[Wikisource-l] Proofreading

[Birgitte SB]

It is stupid but it is not simple.  Nor is it just nine lines of codes, unless you intend to withdraw all the rest.  Frankly forking the extension is not my first preference.  But I think it is improbable for the lot of you to act with either the cool rationality or the warm graciousness that would be required to heal the very complicated damage done to your relationship.  I find ending the relationship entirely to be merely the better of the probable outcomes, not the absolute best.  That is what leads me to encourage it.

Birgitte SB

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, Michael Jörgens <joergens.mic at googlemail.com> wrote:

> From: Michael Jörgens <joergens.mic at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading
> To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 12:22 PM
> Brigitte,this  is simply stupid (No
> I'm not saying that your a stupid). We are talking abot
> 9 lines of code, and the communities, which want to stick to
> no IP's, have this by default, without any change in
> behaviour und usage. This extension is fully form fit
> function compatible to the existing system.  There is no
> reason of technically forking, and 
> 
> I think the german language ws is the community
> with longest experience with the hard rules
> like-proofreading twice-the must of
> scans.
> 
> 
> 2009/11/18 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> 
> To clarify
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the forking discussion to mean soley forking
> the development of the Proofreadpage extension.  This would
> result in two versions of the extension; each maintained by
> separate developers.  The various Wikisource subdomains
> could each choose which version they wanted to have
> installed locally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Birgitte SB
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 11/18/09, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com>
> 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading
> 
> > To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free
> library" <wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 11:43 AM
> 
> > There are NO
> considerations in the
> 
> > German Wikisource Community to fork
> 
> > in another way than technically, only regarding the
> 
> > Wikimedia
> 
> > Software.
> 
> >
> 
> > We will definitively remain part of the Wikisource
> 
> > branches.
> 
> >
> 
> > ThomasV has definitvely denied any cooperation with
> the
> 
> > German
> 
> > community. When choosen to administrator he had
> promised to
> 
> > make java
> 
> > script programming for the German community. In the
> now
> 
> > running
> 
> > deadministration process he has said that he is
> unwillingly
> 
> > to do so.
> 
> >
> 
> > German Wikisource needs a developer with SVN access -
> 
> > that's the only
> 
> > solution IMHO.
> 
> >
> 
> > Klaus Graf
> 
> >
> 
> > 2009/11/18 Jesse (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com>:
> 
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Cecil <cecilatwp at gmail.com>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> > >> So this patch seemed like a great solution.
> It
> 
> > would not change anything for
> 
> > >> any of the other Wikisources (unless they
> want
> 
> > it). But our programmer has
> 
> > >> no access to SVN and can't upload the
> patch
> 
> > himself and so we once again
> 
> > >> stand in front of a block: ThomasV is not
> willing
> 
> > to accept this patch
> 
> > >> (which probably means that even if our
> programmer
> 
> > would be able to update
> 
> > >> the code ThomasV would revert the patch).
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Hello,
> 
> > >
> 
> > > I think this patch is a good solution. Ideally
> the
> 
> > German community
> 
> > > should have a developer of its own, to help
> 
> > de-Wikisource in the same
> 
> > > way ThomasV helps en-Wikisource. Have you asked
> 
> > ThomasV if he would
> 
> > > apply (or at least not revert) the patch?
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Communities should avoid forking when possible,
> 
> > because this brings
> 
> > > many problems (such as needing to worry about
> 
> > stability, hosting, ads,
> 
> > > funding, brand recognition, trademarking, etc)
> while
> 
> > removing many
> 
> > > advantages (such as benefiting from Wikimedia
> 
> > developers, sysadmins,
> 
> > > fundraisers, interwiki linking, brand
> recognition,
> 
> > etc). Another
> 
> > > consideration is that if the German Wikisource
> forked,
> 
> > it could no
> 
> > > longer call itself "Wikisource" since
> that name is
> 
> > owned by the
> 
> > > Wikimedia Foundation. The community would also
> need to
> 
> > find its own
> 
> > > developers anyway, when those persons could have
> 
> > gained SVN access
> 
> > > with Wikimedia without all the problems
> associated
> 
> > with forking.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > --
> 
> > > Yours cordially,
> 
> > > Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
> 
> > >
> 
> > > _______________________________________________
> 
> > > Wikisource-l mailing list
> 
> > > Wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
> 
> > >
> 
> >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> 
> > Wikisource-l mailing list
> 
> > Wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> 
> Wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>