A comment that may be useful.
I think that everyone has a need and a jury tool can fit some needs more than another... so the jury tool may be more than one.
The approaches are two:
a) someone select the "official jury tool" but the community can be a lot unstaisfied b) the jury tool is something personal like a tool developed in Toolserver and he/she promotes his/her own tool and the community has several options
Personally I like the option b because it's really hard that a tool can fit the needs of all countries.
The IEG may support one or two Jury tools, what is important is to clarify why the IEG must finance them.
So, instead of killing the jury tool of the competitor, using the vision to have only one but poorly developed cause the long fight, I suggest to look for financial support, to propose several tools and to have the community choosing the most appropriated.
This is how the information technology should work: the user is the main objective of the information technology, to be selected by the users select, this is the best result.
regards
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Ynhockey ynhockey@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really want to make people hate me here, and mean absolutely no offense to you personally, but for now I don't see the need for this grant at all. Here are the reasons:
- The tool works, but even if it didn't, we have the older tool which I
developed (aside from bugs, most of which have been fixed, I received no complaints about it, and it was used successfully by national teams as well as the international team). At the same time, Ilya just said he was developing his own tool. 2) Even if we needed three tools, the other two are being developed for free by volunteers. Our movement has a thing against paying someone for something that others are willingly doing for free/ 3) You seem to be a great developer, and we have a bunch of tools that do need to be written / maintained! If you could delve into those, I would definitely support your grant. For instance, a simple statistical tool for how much each monument was photographed, etc. Platonides, Emilio and others developed such tools, but they are not always maintained, and these developers are not currently part of the international team (if you guys are reading this, we want you back :) ).
—Yan (User:Ynhockey).
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ilya Korniyko intracer@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'm the developer (putting it clear) of another jury tool (surprize!) and made some critical comments
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IEG/Modernize_the_Wiki_Loves_Mon...
Regards, Ilya
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 4:50 AM, David Narvaez < david.narvaez@computer.org> wrote:
Hi all,
(CCing some jury tool users outside of the WLM realm)
I am drafting an IEG to get funding to work on the jury tool in the next couple of months:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Modernize_the_Wiki_Loves_Monument...
I would appreciate if past/present/future users of the tool could review the grant and give some feedback and/or endorse it.
Thanks.
David E. Narvaez
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org