Hoi,
The problem is not so much in expected standards, it is in realistic
standards. The latest announcement of the improvement in speed was welcomed
by someone stating "I do not give a fuck because my tool does not woirk
with this crap".
There are two issues, tools break and are not part of the product and it
has become the way people approach development. There is hardly any
appreciation or respect for the work done.
I am not convinced at al by your proposall, actually I feel quite the
contrary. I expect this will be counter productive. My feeling is that it
enables to score points in the blame games .
Thanks,
GerardM
On 21 September 2014 10:24, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Given longtime experience with problematic releases
of MediaWiki features,
I think that published quality standards that products must meet in order
to become production releases could help to limit the number and
seriousness of additional troubled launches. These standards would also
reduce the ambiguity around terms like alpha and beta.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>