Pine, I believe your points are very valid and relevant
To know of the process WMF is using is a basic demand, in order for
users to know what to expect and how to relate to releases.
To know what process is used is not the same as asking for more
bureaucracy. Even a process description like "we let all programmers
release in whatever status of quality they want" (if that would be true)
is better then today, as it gives clarification
Then, but secondary to this demand of clarification, and also very
important is that WMF is using a process on par with what is needed in
this environment. And the process description could very well, (in order
to allow for agile programming), only focus on criteria for releases,
and skip how to get there
Anders
Pine W skrev 2014-09-21 10:24:
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>