Hi, the Engineering Community team is working on a plan to evolve onto a Developer Relations team. This is not just a change of name. See
*https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relation... https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relations_team*
Your feedback is welcome, in the wiki page or here.
Related task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T97283
Hi Quim,
A scope expansion for your team makes sense to me. I have two questions.
1. Does your team currently have the capacity for this scope expansion, with only existing staff, while continuing to support the existing Community Engineering mission?
2. Will the team continue to have goals related to code review?
Pine On Jun 29, 2015 2:01 PM, "Quim Gil" qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, the Engineering Community team is working on a plan to evolve onto a Developer Relations team. This is not just a change of name. See
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relation... < https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relation...
Your feedback is welcome, in the wiki page or here.
Related task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T97283
Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Quim,
A scope expansion for your team makes sense to me. I have two questions.
- Does your team currently have the capacity for this scope expansion,
with only existing staff, while continuing to support the existing Community Engineering mission?
The Engineering Community team can do less of what has been doing if we collaborate better with other colleagues: Community Liaisons, Team Practices, Release Engineering, product owners, lead developers, the upcoming Community Tech team, WMDE's young TCB-Team... https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T101116
And of course we can do less if we collaborate better with the developer community (example: GSoC / Outreachy / Google Code-in are running better every year, a main factor being the increasing quantity and quality of volunteer involvement).
Then some tasks can take the change without much impact in total amount of work. For instance, organizing a developer summit in San Francisco including a track for web APIs targeted to developers from the SF Bay Area.
So yes, we believe we have capacity to start this move and make some progress. How much, how quick, and how well will depend on several factors. We will do our best showing results with the resources we have, and only then requesting more resourcing via alignment of goals with other teams or growing our own capacity.
2. Will the team continue to have goals related to code review?
More than ever, check the following quarters in our roadmap. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T101099
Without a proper code review process, this team is likely to fail in one of its measurements of success: Number of volunteer and third party developers contributing to our open source projects, and volume of their merged code contributions.
On Jun 29, 2015 3:01 PM, "Quim Gil" qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, the Engineering Community team is working on a plan to evolve onto a Developer Relations team. This is not just a change of name. See
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relation...
<
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relation...
Your feedback is welcome, in the wiki page or here.
Related task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T97283
Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Interesting. I like a lot of this.
I think perhaps you should define your target groups more clearly. You are using the phrase "developer" and "third party developer" to refer to different groups of people than I usually refer to with those words. Which is fine, i understood what you meant, but if there is the potential for different people to interpret those words differently, perhaps they should have stated definitions to avoid confusion.
The types of developers section kind of confuses me. Is it saying that the wmf focus of mw api users has been labs users only? Because i think wmf has focused on a much broader section of api users than that.
I think it might be a useful idea to expand this section into an enumeration of all the different type of tech people into broad classes, and document the sorts of things they work on, so we know who the target audiance of this project is. If there are tech people who are explicitly out of scope, i think it should be explicitly documented who is definitely not a target or who is tangently a target as time permits but id largely out of scope.
" Modern, simple-to-use, well-documented APIs are a prerequisite for
success. Therefore, if we want to be successful at partnerships, distribution and user acquisition, we too must have multiple APIs that are modern and well-documented."
I disagree with this statement. The key to success is apis that provide the required information in as easy to access way as possible. Modern is mostly in the eye of the beholder, and chasing after whatever is the most recent fad is not always best for our users (but sure, we dont want to be using some forgotten design paradigm from the 90s either). The number of apis is also fairly irrelevent, all that matters is if they fulfil the need properly. Simple to use is great, but depending on what the api is trying to achieve, sometimes flexibility and power is more important.
We should be considering our apis like any other piece of software: who are the stakeholders, and what are they trying to achieve. From there all other considerations should flow.
-- Bawolff
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
I think perhaps you should define your target groups more clearly.
Yes, agreed. You are not the first one pointing at this problem of definitions of types of developers.
The types of developers section kind of confuses me. Is it saying that the
wmf focus of mw api users has been labs users only?
No, it tries to explain that Wikimedia Lab Tools Developers have a focus on Wikimedia (the mission, the movement, etc) and Wikimedia Web APIs. Other types of developers focus on their own projects as opposed to Wikimedia's and/or focus on MediaWiki and extensions as opposed to web APIs.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relation...
I think it might be a useful idea to expand this section into an enumeration of all the different type of tech people into broad classes, and document the sorts of things they work on, so we know who the target audiance of this project is. If there are tech people who are explicitly out of scope, i think it should be explicitly documented who is definitely not a target or who is tangently a target as time permits but id largely out of scope.
Will do. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T104385
I disagree with this statement.
Such statement has been edited. Check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relation... (and feel free editing further)
Thank you!
Quim Gil wrote:
Hi, the Engineering Community team is working on a plan to evolve onto a Developer Relations team. This is not just a change of name. See
Your feedback is welcome, in the wiki page or here.
Related task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T97283
Hi.
In the "Developer offering" section, I see "APIs to extract, publish, edit, and monitor Wikimedia content from external apps and services." Does this mean that your team will be developing new APIs? For example, to add or remove a category from a page. Or to extract information out of Wiktionary and Wikisource.
"Developer Relations" makes me think this is closer to public relations, or marketing and branding for Wikimedia's APIs. I'm not sure that's a good use of resources. Event coordination seems like a much better fit.
I see mentions of "Wikimedia Developer Summit 2016" and "Wikimedia Hackathon 2016" on the page. Has the MediaWiki Developer Summit been renamed? And is the Wikimedia Hackathon the one that takes place at Wikimania or a different one?
Can someone please remind me why dev.wikimedia.org is needed? We have https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_contribute linked from the footer of every Wikimedia wiki as a "Developers" link. If you want a shorter, more memorable URL, can't we just make dev.wikimedia.org a redirect to the "How to contribute" page and be done with it? Any additional documentation and showcasing can be done on mediawiki.org wiki pages. Why all the fuss?
MZMcBride
About https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relation...
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:32 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
In the "Developer offering" section, I see "APIs to extract, publish, edit, and monitor Wikimedia content from external apps and services." Does this mean that your team will be developing new APIs?
No, we will coordinate with the teams developing Web APIs, contributing to the documentation and promotion of these APIs. We will also help channeling feedback received from developers about bugs or missing features related to these APIs.
"Developer Relations" makes me think this is closer to public relations, or marketing and branding for Wikimedia's APIs. I'm not sure that's a good use of resources. Event coordination seems like a much better fit.
"Developer Relations" is a quite standard name for this quite standard function. We can discuss about the name, but what matters is the mission, strategy, and measurement of success of this team as defined in the proposal. Event coordination is part of this work, but there is more.
I see mentions of "Wikimedia Developer Summit 2016" and "Wikimedia
Hackathon 2016" on the page. Has the MediaWiki Developer Summit been renamed? And is the Wikimedia Hackathon the one that takes place at Wikimania or a different one?
About "Wikimedia Developer Summit", see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T104346#1417364. In any case, this is the event planned for January 2016 in San Francisco.
Wikimedia Hackathon is the event that goes after, recently held in Lyon, next one in Jerusalem.
The Wikimania Hackathon is the third major tech event.
Can someone please remind me why dev.wikimedia.org is needed? We have
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_contribute linked from the footer of every Wikimedia wiki as a "Developers" link. If you want a shorter, more memorable URL, can't we just make dev.wikimedia.org a redirect to the "How to contribute" page and be done with it? Any additional documentation and showcasing can be done on mediawiki.org wiki pages. Why all the fuss?
That part needs to be updated. Since yesterday there is no plan for a memorable URL "dev.wikimedia.org". See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T308#1437088, and your comments about this specific topic are welcomed there.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org