On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Pine W wrote:
> Quim,
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> A brief note about the goal of "there are no clashes between product
> development teams and communities". That is an ambitious goal around here,
> partly because there are changes planned and happening concur
Derk-Jan
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:29 PM, you wrote:
> You mean like here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Roadmap ?
>
No, because that page is not a roadmap but a list of pages none of which is
a roadmap in the sense I stated.
> Where it is already posting it's annual and quarterly plans to a
A biennial planning process makes a lot of sense, so long as
transparency and accountability is not lost.
In the planning year, the most resource efficient way of doing this
stuff is to make strategy and operations 6 months out of phase,
ensuring that the management and executive don't exhaust the
Derk-Jan
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:29 PM, you wrote:
> You mean like here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Roadmap ?
>
No, because that page is not a roadmap but a list of pages none of which is
a roadmap in the sense I stated, and I rather think you knew that when you
referrd to it.
> Where i
For what it's worth, my understanding is that WMF is considering
transitioning portions of its annual planning to biannual planning.
Also, I think that it will be easier to develop a long term technical
roadmap after WMF completes its strategy update.
Pine
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Rogo
You mean like here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Roadmap ?
Where it is already posting it's annual and quarterly plans to as much
detail as anyone is able to predict a roadmap ?
No one from community is discussing it (at least other than those already
discussing it before). This 'community part
A good way of avoiding clashes would be to publish the technical roadmap
showing where WMF expects to be taking its technical development over the
next five years or so, for the community to discuss and comment on I have
yet to hear any reason why this can not or should not be done.
"Rogol"
On W
Quim,
Thanks for the comments.
A brief note about the goal of "there are no clashes between product
development teams and communities". That is an ambitious goal around here,
partly because there are changes planned and happening concurrently in so
many places that I think it would be a challenge
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Rogol Domedonfors
wrote:
> If there's not going to be anything to implement, how do you see this as
> having an effect on anything?
Documenting and promoting best practices tends to be useful for the
awareness, adoption and refinement of those best practic
So to whom is this going to be helpful and how? That sounds like being
implemented to me, but apparently that isnt going to happen.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Venerability policy? That's a new one. Verifiability policy. (Spellcheck is
> not always a wiki-lawyer's best frie
Venerability policy? That's a new one. Verifiability policy. (Spellcheck is
not always a wiki-lawyer's best friend.)
Pine
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Speaking generally, guidance can be helpful even if it's not a policy.
> English Wikipedia has similar ways of organizing
Speaking generally, guidance can be helpful even if it's not a policy.
English Wikipedia has similar ways of organizing information and how-to
guides. Some guidance documents are categorized as essays, some as
guidelines, and some as policies. It's worth noting that enforcement is,
somewhat counter
If there's not going to be anything to implement, how do you see this as
having an effect on anything? What will be done differently or better?
Why should anyone be doing any work on it? How will we know whether or not
it has been a success, and whther or not the time effort and effort was
well-s
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
wrote:
> Is the *Technical Collaboration Guidance*
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_Guidance still
> actively under development?
Yes, there are internal stakeholder discussions still underway.
> There seems to have b
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 21:13 +, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> Is the *Technical Collaboration Guidance*
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_Guidance still
> actively under development? There seems to have been no discussion of any
> substance since January. Is there an intent
Is the *Technical Collaboration Guidance*
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_Guidance still
actively under development? There seems to have been no discussion of any
substance since January. Is there an intention to bring the discussion to
a close and to implement the guidance
16 matches
Mail list logo
