[Wikisource-l] Proofreading

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Mon, 10/12/09, 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: Monday, October 12, 2009, 2:00 PM

Thanks teak for you trying to moderate that problem.
Even if we are complaining about ThomasV attitudes, in general we (I hope I speak for the majority of  the community-  but I'm sure about that) like the tool, and we also would like to take benefit of it's advantages if possible even in the future. In general terms spoken it is an improvement in comparison to the old tool. That is the reason why we convert our old projects.

ThomasV basic ideas in the human interface of the tool are not so bad . His new ideas with the index-page are good to (smaller quirks can be eliminated).

Our problem is, that there is no communication in advance what will happen and when. Every time we see the reaults after the change. The second thing is that ThomasV exactly knows what our key points are -  they have been discussed to often, everytime he made an incompatible change in his tool - but from my personal point of view is not willing to find a solution which would be best for both sides.

***

The thing you are missing is that this is not what ThomasV wants vs. what de.WS wants.  It is making the tool compatible with the workings of multiple Wikisources or one Wikisource.  That he has chosen to no longer spend time on custom configurations for the one Wikisource that wants it differently is his choice.  It is his time after all.

Regarding advance communication.  Certainly there must be advance copies of these updates out there in test environments if you were to look for them, just as there is with any code updates.  No one makes such advance announcements about any changes in code that I have ever seen.  At least no one tells en.WS.  Yet I am sure the information is being discussed and tested somewhere in development circles.  I can't understand why ThomasV should be obliged to go around to all the different Wikisources announcing his plans when no other developer does this.  While I agree that communication about these things could be better, it is not a fault against ThomasV but rather a systematic issue.  There should be a central place to follow all updates in the pipeline.  (Maybe there even is one already, but I don't know about it)

Birgitte SB