[WikiEN-l] Developer/Wiki relationship (was: Deployments today)

[Alec Conroy]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Morton
<morton.thomas at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Those problems are to do with editor interaction, poisonous atmosphere,
> lack of communication - but not the sort that can be solved by slapping a
> "template" on the page.

Editors fight because we throw them into an arena.   Arenas have lots
of benefits, but they're a tad stressful for most.
When we open up something that's not an arena, we'll get to keep the
editors who like our mission but hate our bloodsport.

> The other problem is that it somewhat undermines and trivialises what a
> barnstar is.

For what it's worth, I used the tool today, I LOVED it-- but it did
occur to me that others would be troubled by the 'barnstar inflation'
effects.   Not a big deal to me at all, I loved the tool, I didn't
even think to mention the barnstar inflation concern in my feedback--
but we should listen up to see if that's a prevalent concern.


> However English Wikipedia is also strongly *independent *and makes its own
> decisions. Major changes to how the software works, or to the UI (especially
> if it affects the social infrastructure too) is instantly controversial and
> should be discussed with the community.

So, seriously no criticism of the developers who did this-- it's
great.  I too would have rolled it out immediately,  I too didn't
think it would be controversial.

If we have a controversial change we think is a good idea,  then the
solution would be to let "large" projects independently decide of
their own free will whether to implement a software change.   Some
projects are very small, they just want the default.  En and de are
two languages that I think _are_ very strong in their traditions of
authorial independence, and I'm sure there are many others that also
have strong, functioning self-governance capable of making these
decisions.

I wouldn't beat myself up over in this case-- it's small change, it
seemed like even worse-case it would just be 'unpopular', not
controversial.

> So the question that this leads me to is this: what can we do to improve
> communication between these two groups.

We have to "wikify" the the foundation processes and the development
processes.     Currently, we're a cyborg-- a mass of living cells
melded to a US 501(3)(c) corporation and it's staff.   Slowly,
gradually, without upsetting the applecart, we have to "wikify" the
functions performed by the professionals.

That doesn't mean we get ride of the foundation or the professionals--
we just interact with the better and try to erase the barriers between
the groups.

My suggestions for better communication are:
* Staff and devs should do as much of their work in public except in
cases of SERIOUS, NO-CHOICE.  As much as possible, show emails, show
code, show everything.   This will help the community understand
what's happening, why it's happening, and how it came to happen.
* In some cases, teams might use a  "community conduit" person--
someone from the community responsible not for directly advising the
team, but for neutrally soliciting advice  from the community on the
current direction.
* Let a project "turn the key".   If you give a car, you put a ribbon
on it and let them turn the key.  You don't kidnap and sedate them so
that they can wake up an already-running car.   Project communities
enjoy "here's the new thing, take it for a spin", they don't enjoy
"You'll have it and you'll like it".    Let the authorities of a local
project 'turn the key', don't force it upon them.

Again, I didn't see Wikilove as being controversial-- but since it
was, at least in part--- this is how we do better next time.
Alec