Hi all!
Here are the minutes from this week's ArchCom meeting. You can also find the minutes at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee/2017-03-08.
See also the ArchCom status page at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee/Status and the RFC board https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-rfcs/.
Here are the minutes, for your convenience:
Active RFCs: * <section> tags for MediaWiki sections https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T114072: Parsing team is considering best semantics for section wrapping. * How should we store longer revision comments? https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T153333: to be combined with the morge general discussion about refactoring the revision table * Disabling LocalisationUpdate on WMF wikis https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T158360: RE wants to drop it, but there is some pushback. Also, there are concerns about the current implementation.
Yesterday’s RFC meeting: Brion’s proposal for optimizing the revision table (again). * Log: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2017/wikimedia-office.2017-03-08-22.03.html * Related RFC “How should we store longer revision comments? https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T153333” will be folded into Brion’s proposal. * This is related to but separate from MCR https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107595. Proper RFC ticket(s) to be filed soon.
Next week’s RFC meeting (tentative, pending confirmation): * explore High - Level Mobilefrontend Requirements (JavaScript frameworks, Progressive Apps, and all that jazz) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zIX3SEgZ0sF_biOY4INCqM/edit#heading=h.xs2aq4j4wzse. * NOTE: we plan to experiment with having a public HANGOUT meeting, instead of using IRC.
Other topics: * Tim Starling has been looking at etcd https://coreos.com/etcd/ for configuration management and potentially other use cases. See also T149617 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149617.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Next week’s RFC meeting (tentative, pending confirmation):
- explore High - Level Mobilefrontend Requirements (JavaScript frameworks,
Progressive Apps, and all that jazz) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zIX3SEgZ0sF_ biOY4INCqM/edit#heading=h.xs2aq4j4wzse.
- NOTE: we plan to experiment with having a public HANGOUT meeting,
instead of using IRC.
This is now confirmed.
- What: High level mobile frontend requirements & plans - When: March 15, 2-3pm PDT (San Francisco) - Where: - Stream: http://youtu.be/8W7WrTa3Py4 - Hangout (25 active participants max): https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/ytl/T7sMtE_gUxWZ4biKxPh5ffreSnwnrIj1L...
- What: High level mobile frontend requirements & plans
- When: March 15, 2-3pm PDT (San Francisco)
- Where:
https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/ytl/T7sMtE_
- Stream: http://youtu.be/8W7WrTa3Py4
- Hangout (25 active participants max):
gUxWZ4biKxPh5ffreSnwnrIj1L7udZWXlKSk
I'll get this posted on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours with a pointer to #wikimedia-office on Freenode just in case the Hangout fills up and people need to interact that way (although I'd recommend the Hangout because the stream will be slightly time delayed).
-Adam
Gabriel Wicke wrote:
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Next week’s RFC meeting (tentative, pending confirmation):
- explore High - Level Mobilefrontend Requirements (JavaScript
frameworks, Progressive Apps, and all that jazz) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zIX3SEgZ0sF_ biOY4INCqM/edit#heading=h.xs2aq4j4wzse.
- NOTE: we plan to experiment with having a public HANGOUT meeting,
instead of using IRC.
This is now confirmed.
- What: High level mobile frontend requirements & plans
- When: March 15, 2-3pm PDT (San Francisco)
- Where:
- Stream: http://youtu.be/8W7WrTa3Py4
- Hangout (25 active participants max):
https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/ytl/T7sMtE_gUxWZ4biKxPh5ffreSnwnrIj 1L7udZWXlKSk
Which Phabricator Maniphest task is this referring to?
In my opinion, MobileFrontend should not exist. I hope the plan being discussed is to finally end its development.
bawolff wrote:
+1 to this being inconvenient. I don't always attend arch com meetings, but usually do if I happen to be online during the time. If its a hangout, it is extremely unlikely I would attend unless I was specifically proposing an RFC.
Proprietary and capped at 25 participants? No thank you.
MZMcBride
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:37 AM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
bawolff wrote:
+1 to this being inconvenient. I don't always attend arch com meetings, but usually do if I happen to be online during the time. If its a hangout, it is extremely unlikely I would attend unless I was specifically proposing an RFC.
Proprietary and capped at 25 participants? No thank you.
Piling on. I hate hangouts for small meetings with like 5 people, much less a large group. They're *awful*
The 25 participant problem should make the whole idea a non-starter for this.
-Chad
For large conference calls, I highly recommend Zoom. (https://zoom.us). It actually works for large conference calls. Wikimedia DC uses it all the time and it is very effective. It is proprietary, but so is Google Hangout. (I do not have a good solution to *that* problem.)
On March 13, 2017 at 2:51:51 PM, Chad (innocentkiller@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:37 AM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
bawolff wrote:
+1 to this being inconvenient. I don't always attend arch com meetings, but usually do if I happen to be online during the time. If its a hangout, it is extremely unlikely I would attend unless I was specifically proposing an RFC.
Proprietary and capped at 25 participants? No thank you.
Piling on. I hate hangouts for small meetings with like 5 people, much less a large group. They're *awful*
The 25 participant problem should make the whole idea a non-starter for this.
-Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hello,
On 13 March 2017 at 16:53, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
For large conference calls, I highly recommend Zoom. (https://zoom.us). It actually works for large conference calls. Wikimedia DC uses it all the time and it is very effective. It is proprietary, but so is Google Hangout. (I do not have a good solution to *that* problem.)
Note that zoom limits the length of a meeting to 40 mins for free accounts initiating the session. But yes, in general I find zoom to be better than h-o too.
As for the move off of IRC part, I think it's a good idea to try to experiment with a different format and see if that fulfils the needs better. If it doesn't, we can always revert to the old one. Note that the format itself is not new in our circles; we have had various types of events that went in parallel on h-o, youtube and IRC and I would say they worked well.
My 2 cents, Marko
On March 13, 2017 at 2:51:51 PM, Chad (innocentkiller@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:37 AM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
bawolff wrote:
+1 to this being inconvenient. I don't always attend arch com meetings, but usually do if I happen to be online during the time. If its a hangout, it is extremely unlikely I would attend unless I was specifically proposing an RFC.
Proprietary and capped at 25 participants? No thank you.
Piling on. I hate hangouts for small meetings with like 5 people, much less a large group. They're *awful*
The 25 participant problem should make the whole idea a non-starter for this.
-Chad _______________________________________________ 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,
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
- NOTE: we plan to experiment with having a public HANGOUT meeting, instead of
using IRC.
Can I ask why? At least for me, Google Hangouts simply isn't an option to participate when I'm in a crowded library/classroom.
-- Legoktm
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
- NOTE: we plan to experiment with having a public HANGOUT meeting,
instead of
using IRC.
Can I ask why?
With audio and video, hangouts provide a somewhat higher bandwidth, and avoid the problem of many people discussing several topics at the same time that larger IRC meetings frequently run into.
At least for me, Google Hangouts simply isn't an option to participate when I'm in a crowded library/classroom.
You can still listen in & ask questions via the hangout chat, or the regular office IRC channel. Adam volunteered to monitor the channel, so that questions can be addressed. The meeting will also be recorded at the youtube link I provided, so you can catch up later, and ask follow-up questions by mail.
Hi,
On 03/10/2017 01:11 PM, Gabriel Wicke wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com With audio and video, hangouts provide a somewhat higher bandwidth, and avoid the problem of many people discussing several topics at the same time that larger IRC meetings frequently run into.
At least for me, Google Hangouts simply isn't an option to participate when I'm in a crowded library/classroom.
You can still listen in & ask questions via the hangout chat, or the regular office IRC channel. Adam volunteered to monitor the channel, so that questions can be addressed. The meeting will also be recorded at the youtube link I provided, so you can catch up later, and ask follow-up questions by mail.
I should have been been more explicit - listening in isn't an option either for me. I'll watch the recording later, but that entirely defeats the "higher bandwidth" point.
-- Legoktm
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
- NOTE: we plan to experiment with having a public HANGOUT meeting, instead of
using IRC.
Can I ask why? At least for me, Google Hangouts simply isn't an option to participate when I'm in a crowded library/classroom.
-- Legoktm
+1 to this being inconvenient. I don't always attend arch com meetings, but usually do if I happen to be online during the time. If its a hangout, it is extremely unlikely I would attend unless I was specifically proposing an RFC.
-- Bawolff
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 9:55 PM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
- NOTE: we plan to experiment with having a public HANGOUT meeting,
instead of
using IRC.
Can I ask why? At least for me, Google Hangouts simply isn't an option to participate when I'm in a crowded library/classroom.
+1 to this being inconvenient. I don't always attend arch com meetings, but usually do if I happen to be online during the time. If its a hangout, it is extremely unlikely I would attend unless I was specifically proposing an RFC.
Yeah, this makes "opportunistic" participation a lot harder: - when I am borderline interested in the topic, I can multitask between IRC and other tasks, and read scrollback every couple minutes. This is not really possible with video - either I spend an hour to participate (that's about 2.5% of my total time if I spend a paid hour so not a trivial cost) or I don't participate at all. - when something is not interesting / relevant enough to participate, I can skim the logs afterwards in way less than an hour, or search them for keywords. Neither is possible with video. - when I don't think the topic will be relevant to me but it turns our otherwise, I get a ping when someone on IRC says my name or a keyword I've set highlighting for. There is no such thing on Hangouts (I guess people can still be pinged on IRC but joining into an already ongoing video chat is awkward as there is no way to read back what has been said in the last few minutes).
Even more problematically, it breaks public archiving of ArchCom discussions as hangouts invariably tend to become a mix of talk and typed comments, and while it is possible to publish the video stream on YouTube, as far as I know it is not possible to preserve the comments (or even read them back if you join late) so things like links and side-channel clarifications will get lost. Also, IRC logs are indexed by Google (this has helped me multiple times in the past) while automated voice transcribing technologies are not quite there yet. Also also, the meetbot generated an automated summary which was not great but somewhat useful. With video meetings, will anyone take up the burden of writing a similar summary by hand? (The private ArchCom meetings have decent notes, but those seem to be done by a dedicated TPG staffer - would there be similar support for the public meetings as well?)
This also seems less inclusive - if you are a less experienced MediaWiki contributor who wants is interested in RfCs but are not sure whether you have anything to contribute, you can lurk on IRC and decide whether to pitch in or not. A hangout where you have to worry about displacing someone potentially more knowledgeable due to the participation limit, or taking air time away from such a person by talking, seems like a much less welcoming environment. (Also, this might just be a personality thing, but I find it much easier to express myself clearly and accurately in writing, as there is less time pressure - if you are not 100% sure in what you are about to say, you can spend a few seconds looking it up or thinking it over. In a video chat that seems more awkward. I imagine this would be extra problematic for someone who is not experienced or not well known and thus more worried about saying something stupid.)
Pinging Brendan Campbell regarding this conversation, in light of the discussion about technologies for meetings.
Also, a general comment on meetings: I prefer that if there's text conversation, that it stays all in one place and in a channel that is archived by WMF (currently that solution is IRC), and not in the Google Hangouts chat, and especially not in both places (which requires people who want to be aware of all text conversation to watch both Google chat and IRC.)
Pine
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 9:55 PM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
- NOTE: we plan to experiment with having a public HANGOUT meeting,
instead of
using IRC.
Can I ask why? At least for me, Google Hangouts simply isn't an option to participate when I'm in a crowded library/classroom.
+1 to this being inconvenient. I don't always attend arch com meetings, but usually do if I happen to be online during the time. If its a hangout, it is extremely unlikely I would attend unless I was specifically proposing an RFC.
Yeah, this makes "opportunistic" participation a lot harder:
- when I am borderline interested in the topic, I can multitask between IRC
and other tasks, and read scrollback every couple minutes. This is not really possible with video - either I spend an hour to participate (that's about 2.5% of my total time if I spend a paid hour so not a trivial cost) or I don't participate at all.
- when something is not interesting / relevant enough to participate, I can
skim the logs afterwards in way less than an hour, or search them for keywords. Neither is possible with video.
- when I don't think the topic will be relevant to me but it turns our
otherwise, I get a ping when someone on IRC says my name or a keyword I've set highlighting for. There is no such thing on Hangouts (I guess people can still be pinged on IRC but joining into an already ongoing video chat is awkward as there is no way to read back what has been said in the last few minutes).
Even more problematically, it breaks public archiving of ArchCom discussions as hangouts invariably tend to become a mix of talk and typed comments, and while it is possible to publish the video stream on YouTube, as far as I know it is not possible to preserve the comments (or even read them back if you join late) so things like links and side-channel clarifications will get lost. Also, IRC logs are indexed by Google (this has helped me multiple times in the past) while automated voice transcribing technologies are not quite there yet. Also also, the meetbot generated an automated summary which was not great but somewhat useful. With video meetings, will anyone take up the burden of writing a similar summary by hand? (The private ArchCom meetings have decent notes, but those seem to be done by a dedicated TPG staffer - would there be similar support for the public meetings as well?)
This also seems less inclusive - if you are a less experienced MediaWiki contributor who wants is interested in RfCs but are not sure whether you have anything to contribute, you can lurk on IRC and decide whether to pitch in or not. A hangout where you have to worry about displacing someone potentially more knowledgeable due to the participation limit, or taking air time away from such a person by talking, seems like a much less welcoming environment. (Also, this might just be a personality thing, but I find it much easier to express myself clearly and accurately in writing, as there is less time pressure - if you are not 100% sure in what you are about to say, you can spend a few seconds looking it up or thinking it over. In a video chat that seems more awkward. I imagine this would be extra problematic for someone who is not experienced or not well known and thus more worried about saying something stupid.) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hi,
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Next week’s RFC meeting (tentative, pending confirmation):
- explore High - Level Mobilefrontend Requirements (JavaScript frameworks,
Progressive Apps, and all that jazz) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zIX3SEgZ0sF_biOY4INCqM/edit#heading=h.xs2aq4j4wzse.
I didn't try to open the link until now, but it requires a Google account to view, and is only visible to those in the WMF - could it be moved to mediawiki.org please?
-- Legoktm
I made a request to the document author for that, I imagine should be available next week. Nothing secret in there, though.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Next week’s RFC meeting (tentative, pending confirmation):
- explore High - Level Mobilefrontend Requirements (JavaScript
frameworks,
Progressive Apps, and all that jazz) <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zIX3SEgZ0sF_
biOY4INCqM/edit#heading=h.xs2aq4j4wzse>.
I didn't try to open the link until now, but it requires a Google account to view, and is only visible to those in the WMF - could it be moved to mediawiki.org please?
-- Legoktm
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
The doc is now public read.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zIX3SEgZ0sF_biOY4IN...
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Adam Baso abaso@wikimedia.org wrote:
I made a request to the document author for that, I imagine should be available next week. Nothing secret in there, though.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Next week’s RFC meeting (tentative, pending confirmation):
- explore High - Level Mobilefrontend Requirements (JavaScript
frameworks,
Progressive Apps, and all that jazz) <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zI
X3SEgZ0sF_biOY4INCqM/edit#heading=h.xs2aq4j4wzse>.
I didn't try to open the link until now, but it requires a Google account to view, and is only visible to those in the WMF - could it be moved to mediawiki.org please?
Reminder: this is about to start in a couple of minutes.
- What: High level mobile frontend requirements & plans - Agenda / discussion notes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlBl_qAIrGPF7zqOmK77Db8y4InO1j3qX1qqipzJNmc/edit# - When: March 15, 2-3pm PDT (San Francisco) - Where: - Stream: http://youtu.be/8W7WrTa3Py4 - Hangout (25 active participants max): https://hangouts.google.com /hangouts/_/ytl/T7sMtE_gUxWZ4biKxPh5ffreSnwnrIj1L7udZWXlKSk https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/ytl/T7sMtE_gUxWZ4biKxPh5ffreSnwnrIj1L7udZWXlKSk
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Adam Baso abaso@wikimedia.org wrote:
The doc is now public read.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zIX3SEgZ0sF_ biOY4INCqM
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Adam Baso abaso@wikimedia.org wrote:
I made a request to the document author for that, I imagine should be available next week. Nothing secret in there, though.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 03/09/2017 08:17 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Next week’s RFC meeting (tentative, pending confirmation):
- explore High - Level Mobilefrontend Requirements (JavaScript
frameworks,
Progressive Apps, and all that jazz) <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1id-E_KELGGA3X5H4K44I6zI
X3SEgZ0sF_biOY4INCqM/edit#heading=h.xs2aq4j4wzse>.
I didn't try to open the link until now, but it requires a Google account to view, and is only visible to those in the WMF - could it be moved to mediawiki.org please?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Thanks for everyone who participated in the discussion. Unfortunately, we ran into a technical issue with setting up the youtube stream that we weren't able to resolve quickly (my apologies to those unable to follow the stream), but we did take detailed notes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlBl_qAIrGPF7zqOmK77Db8y4InO1j3qX1qqipzJNmc/edit# that you can peruse and comment on.
As a next step, the Reading team will do some more research & document more specifics on requirements and solutions. Following this, we will have another round of discussion.
Thanks,
Gabriel
Hi,
On 03/15/2017 03:58 PM, Gabriel Wicke wrote:
Thanks for everyone who participated in the discussion. Unfortunately, we ran into a technical issue with setting up the youtube stream that we weren't able to resolve quickly (my apologies to those unable to follow the stream), but we did take detailed notes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlBl_qAIrGPF7zqOmK77Db8y4InO1j3qX1qqipzJNmc/edit# that you can peruse and comment on.
As requested earlier, will these documents be moved to mediawiki.org or is it now required to use Google's proprietary software to discuss the architecture of MediaWiki?
-- Legoktm
On 16 March 2017 at 05:00, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
As requested earlier, will these documents be moved to mediawiki.org or is it now required to use Google's proprietary software to discuss the architecture of MediaWiki?
If there's nothing private in there, which one can only assume there is not since the document is world-readable, I would encourage you to Be Bold and transfer it to mediawiki.org. That document was edited by staff, and staff agree to release their work as CC BY-SA in their contracts, so copying it over should be fully compliant with the licence if you link to the doc for the history in your comment. Further edits can then be made to the page on mediawiki.org.
Google Docs is easier to spin up in the moment and edit collaboratively than MediaWiki. Using proprietary software tools if they're a better fit for the intended purpose is entirely consistent with the Foundation's guiding principles https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Freedom_and_open_source, so their choice to use Google Docs makes sense to me. That said, transferring the notes out of the doc to mediawiki.org after the moment has passed does seem like a good idea in general.
NB: I have nothing to do with Architecture Committee, I'm just an interested observer.
Dan
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
Google Docs is easier to spin up in the moment and edit collaboratively than MediaWiki. Using proprietary software tools if they're a better fit for the intended purpose is entirely consistent with the Foundation's guiding principles
Doesn't etherpad (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/) fit that need without being proprietary?
On 16 March 2017 at 13:21, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
Doesn't etherpad (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/) fit that need without being proprietary?
Possibly. There are features that Google Docs has that Etherpad doesn't, but I don't know whether they're relevant since I'm not involved with the Architecture Committee. Hopefully they can answer.
Dan
Doesn't etherpad (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/) fit that need without being proprietary?
I found that I miss the comment feature, but it can be plugged in into etherpad.
Jan
2017-03-16 14:21 GMT+01:00 Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
Google Docs is easier to spin up in the moment and edit collaboratively than MediaWiki. Using proprietary software tools if they're a better fit for the intended purpose is entirely consistent with the Foundation's guiding principles
Doesn't etherpad (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/) fit that need without being proprietary?
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Senior Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
The discussion notes are now also available on-wiki at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Projects/OCCAM/ArchCom-03-15-2017 .
Technical note: I pasted the contents into https://gwicke.github.io/paste2wiki/, which is using the REST API and Parsoid to convert HTML to wikitext. The biggest difference to pasting straight into VisualEditor is that it preserves inline HTML links. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T129546 for a discussion about optionally allowing pasting of links into VE as well.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Jan Dittrich jan.dittrich@wikimedia.de wrote:
Doesn't etherpad (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/) fit that need without being proprietary?
I found that I miss the comment feature, but it can be plugged in into etherpad.
Jan
2017-03-16 14:21 GMT+01:00 Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
Google Docs is easier to spin up in the moment and edit collaboratively than MediaWiki. Using proprietary software tools if they're a better
fit
for the intended purpose is entirely consistent with the Foundation's guiding principles
Doesn't etherpad (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/) fit that need without being proprietary?
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Senior Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jan Dittrich UX Design/ User Research
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment.
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org