Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Le 02/09/2015 21:10, Matthew Flaschen a écrit : > Flow is not being killed. > > In addition to maintaining and supporting it, we'll soon be working on > rolling out a Beta feature to allow people to enable Flow on their user > talk pages. Thank you Matthew! From Danny original mail I thought

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

I'm speculating that an analogue for Flow's situation will be Echo's situation: somewhat maintained, but on the back burner for feature development. (Although I occasionally hear rumors of feature additions to Echo, and I think Echo might play well with improved discussion tools. I'd also like to

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Pine, given the questions at this point seem to be directed to the Collaboration team, with the intention of clarifying what their plans are, perhaps it would be best to encourage them to answer the questions rather than continue the speculation. Danny, perhaps you could take the lead on

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Brian Wolff wrote: > > I seriously doubt any form of technology will solve the problem of > independent groups with overlapping interests discussing things in > multiple venues. > > My reading of the original email is that they want to work on

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Flow is going to be one of the extensions that the Collaboration team maintains, along with Echo and Thanks. "Not in active development" means that we're not going to build or change features, but we're going to fix bugs and make sure that people who are using Flow have a good experience with it.

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Thanks for the expanded update. I'm a big fan of Echo and am happy to hear that global notifications are coming. If you'll be at WikiConference USA, I'd appreciate a chance to talk with you there in person, and others might as well! Pine On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Danny Horn

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Also Corss-wiki watchlists are good place to start. Best On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 2:35 AM Pine W wrote: > Thanks for the expanded update. > > I'm a big fan of Echo and am happy to hear that global notifications are > coming. > > If

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 4 September 2015 at 01:38, Ricordisamoa wrote: > Il 04/09/2015 01:24, Brandon Harris ha scritto: >>> On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Ricordisamoa >>> wrote: >>> I appreciate the acknowledgement of failure. >> I don't think

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 9/3/15, Brian Wolff wrote: >>> >>> >>> This sounds a lot like PageTriage, which at best was a mixed success. >>> I hope the team is able to extract lessons from that extension and >>> apply them to whatever they intend to work on. >>> >> >> "at best was a mixed success"

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Re-reading the original email, it sounds to me like Flow is being put into maintenance mode, not killed. It also sounds to me like the resources that were being invested in Flow are going to be redirected to "the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take place on a variety of pages.

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Regarding specific resource-level commitments: I've always had a hard time with getting project-level financial data from WMF. I'm still waiting for replies to questions that I asked about the Annual Plan a couple of months ago. I do think that information like that should be public, and it would

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 9/4/15, Pine W wrote: > Re-reading the original email, it sounds to me like Flow is being put into > maintenance mode, not killed. It also sounds to me like the resources that > were being invested in Flow are going to be redirected to "the curation, > collaboration, and

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

I don't think putting a $$ value on it is necessary to answer David's question (Or even sufficient from a user perspective). The core of it is: *Will anyone (from WMF) be coding any new features, that don't exist yet. *Will features that half work or are currently in the process of being

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Yes and no on the first point. Aggregation tools would be helpful. Admittedly it's rare to have discussions spill into so many venues, so ROI is questionable on an investment like that. On more structured discussions, yes, those could be made easier to handle. Maybe it would be better to handle

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 3 September 2015 at 07:44, Brian Wolff wrote: >> To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now focusing >> our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take >> place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex >>

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 09/03/2015 03:54 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > that only non-Wikimedia developers have maintained LQT > is false, as a brief review of the commit log will show. I said "non-Wikimedia users". Not sure what log you've been looking to, but I did `git log --no-merges -- . ':(exclude)i18n'`

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

> that only non-Wikimedia developers have maintained LQT > is false, as a brief review of the commit log will show. I said "non-Wikimedia users". Not sure what log you've been looking to, but I did `git log --no-merges -- . ':(exclude)i18n'` and I confirm what I said. The only exception I

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

> To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now focusing > our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take > place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex > workarounds -- templates, categories, transclusions, and lots of >

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

I appreciate the acknowledgement of failure. It's time for the community for an even braver move, let's take full control of Flow's development and get it to be actually usable. Il 01/09/2015 23:26, Danny Horn ha scritto: For a while now, the Collaboration team has been working on Flow, the

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Ricordisamoa wrote: > > I appreciate the acknowledgement of failure. I don't think that's what was said at all. You may wish to re-read all of this. --- Brandon Harris :: bhar...@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Il 04/09/2015 01:24, Brandon Harris ha scritto: On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Ricordisamoa wrote: I appreciate the acknowledgement of failure. I don't think that's what was said at all. You may wish to re-read all of this. Putting "active development"

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

>> >> >> This sounds a lot like PageTriage, which at best was a mixed success. >> I hope the team is able to extract lessons from that extension and >> apply them to whatever they intend to work on. >> > > "at best was a mixed success" speaking as someone who has used it > extensively, that is not

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

The decision to stop Flow development could have been a matter of prioritizing resources, and a decision may have been made that many of the resources that would be invested in improving Flow can now be better used elsewhere. I am reluctant to throw stones about Flow. Pine

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Thanks. So now we'll have two unmaintained extensions, LQT and Flow. Can we reverse the Flow conversion on mediawiki.org now, so that the wiki stays on the luckiest side i.e. the extension which has most users and is most likely to survive in the future? (LQT is maintained by its non-Wikimedia

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

ussion extension :( [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88140 Best, Florian -Original-Nachricht----- Betreff: Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization Datum: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 08:27:42 +0200 Von: Dan Garry <dga...@wikimedia.org> An: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l@lists.wikim

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 1 September 2015 at 23:21, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Thanks. So now we'll have two unmaintained extensions, LQT and Flow. To quote Danny's email directly, "Flow will be maintained and supported". Your supposition that the extension will be unmaintained is not

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 2 September 2015 at 14:51, Risker wrote: > I want to thank the Collaboration team for taking this brave step - and > yes, it's a brave step. The natural trajectory of large projects that don't > quite seem to meet their promise is to keep going and going until everyone >

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

I don't know if this is correct place to bring this idea, but [[Extension:PageTriage]] is good example of a starting point. Is there any plans to work on it by collaboration team? Best On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:50 PM Roan Kattouw wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:21 AM,

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Risker wrote: > I am certain once the team has a chance to refocus, they may choose to > examine workflows that are common across multiple Wikimedia projects that > would benefit from improvement. Off the top of my head, creating a >

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:21 AM, David Gerard wrote: > Did the stuff to port LQT threads/pages to Flow ever make it to > production quality? > > It was used to convert all LQT pages on mediawiki.org, including [[mw:Support desk]] which is probably the largest LQT page that has

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 09/02/2015 12:35 PM, David Gerard wrote: On 2 September 2015 at 14:51, Risker wrote: I want to thank the Collaboration team for taking this brave step - and yes, it's a brave step. The natural trajectory of large projects that don't quite seem to meet their promise is

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 09/02/2015 02:21 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Thanks. So now we'll have two unmaintained extensions, LQT and Flow. As noted, Flow is not unmaintained. Can we reverse the Flow conversion on mediawiki.org now, so that the wiki stays on the luckiest side i.e. the extension which has most

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Roan Kattouw wrote: > I don't think we currently have good documentation on how you can convert > your own wiki, but AFAIK "simply" running the convertAllLqtPages.php > maintenance script on a wiki that has both LQT and Flow installed

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 09/02/2015 09:21 AM, David Gerard wrote: On 2 September 2015 at 07:27, Dan Garry wrote: On 1 September 2015 at 23:21, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Thanks. So now we'll have two unmaintained extensions, LQT and Flow. To quote Danny's email

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

1. Regarding Flow and LQT on mediawiki.org: On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Can we reverse the Flow conversion on mediawiki.org now, Technically, I think that would be challenging. All LiquidThreads carefully redirect to Flow topics, e.g.

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

I want to thank the Collaboration team for taking this brave step - and yes, it's a brave step. The natural trajectory of large projects that don't quite seem to meet their promise is to keep going and going until everyone is burnt out, and it is courageous to say "this isn't going where we wanted

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 2 September 2015 at 07:27, Dan Garry wrote: > On 1 September 2015 at 23:21, Federico Leva (Nemo) > wrote: >> Thanks. So now we'll have two unmaintained extensions, LQT and Flow. > To quote Danny's email directly, "Flow will be maintained and

[Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

For a while now, the Collaboration team has been working on Flow, the structured discussion system. I want to let you know about some changes in that long-term plan. While initial announcements about Flow said that it would be a universal replacement for talk pages, the features that were

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Thanks for the update. Discussion is taking place on Wikimedia-l. Pine On Sep 1, 2015 2:27 PM, "Danny Horn" wrote: > For a while now, the Collaboration team has been working on Flow, the > structured discussion system. I want to let you know about some changes in > that