Yaron,
By deciding to not allow the coc.md in your extension repositories at
gerrit, some people have publicly stated they won't contribute. You choose
a position, others have decided it's not worth the trouble. If you updated
your readme.md to be hostile, that is your own fault and would be advised
to remove such text. This is regardless of if the coc.md file is useful in
repositories. The coc does cover gerrit but as others have noted, the
method of forcefully adding to hundreds of repositories without discussions
was horrible judgement. Now can we please move on from that? pretty sure
the +2 devs learned to not repeat this in future
Kevin
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:55 PM <wikitech-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Send Wikitech-l mailing list submissions to
wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikitech-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikitech-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikitech-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Making PolyGerrit the default ui for gerrit (Paladox)
2. Re: Gerrit as a shared community space (Yaron Koren)
3. Escaping wikitext to JSON-valid string in templates (Tom Schulze)
4. Re: Gerrit as a shared community space (Moriel Schottlender)
5. Re: Gerrit as a shared community space (Moriel Schottlender)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:55:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paladox <thomasmulhall410(a)yahoo.com>
To: Wikimedia Developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Making PolyGerrit the default ui for gerrit
Message-ID: <1404388831.6108064.1528739759020(a)mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The date to switch the default ui is next monday (18/06/18) which will
give users plenty of time to give there opinion.
Users can still switch back to the old ui just the new ui is secure.
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T196812#4273184
On Monday, 11 June 2018, 13:38:20 BST, Paladox <
thomasmulhall410(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi, i have created this task [1] with i have uploaded this patch [2] to
make polygerrit the default ui.
The reason why is upstream are preparing to remove the gwtui very soon. In
matter of fact upstream have disabled the gwtui on *.googlesource.com.
Upstream already have this change [3] to remove the ui. Making PolyGerrit
the default ui will get new users use to the new ui.
GWTUI will still be available with ui switcher in the footer or you can
append the url like
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/?polygerrit=0
PolyGerrit is stable, secure and also fast. It also has features that you
cannot see in gwtui like user status, naming your patchiest (description),
cc feature and also being able to tell who added you as a reviewer.
This email is advanced notice before we change the default ui.
any bugs todo with polygerrit / gerrit can be filled at
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/330/ and we can forward it
upstream.
[1]
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T196812
[2]
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/439444
[3]
https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/c/gerrit/+/116790
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:05:11 -0400
From: Yaron Koren <yaron(a)wikiworks.com>
To: Wikimedia developers <Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Gerrit as a shared community space
Message-ID:
<CAGmQEQGor=heXkofgoCH7MO_GLZvqce5nwo=
KHjVgrbBDpbjuw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi,
Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
Quite frankly, I don't blame people who
regularly experience harassment
online to avoid spaces where the code of conduct is consciously only
enforced in parts of the space.
I, too, don't feel comfortable in joining that space, even for
considering
potential interactions that I might encounter,
and knowing that these
interactions, depending where they happen, may not be dealt with to my
personal ideal of what such space should be.
Neither I nor any other extension developers are "enforcing" the code of
conduct - that's up to a committee to do.
You stated that as far as you're concerned,
there are interactions you
purposefully don't see as being governed by the CoC.
I don't know what "purposefully" means there. There are interactions that
are not governed by the CoC - how's that?
Some developers decide that they purposefully, in
their repos, assume it
governs all interactions related to to work on the repo, and some,
apparently, do not.
If anyone is "deciding" that, they're making an incorrect decision.
Meaning, you can certainly say that you will not tolerate harassment,
discrimination, etc. in personal emails as specified by the Wikimedia Code
of Conduct - but as far as enforcement, you're on your own, unlike with the
real CoC.
Also, given that every extension had this file added in, how is a potential
contributor to know who "decided" to embrace this file's statement and who
didn't? Given the threat of harassment, it seems awfully risky to assume
that everyone who didn't delete the file supports it.
-Yaron
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM Yaron Koren <yaron(a)wikiworks.com> wrote:
Hi,
Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
This isn't a personal attack, it's a
consequence to your earlier email.
You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a COC.md
file
should exist in your repository is because not
all interactions are
covered
by it. While that might be true
technically-speaking, it does make a
statement to potential contributors about what they might expect in
terms
of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.
For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather than an
edge
case, a statement that the CoC is not fully
covering a space means we
don't
go to that space if we can help it.
Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the
maintainer
clearly stated the CoC is only partially in
effect is not a personal
attack
-- it's a consequence of what you said.
A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less
comfortable
speaking up on public threads, but would avoid
going into such spaces
all
the same. Not because of who you are personally,
but because of what
your
statement about how your space is governed
means.
Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the other
thread, let's not try to make it sound like there's a personal attack
going
on here.
No, I still think it's a personal attack. I think we've already
established that the CoC does not cover all interactions, and that the
CoC.md file is thus giving false information. Some people have stated
that
clearly, some have grudgingly admitted it, but no
one has really argued
against it. Even you note that it's "technically" true, whatever exactly
that means.
And of course, this file was put in place by a few developers - it wasn't
an opt-in choice. (It's still not 100% clear that it's even an
"opt-out"
choice, though at this point it seems to be.)
Given those two things, the presence of a CoC.md file in an extension
directory tells a potential contributor nothing - nothing about
additional
security they're getting, and nothing really
about the extension's
developers. Actually, it's worse than nothing, because it gives potential
contributors false comfort as far as the protections they'll have. If, as
you say, some people face a real danger of harassment everywhere not
covered by a code of conduct, then it's all the more reason to either
remove that file, or reword it, everywhere - so people know what they're
actually getting into.
So, why should Amir want to avoid dealing with my code specifically? Is
it
because he would have fewer protections? Clearly,
no. It must be
something
about me personally that would make him treat my
code differently from
everyone else's.
-Yaron
--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting ·
http://wikiworks.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:06:59 +0200
From: Tom Schulze <t.schulze(a)energypedia-consult.com>
To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Escaping wikitext to JSON-valid string in
templates
Message-ID:
<a2f5efc4-b746-b9ae-1750-445f973d272c(a)energypedia-consult.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hello everyone,
I am having trouble escaping and displaying wikitext in a way that is
JSON-safe. I did some research but none of the provided
MagicWords/ParserFUnctions/etc seem to be suited for this purpose.
Please refer to my gitLab snippet <https://gitlab.com/snippets/1723632>
to see the sample code of the query, template and widget.
My goal is to build up a structure like this using a widget (to load my
custom JS), a cargo query and finally a template to display the items
row by row:
<div class="item" data-item='{"content":"data from a
mediawiki form
field"}'>Description</div>
<div class="item" data-item='{"content":"data from a
mediawiki form
field"}'>Description</div>
The data is taken from a PageForms textarea form field (the user can
enter any data she wants). This piece of HTML gets parsed by a custom
Java Script on page load for further processing. As soon as characters
like single (') or double quotes (") appear, the whole JSON string gets
messed up and the JavaScript JSON parser throws errors. Even worse, the
DOM structure becomes fragmented when single quotes appear. So
client-side fixing w/ JavaScript is impossible/tedious.
Any solution is welcome, also restricting the types of characters used.
Ideally, I would just need to wrap the parameter passed from the query
to the template in some kind of Magic Word which escapes/strips out
unwanted characters.
What options do I have ? I am open for different approaches...
Kind regards,
Tom
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:37:39 -0700
From: Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Gerrit as a shared community space
Message-ID:
<CAG7VCKJeOfEfssuq2Rj94iUGVF+ezsp+4kkt=
6PQ+rNiFNEn9A(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I'm not going to get into the minutia and details of how the code of
conduct is or isn't good to work in your repo, that's a separate discussion
that I won't participate in by choice right now.
I am simply pointing out that your own points made a declaration about how
working in the space you are in looks like.
In the gerrit commit that started this thing, you, yourself, publicly wrote
this:
*"The Site Settings extension uses a bunch of WMF tools and services for
its development, including hosting. If some random person sends me a patch
for Site Settings by email, and I email them back and say "Your code sucks,
you nitwit" (or worse), am I violating the Wikimedia Code of Conduct?"*
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/SiteSettings/+/4375…
This statement, the question itself, and the fact you are asking whether
this violates the CoC means, to me, and others who are unwilling to work in
a hostile environment, that you're unsure whether this is acceptable at
all.
You might see this question as an innocent attempt to nitpick over the
specific details of whether by regulation something needs to happen.
I see it as a hint that you might **actually** think this is an acceptable
thing to do.
I don't know if you do. You might think it's not a bad response, but rather
a funny one. You might think it's acceptable because the original code
**was** stupid. I know people who think that, and that, for *their* spaces,
is valid.
But then I choose not to spend time in that space. That's valid too.
Which is why when Amir said he won't get near your code, he wasn't making a
personal attack. He was making a conclusion based on what you wrote about
the way your space operates.
That's not a personal attack no matter how much you try to shift the goal
post and talk about red herrings.
That's a consequence, and a reason of why the code of conduct was needed to
begin with.
You might accept this consequence as acceptable. That's your choice in your
space.
But don't throw that on others as if by making a conscious choice to avoid
spaces that have a danger of being toxic, they're personally attacking you.
Let's go back to the actual discussion at hand, instead.
Moriel
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 11:05 AM Yaron Koren <yaron(a)wikiworks.com> wrote:
Hi,
Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
Quite frankly, I don't blame people who
regularly experience harassment
online to avoid spaces where the code of conduct is consciously only
enforced in parts of the space.
I, too, don't feel comfortable in joining that space, even for
considering
potential interactions that I might encounter,
and knowing that these
interactions, depending where they happen, may not be dealt with to my
personal ideal of what such space should be.
Neither I nor any other extension developers are "enforcing" the code of
conduct - that's up to a committee to do.
You stated that as far as you're concerned,
there are interactions you
purposefully don't see as being governed by the CoC.
I don't know what "purposefully" means there. There are interactions that
are not governed by the CoC - how's that?
> Some developers decide that they purposefully, in their repos, assume
it
governs
all interactions related to to work on the repo, and some,
apparently, do not.
If anyone is "deciding" that, they're making an incorrect decision.
Meaning, you can certainly say that you will not tolerate harassment,
discrimination, etc. in personal emails as specified by the Wikimedia
Code
of Conduct - but as far as enforcement,
you're on your own, unlike with
the
real CoC.
Also, given that every extension had this file added in, how is a
potential
contributor to know who "decided" to
embrace this file's statement and
who
didn't? Given the threat of harassment, it
seems awfully risky to assume
that everyone who didn't delete the file supports it.
-Yaron
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM Yaron Koren <yaron(a)wikiworks.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier
email.
> >
> > You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a COC.md
> file
> > should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are
> covered
> > by it. While that might be true technically-speaking, it does make a
> > statement to potential contributors about what they might expect in
> terms
> > of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.
> >
> > For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather than
an
> edge
> > case, a statement that the CoC is not fully covering a space means
we
> don't
> > go to that space if we can help it.
> >
> > Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the
> maintainer
> > clearly stated the CoC is only partially in effect is not a personal
> attack
> > -- it's a consequence of what you said.
> > A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less
> comfortable
> > speaking up on public threads, but would avoid going into such
spaces
> all
> > the same. Not because of who you are personally, but because of what
> your
> > statement about how your space is governed means.
> >
> > Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the
other
> > thread, let's not try to make it
sound like there's a personal
attack
going
on here.
No, I still think it's a personal attack. I think we've already
established that the CoC does not cover all interactions, and that the
CoC.md file is thus giving false information. Some people have stated
that
> clearly, some have grudgingly admitted it, but no one has really argued
> against it. Even you note that it's "technically" true, whatever
exactly
> that means.
>
> And of course, this file was put in place by a few developers - it
wasn't
> an opt-in choice. (It's still not 100%
clear that it's even an
"opt-out"
choice,
though at this point it seems to be.)
Given those two things, the presence of a CoC.md file in an extension
directory tells a potential contributor nothing - nothing about
additional
> security they're getting, and nothing really about the extension's
> developers. Actually, it's worse than nothing, because it gives
potential
> contributors false comfort as far as the
protections they'll have. If,
as
> you say, some people face a real danger of
harassment everywhere not
> covered by a code of conduct, then it's all the more reason to either
> remove that file, or reword it, everywhere - so people know what
they're
> > actually getting into.
> >
> > So, why should Amir want to avoid dealing with my code specifically? Is
> it
>
because he would have fewer protections?
Clearly, no. It must be
> something
> > about me personally that would make him treat my code differently from
> > everyone else's.
> >
> > -Yaron
> >
>
>
> --
> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting ·
http://wikiworks.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:55:11 -0700
From: Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Gerrit as a shared community space
Message-ID:
<
CAG7VCK+Pu149uCipWLA-21uCH1PZsHgmok3uN44D7g6CJAD4CQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Heh, an apology here, my autocorrect "fixed" your name, Yaron. I apologize
for that and should have caught it.
... The trouble of multilingual corrections.
Moriel
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 11:37 AM Moriel Schottlender <
mschottlender(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I'm not going to get into the minutia and
details of how the code of
conduct is or isn't good to work in your repo, that's a separate
discussion
that I won't participate in by choice right
now.
I am simply pointing out that your own points made a declaration about
how
working in the space you are in looks like.
In the gerrit commit that started this thing, you, yourself, publicly
wrote this:
*"The Site Settings extension uses a bunch of WMF tools and services for
its development, including hosting. If some random person sends me a
patch
for Site Settings by email, and I email them back
and say "Your code
sucks,
you nitwit" (or worse), am I violating the
Wikimedia Code of Conduct?"*
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/SiteSettings/+/4375…
This statement, the question itself, and the fact you are asking whether
this violates the CoC means, to me, and others who are unwilling to work
in
a hostile environment, that you're unsure
whether this is acceptable at
all.
You might see this question as an innocent
attempt to nitpick over the
specific details of whether by regulation something needs to happen.
I see it as a hint that you might **actually** think this is an
acceptable
thing to do.
I don't know if you do. You might think it's not a bad response, but
rather a funny one. You might think it's acceptable because the original
code **was** stupid. I know people who think that, and that, for *their*
spaces, is valid.
But then I choose not to spend time in that space. That's valid too.
Which is why when Amir said he won't get near your code, he wasn't making
a personal attack. He was making a conclusion based on what you wrote
about
the way your space operates.
That's not a personal attack no matter how much you try to shift the goal
post and talk about red herrings.
That's a consequence, and a reason of why the code of conduct was needed
to begin with.
You might accept this consequence as acceptable. That's your choice in
your space.
But don't throw that on others as if by making a conscious choice to
avoid
spaces that have a danger of being toxic,
they're personally attacking
you.
Let's go back to the actual discussion at hand, instead.
Moriel
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 11:05 AM Yaron Koren <yaron(a)wikiworks.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Quite frankly, I don't blame people who regularly experience
harassment
> > online to avoid spaces where the code of
conduct is consciously only
> > enforced in parts of the space.
> > I, too, don't feel comfortable in joining that space, even for
> considering
> > potential interactions that I might encounter, and knowing that these
> > interactions, depending where they happen, may not be dealt with to my
> > personal ideal of what such space should be.
>
> Neither I nor any other extension developers are "enforcing" the code of
> conduct - that's up to a committee to do.
>
> > You stated that as far as you're concerned, there are interactions you
> > purposefully don't see as being governed by the CoC.
>
> I don't know what "purposefully" means there. There are interactions
that
> are not governed by the CoC - how's
that?
>
> > Some developers decide that they purposefully, in their repos, assume
it
> > governs all interactions related to to
work on the repo, and some,
> > apparently, do not.
>
> If anyone is "deciding" that, they're making an incorrect decision.
> Meaning, you can certainly say that you will not tolerate harassment,
> discrimination, etc. in personal emails as specified by the Wikimedia
Code
> of Conduct - but as far as enforcement,
you're on your own, unlike with
> the
> real CoC.
>
> Also, given that every extension had this file added in, how is a
> potential
> contributor to know who "decided" to embrace this file's statement and
who
> didn't? Given the threat of harassment,
it seems awfully risky to assume
> that everyone who didn't delete the file supports it.
>
> -Yaron
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM Yaron Koren <yaron(a)wikiworks.com>
wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier
> email.
> > >
> > > You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a
COC.md
> > file
> > > should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are
> > covered
> > > by it. While that might be true technically-speaking, it does make
a
> > > statement to potential
contributors about what they might expect in
> > terms
> > > of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.
> > >
> > > For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather
than
> an
> > edge
> > > case, a statement that the CoC is not fully covering a space means
we
> > don't
> > > go to that space if we can help it.
> > >
> > > Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the
> > maintainer
> > > clearly stated the CoC is only partially in effect is not a
personal
> > attack
> > > -- it's a consequence of what you said.
> > > A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less
> > comfortable
> > > speaking up on public threads, but would avoid going into such
spaces
> > all
> > > the same. Not because of who you are personally, but because of
what
> > your
> > > statement about how your space is governed means.
> > >
> > > Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the
> other
> > > thread, let's not try to make it sound like there's a personal
attack
> > going
> > > on here.
> >
> > No, I still think it's a personal attack. I think we've already
> > established that the CoC does not cover all interactions, and that the
> > CoC.md file is thus giving false information. Some people have stated
> that
> > clearly, some have grudgingly admitted it, but no one has really
argued
> > against it. Even you note that it's
"technically" true, whatever
exactly
> > that means.
> >
> > And of course, this file was put in place by a few developers - it
> wasn't
> > an opt-in choice. (It's still not 100% clear that it's even an
"opt-out"
> > choice, though at this point it seems to
be.)
> >
> > Given those two things, the presence of a CoC.md file in an extension
> > directory tells a potential contributor nothing - nothing about
> additional
> > security they're getting, and nothing really about the extension's
> > developers. Actually, it's worse than nothing, because it gives
> potential
> > contributors false comfort as far as the protections they'll have. If,
> as
> > you say, some people face a real danger of harassment everywhere not
> > covered by a code of conduct, then it's all the more reason to either
> > remove that file, or reword it, everywhere - so people know what
they're
> > actually getting into.
> >
> > So, why should Amir want to avoid dealing with my code specifically?
Is
>> it
>>
because he would have fewer protections?
Clearly, no. It must be
>> something
>> > about me personally that would make him treat my code differently from
>> > everyone else's.
>> >
>> > -Yaron
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting ·
http://wikiworks.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
------------------------------
End of Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 179, Issue 27
*******************************************