Hi, following the process for requesting the creation of a MediaWiki group, here is a proposal for
MediaWiki Group Bug Squad http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Groups/Proposals/Bug_Squad
Your endorsements, improvements and feedback are welcome at the wiki page.
Thank you!
PS: see also http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Groups/Proposals
You can count me in as interested. I can't add my name on my own, though, since I'm IP blocked from editing on WMF wikis.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com
| tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Valerie Juarez <valerie.m.juarez@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi, following the process for requesting the creation of a MediaWiki group, here is a proposal for
MediaWiki Group Bug Squad http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Groups/Proposals/Bug_Squad
Your endorsements, improvements and feedback are welcome at the wiki page.
Thank you!
PS: see also http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Groups/Proposals
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
You can count me in as interested. I can't add my name on my own, though, since I'm IP blocked from editing on WMF wikis.
Please request an IP exemption.
Hi, following the process for requesting the creation of a MediaWiki group, here is a proposal for
MediaWiki Group Bug Squad http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Groups/Proposals/Bug_Squad
Your endorsements, improvements and feedback are welcome at the wiki page.
To create a bug squad is a nice idea, and, as a volunteer active on Bugzilla, of course, I'm interested.
To create a MediaWiki Group Bug Squad is something else.
* * *
First, I would like we clarify the matter a little bit.
"MediaWiki groups organize open source community activities within the scope of specific topics and geographical areas. They are Wikimedia User Groups that agree on a level of coordination in the MediaWiki context. As such, they extend the capacity of the Wikimedia Foundation in events, training, promotion and other technical activities benefiting Wikipedia, the Wikimedia movement and the MediaWiki software."
AND
"Wikimedia User Groups are groups of Wikimedians who intend to do offline work that could range from meetups to partnerships to any new and novel way the group comes up with to further the Wikimedia vision. The requirements to set up an officially recognized user group are meant to be light-weight and easy to follow.".
A promotion group makes sense: it handles tasks offline, in conferences for example. It needs funding and to convey the Wikimedia brands.
I would like to understand how a bug resolution group enters in the Affiliations Committee scope.
More specifically, I would like elements we noted in our own MediaWiki list.
(1) You want to have an identity as a group within the MediaWiki community and the Wikimedia movement.
Why do we want that? How resolve bug is the bug squad scope would be different than for example submit code to fix a bug? What we want to achieve?
(2) You want to reach out to people interested in MediaWiki and the software powering Wikipedia in a specific area.
Please give a sample of a bug specific outreach activity.
(3) You want to have officially recognized MediaWiki channels like a mailing list, a microblogging user account...
We already have a lot of channels. Instead to create another one, to use #wikimedia-dev could work (it worked for previous bug squads meetings).
And nobody is suggesting a bug resolution team need to be a formal approved group to get a mailing list (see bureaucratif cost below)?
(4) You want to organize technical activities under the name of MediaWiki, Wikimedia or related projects like Wikipedia.
What kind of offline activites do we want to plan?
(5) You want to obtain funding from the Wikimedia Foundation or a Wikimedia chapter.
What kind of budget to we need? To what goals?
* * *
Then, I would like we think about cost/benefits.
Bug resolution is a core function of a software. To transform the bug resolution operations into - potentially - a bureaucratic leviathan isn't something I'm comfortable with.
This is a dangerous precedents to a bureaucratization of our fundamental processes. A group should be about a vision. My vision of this proposal is I clearly see this proposal as the first step in a path who will lead to a road, where we will ask new contributors to sign request CLA with copyright transfer to the Wikimedia Fundation.
* * *
Sure, we would have stronger possibilities with all that, but we're speaking about resolving bugs. Couldn't we instead have a meeting on #wikimedia-dev, drafts our idea on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:WikiProject_Bug_Squad pages and start our bug resolution activites?
On 12/27/2012 07:38 AM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
To create a bug squad is a nice idea, and, as a volunteer active on Bugzilla, of course, I'm interested.
To create a MediaWiki Group Bug Squad is something else.
I fail to see why, and I really appreciate the fact that you are going to the details.
First, I would like we clarify the matter a little bit.
"MediaWiki groups organize open source community activities within the scope of specific topics and geographical areas. They are Wikimedia User Groups that agree on a level of coordination in the MediaWiki context. As such, they extend the capacity of the Wikimedia Foundation in events, training, promotion and other technical activities benefiting Wikipedia, the Wikimedia movement and the MediaWiki software."
AND
"Wikimedia User Groups are groups of Wikimedians who intend to do offline work that could range from meetups to partnerships to any new and novel way the group comes up with to further the Wikimedia vision. The requirements to set up an officially recognized user group are meant to be light-weight and easy to follow.".
A promotion group makes sense: it handles tasks offline, in conferences for example. It needs funding and to convey the Wikimedia brands.
I would like to understand how a bug resolution group enters in the Affiliations Committee scope.
The fact that MediaWiki Groups are also Wikimedia Groups (and therefore under the scope of the Affiliations Committee) has some extra advantages for groups willing to grow, and little (zero?) disadvantages for the rest:
- We assimilate MediaWiki groups to the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Groups that had been discussed at length, instead of coming of yet something else on our own.
- We make it easier for groups needing support in the form of funding for events, travel. If you don't need this, it's fine.
I don't see the bureaucratic burden you mention. The tough part of creating a Bug Squad team is to recruit the people and keep them active as a team. Formalize that as a MediaWiki Group is just an extra mile that takes adapting a couple of existing templates and answer a couple of potential questions.
More specifically, I would like elements we noted in our own MediaWiki list.
(1) You want to have an identity as a group within the MediaWiki community and the Wikimedia movement.
Why do we want that? How resolve bug is the bug squad scope would be different than for example submit code to fix a bug? What we want to achieve?
Doing things together as a Bug Squad. Getting the attention of newcomers as a Bug Squad. Participate in related events as members of the MediaWiki Group Bug Squad.
You say: we can do all this without a MediaWiki Group, which is true. I say: organizing this as a MediaWiki Group brings little, extra effort and opens other possibilities, which is also true.
(2) You want to reach out to people interested in MediaWiki and the software powering Wikipedia in a specific area.
Please give a sample of a bug specific outreach activity.
We will organize bug triaging sprints and training sessions. We want to reach out to volunteers helping ad joining the Bug Squad. We might want to go to events and share our experiences.
(3) You want to have officially recognized MediaWiki channels like a mailing list, a microblogging user account...
We already have a lot of channels. Instead to create another one, to use #wikimedia-dev could work (it worked for previous bug squads meetings).
And nobody is suggesting a bug resolution team need to be a formal approved group to get a mailing list (see bureaucratif cost below)?
Nobody is suggesting that all groups need to create new channels. Nobody is suggesting that you need to be a group to get a new channel created.
It just makes sense to say that a formalized MediaWiki Group is in a good position to request a new channel if their members agree that it's a good idea to have it.
(4) You want to organize technical activities under the name of MediaWiki, Wikimedia or related projects like Wikipedia.
What kind of offline activites do we want to plan?
No offline plans currently.
(5) You want to obtain funding from the Wikimedia Foundation or a Wikimedia chapter.
What kind of budget to we need? To what goals?
No budget plans currently.
Then, I would like we think about cost/benefits.
Bug resolution is a core function of a software. To transform the bug resolution operations into - potentially - a bureaucratic leviathan isn't something I'm comfortable with.
I don't see where the bureaucratic leviathan comes from. This Bug Squad teamwould define its processes and would work exactly in the same way, being a formal MediaWiki Group or not.
This is a dangerous precedents to a bureaucratization of our fundamental processes. A group should be about a vision. My vision of this proposal is I clearly see this proposal as the first step in a path who will lead to a road, where we will ask new contributors to sign request CLA with copyright transfer to the Wikimedia Fundation.
Ok, you could have started with this paragraph and then I could have simply answered: W-W-WHAT!!?? :)
Your main complaint is about bureaucratization (and control, apparently). I don't know how you get to this idea but if it's because of the wording used in the Groups pages I'm willing to edit them further to sweep away this fear, uncertainty and doubt.
The idea of the Groups is precisely the opposite: to enable people to do more, do it easier and in their own way.
Sure, we would have stronger possibilities with all that, but we're speaking about resolving bugs. Couldn't we instead have a meeting on #wikimedia-dev, drafts our idea on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:WikiProject_Bug_Squad pages and start our bug resolution activites?
That is the most important part and you will need to do it in any case, yes. :) If you see any obstacle on this path caused by the MediaWiki Groups process let me know.
Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
This is a dangerous precedents to a bureaucratization of our fundamental processes. A group should be about a vision. My vision of this proposal is I clearly see this proposal as the first step in a path who will lead to a road, where we will ask new contributors to sign request CLA with copyright transfer to the Wikimedia Fundation.
Ok, you could have started with this paragraph and then I could have simply answered: W-W-WHAT!!?? :)
Your main complaint is about bureaucratization (and control, apparently). I don't know how you get to this idea but if it's because of the wording used in the Groups pages I'm willing to edit them further to sweep away this fear, uncertainty and doubt.
The idea of the Groups is precisely the opposite: to enable people to do more, do it easier and in their own way.
[...]
I think the problem with some groups is that if you are not in the group, you're not in the group. Do you need to join the Bug Squad to squash bugs? What happens if you triage/ fix a bug without consulting them? Will they feel that their "territory" has been infringed, their rules have not been followed and maybe withdraw from MediaWiki development as a consequence especially when they thought of joining the Bug Squad as a commitment and sacrifice to the community with some powers and prestige as reward?
This doesn't happen in groups defined by geography who do not have any other responsibility, but I certainly share Sébastien's concern about groups targetting other fields.
Tim
On 12/27/2012 10:34 AM, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
I think the problem with some groups is that if you are not in the group, you're not in the group. Do you need to join the Bug Squad to squash bugs?
Of course not. You don't need to join the Browser Testing team to define test cases, the Promotion team to promote MediaWiki, etc.
Bug Squad teams have existed in software projects for a while now. They don't limit people's permissions to triage bugs. If anything, formal bug squad teams should be helpful to identify more & better the people deserving extra permissions... By the way, even MediaWiki attempted to have a formal https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_Squad . The fact of doing this as a MediaWiki Group changes nothing.
What happens if you triage/ fix a bug without consulting them? Will they feel that their "territory" has been infringed, their rules have not been followed and maybe withdraw from MediaWiki development as a consequence especially when they thought of joining the Bug Squad as a commitment and sacrifice to the community with some powers and prestige as reward?
... whatever happens in the life of these teams will depend on the people forming them, not on the fact that they are a MediaWiki Group or not.
By the way, some principles and rules (apart from common sense) already exist for anybody interested in bug handling:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management
This doesn't happen in groups defined by geography who do not have any other responsibility, but I certainly share Sébastien's concern about groups targetting other fields.
Still concerned?
Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
This doesn't happen in groups defined by geography who do not have any other responsibility, but I certainly share Sébastien's concern about groups targetting other fields.
Still concerned?
Yes :-). In my experience, creating groups will keep some from lending a hand because they don't want to sign up for anything, and keep some from engaging outside the "chain of command" because they don't want to step on someone's toes.
Unfortunately, I don't have any data backing this up, but you will have in some time :-). So let's just see how the numbers add up in summer.
Tim
On 12/28/2012 11:30 AM, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
This doesn't happen in groups defined by geography who do not have any other responsibility, but I certainly share Sébastien's concern about groups targetting other fields.
Still concerned?
Yes :-). In my experience, creating groups will keep some from lending a hand because they don't want to sign up for anything, and keep some from engaging outside the "chain of command" because they don't want to step on someone's toes.
That is also my experience. Oh, and the opposite is my experience as well. :D Humans are amazing beasts, especially around social structures.
In any case we are not inventing anything here:
http://techbase.kde.org/Contribute/Bugsquad https://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/ https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/ https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/ https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/QA_Team
and long etc.
It would be interesting to know more about https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_Squad - why was created and why got stalled. That experience surely contains many good lesson for the proposed MediaWiki Group Bug Squad.
Unfortunately, I don't have any data backing this up, but you will have in some time :-). So let's just see how the numbers add up in summer.
Actually what matters is whether *you* will contribute handling bug reports. If you feel like you are contributing less and the ultimate cause is that a formal group exists, please report here - and don't wait until the Summer!
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/27/2012 07:38 AM, Sébastien Santoro wrote: I don't see the bureaucratic burden you mention. The tough part of creating a Bug Squad team is to recruit the people and keep them active as a team. Formalize that as a MediaWiki Group is just an extra mile that takes adapting a couple of existing templates and answer a couple of potential questions.
To create a non-profit organization for a bug squad team is something I would qualify of "bureaucratic burden".
This is a requirement of the Affiliations Committee (previously the Chapters Committee).
Here an extract from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_thematic_organization...
"The thematic organization must have a legal structure/corporation that is legally independent from the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thematic organizations are meant to give a real-life structure to projects that might arise from contributors or external parties in line with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, thematic organizations are not meant to operate the Wikimedia projects nor to be legally responsible for the content of the projects. In order to achieve that, it is necessary that the legal structure chosen for the creation of a thematic organization is clearly independent from the Wikimedia Foundation."
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Sébastien Santoro dereckson@espace-win.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/27/2012 07:38 AM, Sébastien Santoro wrote: I don't see the bureaucratic burden you mention. The tough part of creating a Bug Squad team is to recruit the people and keep them active as a team. Formalize that as a MediaWiki Group is just an extra mile that takes adapting a couple of existing templates and answer a couple of potential questions.
To create a non-profit organization for a bug squad team is something I would qualify of "bureaucratic burden".
This is a requirement of the Affiliations Committee (previously the Chapters Committee).
Here an extract from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_thematic_organization...
We advance on the topic. A MediaWiki group won't be a thematic organization but an user group.
Formalities for user groups differ: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_user_groups
"User groups may be incorporated, in which case, they must be legally independent from the Wikimedia Foundation.
User groups are meant to give a real-life structure to projects that might arise from contributors or external parties in line with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, user groups are not meant to operate the Wikimedia projects nor to be legally responsible for the content of the projects. In order to achieve that, it is necessary that if a legal structure is chosen for the creation of a user group, it should be clearly independent from the Wikimedia Foundation."
And:
"When the user group signs a trademark or grants agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation, the contact person must be ready to provide their contact details and to be identified to the Wikimedia Foundation (for example by providing a copy or a scan of their ID to the Foundation)."
So we're speaking about potential need to incorporation and potential trademark agreements.
But this isn't a bureaucratic road. Okay...
On 12/27/2012 05:04 PM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
So we're speaking about potential need to incorporation and potential trademark agreements.
But this isn't a bureaucratic road. Okay...
It specifically says "may be incorporated" not "must be incorporated". MediaWiki groups may allow that kind of formalization, but I don't see any evidence it is required.
Matt Flaschen
On 12/27/2012 02:31 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 12/27/2012 05:04 PM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
So we're speaking about potential need to incorporation and potential trademark agreements.
But this isn't a bureaucratic road. Okay...
It specifically says "may be incorporated" not "must be incorporated". MediaWiki groups may allow that kind of formalization, but I don't see any evidence it is required.
It is not required. This is another example of possibilities for growth that MediaWiki Groups have. If one day MediaWiki Group Bug Squad has a chance to become a non-profit and hire 20 people they have a framework to do it. If they just want to keep being a team of volunteers circulating around a wiki page and a mailing list they can also do it. :)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org