On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Steven Walling
<steven.walling(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Quim, I think even this first iteration is
problematic on a bunch of
fronts. 3 months as a first iteration to build several major features as
the basic proof of concept should be a sign that you're biting off too
much
in terms of scope.
I think this is somewhat exaggerated. Almost all of the things proposed can
likely be done by defining a set of semantic properties, modifying existing
templates, then adding queries into templates that can be added back into
the same templates we're already using on other pages. Defining forms is
also relatively simple for all of this. I doubt much or any of this will
requirement any development work.
If we hire someone that already has a lot of SMW experience, this is likely
a pretty easy target.
I also think it's deeply problematic that you
don't seem to have shaped
the
proposal based on the expressed needs of people
who have tried to use the
current system and failed, and that you're seemingly ignoring the use
case
of all the many different kinds of contributors
by focusing a
comprehensive
restructure solely for new contributors. When we
make something like
Echo,
we're doing it first and foremost to attract
new people, but we can't get
away with ignoring the needs of existing users.
We have a current system?
In general, I don't think you've fully
considered how the current set up
might serve our needs with less heavy-handed changes than migrating to
Semantic MediaWiki, and I'm wary of supporting a restructuring of
documentation systems I depend of every day based on a grand plan of any
kind.
Almost all of the changes Quim is suggesting will likely be completely
transparent to you and your normal processes. Semantic annotations are
almost always added to templates and users have no clue that magic is
happening behind them.
- Ryan
Let me put it a simpler way: I don't support moving to Semantic MediaWiki,
which to me as user seems like a somewhat arcane and bloated piece of
software that will require me and lots of people to relearn how we write
documentation and project tracking, unless you can show why the changes you
want to make are A) necessary B) require SMW to accomplish them.
Demonstrating that the high level structure proposed will work before
making the more drastic change seems like a good way to convince everyone
that what's being proposed is the right path toward a better wiki for all.
Steven