I wanted to comment quickly on one thing that was called out. Closing "valid tasks" may be appropriate depending on the task and the context. Closed is a valid state for a task and may well be most appropriate.
There is a reason for this, and I want to be clear: Tasks are not isolated platonic constructs; they are tools for people to use in their work on software. If a task and the discussion on it is unconstructive, then closing it sounds fine. Now that's just off the top of my head; I'm unfamiliar with the particular case you presumably are citing. But again I have to stress that this is not a hobby project, this is a working environment for dozens of people building and maintaining the software that the Wikimedia community has entrusted them with. That's not to say volunteers aren't welcome: rather, that's to say that volunteers are expected to behave themselves just as we are when they choose to work alongside us. Not sure about the language references; they don't seem relevant to the patterns of behavior under discussion. -- brion On Wed, Aug 8, 2018, 4:18 PM MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > Brion Vibber wrote: > >I would advise you generally to treat wikitech-l like a professional > >workspace, which it is for those of us who are employees of WMF or WMDE. > > I think there's a big schism that you're pointing to here: why do you > think it's appropriate for you or anyone else to impose your particular > U.S. workplace standards on a global community of volunteers? For many > users, wikitech-l, Phabricator, and other venues are specifically not > workplaces, they're places for technical work on hobby projects. > >If your corporate HR department would frown at you making a statement > >about people's character or motivations with derogatory language, think > >twice about it. Treat people with respect. > > Sure, treat people with respect. As a colleague of Greg Varnum, have you > privately messaged him to let him know that closing valid tasks is > inappropriate? Have you told him that gaslighting users into thinking that > an obvious bug is an intentional design choice is unacceptable behavior? > Have you discussed with Greg V. that un-assigning yourself from a task and > attempting to orphan it is bad practice? > > Or are you simply focused on trying to shame and silence volunteers who > are critical of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees? > > Regarding the word fuck generally, I've been here long enough to remember > commits such as <https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/commit/32936ec8>. > There are also many commits and tasks that use similar language. As the > English Wiktionary notes, "what the fuck" is a common interjection: > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/what_the_fuck#Interjection>. I do not > think it's a phrase that should be commonly used on Phabricator, but at > times it can be appropriate, _as your code commit from 2008 notes_, to > underscore the severity of a particular issue. What Greg did was really > bad and is compounded, in my opinion, by his continued silence and the > lack of resolution to the issue of German text appearing on an English > landing page. Saying what Greg V. did was confusing and bad, even > forcefully, is not the real issue here. > > For what it's worth, here's Daniel using the same language in 2016: > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110728#2227182>. And MatmaRex using > the same language in the same year: > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T130478>. A quick search of Phabricator > for "what the fuck", "fuck", or "wtf" shows that none of them are rare. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
