[Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 5:22 PM
>> On 28 September 2010 18:10, Birgitte
>> SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Without having formed in opinion either way to what
>> has come out of the
>> > trial or the straw polls, I don't understand why there
>> is such importance
>> > placed on *technically* disabling the feature.
>> If en.WP doesn't want to use
>> > it, why don't they not just move all the articles back
>> to semi-protection?
>> >  Empty out the pending changes from the on-wiki
>> interface. This would likely
>> > have to be done *before* disabling it anyways. Just
>> because the extension is
>> > installed doesn't mean it has to be used. I can see no
>> reason why Erik or
>> > Danese should be being asked to determine consensus.
>> >
>>
>> Nobody was asking Erik or Danese to determine consensus.
>> They were asked to
>> give their word that our consensus would be respected after
>> the polling of
>> the community following a second trial. Consensus doesn't
>> mean majority
>> rule, as has always been very clear on this project.
>>
>> It's now on record that any further trials are moot, and
>> that the tool is
>> going to be left in place with absolutely no intention of
>> disabling it
>> regardless of the wishes of the project.
>
> And how should they know what the consensus is which they should promise to respect without determining it?   They can't very well just turn off an extension while it is use on hundreds of articles.  If the consensus is so clear (that Danese and Erik would not be required to make a judgment call) that en.WP doesn't want to use Pending Changes, then why are en.WP users *still using it*?
>
>
>> >
>> > I get that this is an important political issue for
>> various people.  I
>> > don't get why the devs are being focused on.
>> Please let the devs out of the
>> > argument. I can't imagine why any of them would want
>> to touch that button
>> > with a ten-foot pole until you have clearly
>> decided.  Especially as it isn't
>> > really necessary for them to be involved in achieving
>> a negative result.
>> >
>> >
>> The developers were being focused on because they have been
>> the face of this
>> project from Day One, and all communication with the
>> community has been
>> through them.
>>
>
> And since it has worked so very well, you think it best continue with that pattern?
>
> Seriously, do whatever you want to about Pending Changes on en.WP.  You are complaining about WMF not respecting en.WP decisions.  You don't need some formal announcement of respect.  Just make your own decisions without asking WMF to approve.  That is what real respect is.  Is something you give to yourself by having confidence enough in your decisions to move forward with them.  Asking others to promise to approve of your decisions undermines respect.  There is a giant gap between not interfering with a decision and endorsing it.  And respect is only about the former.  WMF doesn't need and shouldn't have to go around endorsing decisions made on each of the wikis. In this aspect, en.WP has failed to mature to the level of most of the other wikis for far to long.  Self-governing means doing it yourself.
>
> I don't think you realize how absolutely disrespectful tone of the entire "en.WP wants to trial run an implementation of Flagged Revisions" has come across to me as someone who is associated with other WMF wikis. From the very beginning and still continuing with your recent posts; and I even edit en.WP significantly.  Do you realize the development man-hours that have been put into adapting the extension to the very specific set of requirements that en.WP demanded on having before you all were even willing to even talk about whether you might permanently use it?  And the entire time you all constantly complained about what was taking the devs so long to fulfill your detailed demands? (It was at some phases comparatively quick or at the very worst normal)  I frankly hope you all decide to stop using Pending Changes and to forget about ever further testing it.  Maybe then some developer will find some time to work on Lilypond.  Or *any* somewhat functional
>  way to do musical notation.  I am not picky at all, because what there is now is NOTHING.  And that is Bug 189; as in it was the one-hundred and eighty ninth bug placed on Bugzilla back in 2004. And even if not Bug 189, there may more be time for one of the numerous other development issues which is not even a blip on en.WP's political radar.  Just hopefully, at the very least, it will be something that can possibly be used somewhere else in WMF land *in addition* to en.WP.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> Here is a challenge for anyone else on the list who is as turned-off as I am about how many of the en.WP editors have approached this whole issue from Day 1:  Let's make an effort only to respond to threads for the rest of the year when we can provide examples of the issues from wikis other than en.WP.


Ah.... Can we calm this down?

I've not had the bandwidth to be closely involved in Pending Changes
on enwiki, so I speak here in generalities and without detailed
understanding of the objections.

Risker is obviously very involved, and from prior experience I assume
would not be making a stink on Foundation-L without representing at
least a sizeable minority of people who have voiced opinions.

Birgitte, I understand that other projects need to be represented in
the discussions.  That should happen constructively, not
confrontationally.

I am somewhat floundering in the dark, without the bandwidth to go
chase down and understand all the poll results and side discussions.
I am muchly desiring of specifics rather than generalities,
personally.

Is there a precis on enwiki on the objections after the first trial?
Can one be written up for Foundation-L if there isn't a convenient
summary on-wiki?


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com