On Jun 29, 2015 3:01 PM, "Quim Gil" <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi, the Engineering Community team is working on a plan to evolve onto a
Developer Relations team. This is not just a change of name. See
*
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relatio…
<
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relatio…
*
Your feedback is welcome, in the wiki page or here.
Related task:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T97283
--
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Interesting. I like a lot of this.
I think perhaps you should define your target groups more clearly. You are
using the phrase "developer" and "third party developer" to refer to
different groups of people than I usually refer to with those words. Which
is fine, i understood what you meant, but if there is the potential for
different people to interpret those words differently, perhaps they should
have stated definitions to avoid confusion.
The types of developers section kind of confuses me. Is it saying that the
wmf focus of mw api users has been labs users only? Because i think wmf has
focused on a much broader section of api users than that.
I think it might be a useful idea to expand this section into an
enumeration of all the different type of tech people into broad classes,
and document the sorts of things they work on, so we know who the target
audiance of this project is. If there are tech people who are explicitly
out of scope, i think it should be explicitly documented who is definitely
not a target or who is tangently a target as time permits but id largely
out of scope.
" Modern, simple-to-use, well-documented APIs are
a prerequisite for
success. Therefore, if we want to be successful at partnerships,
distribution and user acquisition, we too must have multiple APIs that are
modern and well-documented."
I disagree with this statement. The key to success is apis that provide the
required information in as easy to access way as possible. Modern is mostly
in the eye of the beholder, and chasing after whatever is the most recent
fad is not always best for our users (but sure, we dont want to be using
some forgotten design paradigm from the 90s either). The number of apis is
also fairly irrelevent, all that matters is if they fulfil the need
properly. Simple to use is great, but depending on what the api is trying
to achieve, sometimes flexibility and power is more important.
We should be considering our apis like any other piece of software: who are
the stakeholders, and what are they trying to achieve. From there all other
considerations should flow.
--
Bawolff