I have to say that I have the same expirance with the current process for requesting commit access.
I currently have access to SVN, it was given to me 2 years ago by TimStarling. But i changed my key(s) but it didn't change for Wikimedia. So I requested Sumana to close my old account and give me a new account with a better name. This was her responds: Hi Huib, I apologize for the late response. After some discussion, we decided that the best way to proceed is for you to submit your proposed improvements as a patch in bugzilla.wikimedia.org, or make your extension public on mediawiki.org (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions). This gives us a much better idea of what your proposal is and makes it a lot easier to review. Sincerely, Priyanka Dhanda So I was already given access, but by error I lost the key and now got removed. I don't really think the current proces is helping to get more volunteers... Best, Huib Laurens 2011/11/5 Neil Kandalgaonkar <[email protected]> > Olivier, I'm truly sorry you had such a negative experience. This is not > an acceptable situation. We have an inconsistent process, and one which > is a bit heavyweight when our resourcing for it is rather lightweight. > > I wish you had found the patience to assume good faith. There is no > reason for accusations that we don't want good developers. Of course we > *want* them. If we are failing to act like it, it wasn't a personal slam > at you. > > And, if I may be forgiven for white-knighting, Sumana's job is to needle > the rest of us so we don't forget about concerns like yours and she > generally does it very well. And she did sound an apologetic note into > the email she sent you. So IMO she's not the problem here. Why she > played a game of telephone here is a bit of a mystery to me though -- > maybe she just wanted to be sure that *someone* pinged you since it had > been so long. IMO the developer who reviewed your code should have > contacted you directly. > > I had a look at the module you wrote. I share some of the same concerns > about scalability, but that's not really the issue. > > I have some experience with user-contributed module archives, having > administered some shared community resources for Perl, Python, and so > on. The cultural differences and relative successes were interesting. > The Python people wanted to have a review process, and a GUI interface, > and binary modules precompiled, and so on and so on, and their projects > never really got off the ground. Perl's CPAN started off as a simple FTP > site where almost anyone could upload code. Guess which one ultimately > succeeded. The point is, IMO there's relatively little payoff for having > *any* review process for modules. Just have a way to report and remove > malware and be done with it. As long as it's clear that the Foundation > doesn't endorse the software there, what is the problem? Maybe we can > also have some kind of badge for "reviewed" or "as seen on Wikipedia" > for the stuff we consider good enough to deploy on big sites. > > We already more or less do this -- for instance, there are modules by > GSoC students that are clearly not ready for prime time, and they are > marked accordingly. > > > > On 11/4/11 11:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > > > The long and short of my advice is this: fuck MediaWiki. If they're > > unwilling to accept your contributions, there are a lot of other FOSS > > projects that would be happy to have you. Thrilled to have you, even. I'd > > strongly encourage finding one. :-) > > And why should he listen to you, when you are unwilling to follow your > own advice? > > -- > Neil Kandalgaonkar |) <[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > -- Kind regards, Huib Laurens WickedWay.nl Webhosting the wicked way. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
