On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Alex <mrzmanw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Brian wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Trevor Parscal <tpars...@wikimedia.org > >wrote: > > > >> * The topic is supposed to be on Template Editing which is, at least > >> in the way it's being proposed, a little less of a stale topic - > >> so where is all the energy on that front? We have an XML format to > >> design and complex problems to sort out. Help is really needed. > >> Let's all take a look at the link provided at the beginning of > >> this thread http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_forms > >> > >> - Trevor > > > > > > I do think that sufficient energy has been directed at this topic. People > > have complained that xml is harder to edit that wikitext and that it is > too > > complicated, among other things. Additionally, several people have > pointed > > out that solving this little part of the problem doesn't make sense in > the > > context of the larger problem at hand here. You are trying to separate > the > > issue of template editing from the larger issue of wikitext, and that > > doesn't make sense. Also, I am quite serious about my point that an > entirely > > new language interface specification will be added to MediaWiki and that > it > > will be widely adopted and propagate throughout the wikisphere, much like > > parser functions, and in the end will make the job of fixing MediaWiki > much, > > much harder. As it is very important developers already thing the problem > is > > so hard as to be impossible. I disagree with that, but at the same time I > > don't think it's a good idea to make it even harder. > > > > So I don't think help is needed in designing a new xml interface > > specification for mediawiki right now. I'm also a bit confused, because I > > thought we had this new strategic planning wiki, but it looks like the > > strategy aspect of this proposal is being largely ignored. From what I > have > > heard, there was a meeting about how to solve this problem among core > devs > > and a few others at wikimedia headquarters, they decided what the > solution > > would be, and now you guys are moving forward on implementing it, totally > > ignoring the strategy wiki. > > AFAIK, the strategy wiki is designed to help formulate a 5-year > strategic plan. According to the timeline, actual execution may not > begin for at least another 4 months.[1] The usability project has its > own timeline and deadlines and is more concerned more with short and > medium term projects. I don't know if there is any plan to continue > funding the usability initiative after the Stanton Foundation grant runs > out. > > [1]<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process#Timeline_.282009_-_2010.29> > > -- > Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) > > > The vision for the strategy wiki is much, much broader than that. Here is a recent e-mail from Sue on the subject:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > 2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim <ee...@blueoxen.com>: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo <pavlo.shev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> "Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the > >> decision-making process?" > >> > >> this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody > >> prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about > >> said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we > >> will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's > >> good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide > >> what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)? > > > > Sorry for taking so long to respond, Pavlo. I'm not sure I'm the right > > person to respond to this. I'll do my best, you can tell me if you > > think it's clear, and hopefully other folks from the Foundation will > > jump in. > > I just saw this thread; I'm happy to jump in. > > What Eugene says is all accurate -- let me expand a little. > > Essentially, the purpose of the project is to develop a strategy for > the Wikimedia movement, not just for the Wikimedia Foundation. What > that means is that no single entity will be able to approve and drive > forward the whole thing: individual players will drive forward the > pieces that compel and engage and inspire them. > > So for example: > > * If it looks like it makes sense to stage a lot of events aimed at > broadening participation in developed countries, the chapters would > logically take the lead on that. > > * If it looks like it would make sense to conduct a massive awareness > campaign in India, that would probably be moved forward in partnership > between the Wikimedia Foundation and what might be -by then- an > approved, new Indian chapter. > > * If it looks like a very strong focus on mobile makes sense, I expect > that would be something driven forward by the tech staff at Wikimedia, > in partnership with individual volunteer devs, and possibly supported > by relationships with for-profit firms such as Orange. > > * If there is a simple thing that looks sensible, and one person wants > to, and is able to, achieve it by him or herself, they would just do > that. They wouldn't need to wait for anyone's goahead. > > You see what I mean? Essentially, the goal is that each player will > make its own decisions based on its own context -- its own capacity, > its skills and abilities and interests, its own goals and priorities. > People will be able to do that however they want, in whatever process > works for them. > > With regards to the Wikimedia Foundation, as Eugene said, if the > process works well, it (the process) will deliver to the Board a set > of high-level recommendations in key areas. By that time work will > have been done, especially in the later stages of the task force work, > to try to ensure the recommendations are synched up with each other > and make sense together as much as possible --- but there will > probably be a few areas in which incompatible (mutually exclusive) > recommendations are submitted. The Board of Trustees will then work > to resolve whatever contradictions are present, and to prioritize the > work it wants to get done. And then, if all has gone well, it will > approve the strategy plan. > > Hope that helps. And -- Board members should please speak up here > also, especially if there are nuances to their understanding that > differ from mine or Eugene's. > > Thanks, > Sue > > > > > > -- > Sue Gardner > Executive Director > Wikimedia Foundation > > 415 839 6885 office > 415 816 9967 cell > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in > the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
