time and energy was devoted to developing this report.
The plan at [0] suggests that this is a one-time process with a conclusion (which is good), thus it isn't tied in, explicitly, with the quarterly goal planning process, correct?
Best,
Greg
[0] <
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Team_Process_Review#Plans
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
And, as a person that is not involved in the development of VisualEditor in any way but knows many of the VisualEditor Team quite well, I also found this very interesting. Thanks for putting it together!
Dan
On 6 June 2015 at 21:18, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
As a non-technical volunteer, I've drifted in and out of the VE discussion, and have participated at wildly variable levels over the past few years.
I found this to be a very interesting and informative read - especially as it came from people new to the entire history. It's good to have fresh eyes on a situation. Thank you for your work on this, it was quite enlightening.
Risker/Anne
On 7 June 2015 at 00:09, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Greg!
Yes, this is meant to be a one-time process. We've been spending a significant proportion of our time on it ever since we joined in
mid-April
(I'd say about 30% for me, and probably more for Joel)—too much to make
it
a regular thing. And hopefully, if we manage to address these problems,
we
won't find them replaced by new ones the very next quarter :)
Thanks for the question—it feels great to know that someone is out there reading our child of the mind! ————— Neil P. Quinn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation +1 (202) 656 3457
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Neil P. Quinn" date="2015-06-05" time="16:56:07 -0700"> > Hello everybody! > > For the past couple months, Joel Aufrecht and I have been working on
a
project to document and improve the VisualEditor team's processes; we just published a draft of our report https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Process_Review on mediawiki.org. If you're interested, please read it over and, of course, shout at us on the talk page if we wrote anything stupid.
Neil et al, this is great! Thanks for the very informative read, even
as
someone who works closely with the VE team on a semi-daily basis (at least!). I think it is great that the time and energy was devoted to developing this report.
The plan at [0] suggests that this is a one-time process with a conclusion (which is good), thus it isn't tied in, explicitly, with the quarterly goal planning process, correct?
Best,
Greg
[0] <
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Team_Process_Review#Plans
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
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
Hi Greg,
The process improvement effort is not explicitly tied in with quarterly goals. If we come up with specific recommendations that require enough effort to register on a quarterly scale, or that influence the output of the team that much, they could be inputs to goal-setting.
Team Practices Group also does the quarterly Team Health Check survey, which is also not part of quarterly goals. I think that process improvement in general is probably better handled separately from goals, to avoid creating any incentives to bias measurement stats, consciously or unconsciously.
Joel
*Joel Aufrecht* Team Practices Group Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Neil P. Quinn" date="2015-06-05" time="16:56:07 -0700"> > Hello everybody! > > For the past couple months, Joel Aufrecht and I have been working on a > project to document and improve the VisualEditor team's processes; we > just published a draft of our report > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Process_Review> on > mediawiki.org. If you're interested, please read it over and, of > course, shout at us on the talk page if we wrote anything stupid.
Neil et al, this is great! Thanks for the very informative read, even as someone who works closely with the VE team on a semi-daily basis (at least!). I think it is great that the time and energy was devoted to developing this report.
The plan at [0] suggests that this is a one-time process with a conclusion (which is good), thus it isn't tied in, explicitly, with the quarterly goal planning process, correct?
Best,
Greg
[0] < https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Team_Process_Review#Plans
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Just to make sure that this has been said: thank you VE team, we appreciate your work that will benefit Wikipedia for years to come.
Pine
x-posting to teampractices list
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everybody!
For the past couple months, Joel Aufrecht and I have been working on a project to document and improve the VisualEditor team's processes; we just published a draft of our report https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Process_Review on mediawiki.org. If you're interested, please read it over and, of course, shout at us on the talk page if we wrote anything stupid.
In addition to the team's significant strengths, we identified three major challenges we'd like to work on:
- Consulting stakeholders like Analytics and Design Research often have
trouble engaging with VE’s development.
- The process for early-stage requirements and design decision-making is
informal and incomplete.
- The team has a high reporting load which may no longer be justified.
Next week, we'll start to expand the report with some proposed solutions (suggestions welcome!)
Have a good weekend! ————— Neil P. Quinn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation +1 (202) 656 3457 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Thanks, Greg, Joel and All,
Best, Scott
Best, Scott Hello everybody!
For the past couple months, Joel Aufrecht and I have been working on a project to document and improve the VisualEditor team's processes; we just published a draft of our report https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/2015_Process_Review on mediawiki.org. If you're interested, please read it over and, of course, shout at us on the talk page if we wrote anything stupid.
In addition to the team's significant strengths, we identified three major challenges we'd like to work on:
- Consulting stakeholders like Analytics and Design Research often have trouble engaging with VE’s development. - The process for early-stage requirements and design decision-making is informal and incomplete. - The team has a high reporting load which may no longer be justified.
Next week, we'll start to expand the report with some proposed solutions (suggestions welcome!)
Have a good weekend! ————— Neil P. Quinn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation +1 (202) 656 3457 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org