It is definitely so sad to see those many abandoned tickets in Phabricator,
like the ones Galder has been sharing along this thread. The same for the very
interesting -and quite easy to implement- proposals that had lots of votes in
the previous Community Wishlists but that never succeeded.
It is difficult to convince users in some Village Pumps to participate in the
new Community Wishlists, as the improvements that we see do not relate much
with many of the language-related needs. Not to mention what's going on with
the sister projects: for Wikiquote or Wikibooks it has been crystal clear for
the small communities that we are merely server-supported, without any other
special, significant improvement foreseen nor for the past decade nor for the
years to come. I feel often insulted when I see the "scary" banners to push
people to donate in this small wiki projects -in which we barely can provide
contents with an interface of 2008.
Necessary and valuable tech proposals for our poor infrastructure are
completely left behind while the WMF is publishing press releases about a
120-million $ revenue. Meanwhile, some wikipedians increasingly take advantage
of this big money as an opportunity to convert their hobby into a job by asking
more and more grants in Meta to do paid-editing, WiRs or "cultural" projects
(that before were fully succesfully volunteered-driven). Priorities and the
consequences of having too much money.
Xavier Dengra
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
El dilluns, 3 de gener 2022 a les 9:44 PM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
<galder...@hotmail.com> va escriure:
> I would like to be optimistic, but...
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T289101
>
> 2022(e)ko urt. 3(a) 15:28 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Brion Vibber
> <bvib...@wikimedia.org>):
>
>> (Anyway I'm just grumping. I hear positive things about plans for this year
>> and I'm heartened to see more folks involved in planning the next stages!)
>>
>> -- brion
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2022, 6:10 AM Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 10:27 AM Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Separate thread. I'm not sure which list is appropriate.
>>>> ... but not all the way to
>>>> [sentience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uplift_War).
>>>>
>>>> The annual community wishlist survey (implemented by a small team,
>>>> possibly in isolation?) may not be the mechanism for prioritizing large
>>>> changes, but the latter also deserves a community-curated priority queue.
>>>> To complement the staff-maintained priorities in phab ~
>>>>
>>>> For core challenges (like Commons stability and capacity), I'd be
>>>> surprised if the bottleneck were people or budget.
>>>
>>> Currently there are zero people and no budget for multimedia, aside from
>>> whatever work I and others manage to get done here there. And I'm afraid I
>>> don't scale.
>>>
>>> It's Wikimedia Foundation's job to assign budget and people here. I've been
>>> hoping for years that this will happen, and continue to hope.
>>>
>>> -- brion
>>>
>>>> We do need a shared understanding of what issues are most important and
>>>> most urgent, and how to solve them. For instance, a way to turn Amir's
>>>> recent email about the problem (and related phab tickets) into a family of
>>>> persistent, implementable specs and proposals and their articulated
>>>> obstacles.
>>>>
>>>> An issue tracker like phab is good for tracking the progress and
>>>> dependencies of agreed-upon tasks, but weak for discussing what is
>>>> important, what we know about it, how to address it. And weak for
>>>> discussing ecosystem-design issues that are important and need persistent
>>>> updating but don't have a simple checklist of steps.
>>>>
>>>> So where is the best current place to discuss scaling Commons, and all
>>>> that entails? Some examples from recent discussions (most from the wm-l
>>>> thread below):
>>>> - Uploads: Support for large file uploads / Keeping bulk upload tools
>>>> online
>>>> - Video: Debugging + rolling out the
>>>> [videojs](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T248418) player
>>>> - Formats: Adding support for
>>>> [CML](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T18491) and [dozens of
>>>> other](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T297514) common high-demand file
>>>> formats
>>>> - Thumbs: Updating [thumbor](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T216815)
>>>> and [librsvg](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193352)
>>>> - Search: WCQS
>>>> [still](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T297454)[down](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T297454),
>>>> noauth [option](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T297995) wanted for
>>>> tools
>>>> - General: Finish implementing
>>>> [redesign](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T28741) of the image table
>>>>
>>>> SJ
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 6:26 AM Amir Sarabadani <ladsgr...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not debating your note. It is very valid that we lack proper support
>>>>> for multimedia stack. I myself wrote a detailed rant on how broken it is
>>>>> [1] but three notes:
>>>>> - Fixing something like this takes time, you need to assign the budget
>>>>> for it (which means it has to be done during the annual planning) and if
>>>>> gets approved, you need to start it with the fiscal year (meaning July
>>>>> 2022) and then hire (meaning, write JD, do recruitment, interview lots of
>>>>> people, get them hired) which can take from several months to years. Once
>>>>> they are hired, you need to onboard them and let them learn about our
>>>>> technical infrastructure which takes at least two good months. Software
>>>>> engineering is not magic, it takes time, blood and sweat. [2]
>>>>> - Making another team focus on multimedia requires changes in planning,
>>>>> budget, OKR, etc. etc. Are we sure moving the focus of teams is a good
>>>>> idea? Most teams are already focusing on vital parts of wikimedia and
>>>>> changing the focus will turn this into a whack-a-mole game where we fix
>>>>> multimedia but now we have critical issues in security or performance.
>>>>> - Voting Wishlist survey is a good band-aid in the meantime. To at least
>>>>> address the worst parts for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand your point tbh, either you think it's a good idea to
>>>>> make requests for improvements in multimedia in the wishlist survey or
>>>>> you think it's not. If you think it's not, then it's offtopic to this
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WMPZHMXSLQJ6GONAVTFLDFFMPNJDVORS/
>>>>> [2] There is a classic book in this topic called "The Mythical Man-month"
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:41 AM Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> we have to vote for regular maintenance and support for essential
>>>>>> functions like uploading files which is the core mission of Wikimedia
>>>>>> Commons
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Commons-l mailing list -- common...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to commons-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list --
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MXW26DJMJ3TBTFY3JIX4VTUAHXW7FXKW/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UROUF3UEMYVEKC6UTQJVP3M2TRSIXEVN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
