Quim, can you clarify your comments about the Technology Committee? The committee is my proposal as a community member; it is not a top-down, Board-created idea. Its membership is designed to be broadly representative of the MediaWiki user community. The Board mandate is necessary to give TechCom similar placement to AffCom, the FDC, and other community-led and Board-chartered committees that report directly to the Board. I am not sure how you see TechCom as anything but a community-based organization.
Pine On Aug 7, 2014 12:33 AM, "Quim Gil" <q...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Meta comment: if our common goal is to increase collaboration, then we need > to excel ourselves in this collaboration precisely. If we minority of > tech-aware contributors are being confrontational between ourselves, then > we can only expect to nurture more confrontation than collaboration among > the new tech contributors we aim to engage. > > So please, let's enjoy this conversation and let's help each other finding > better ideas to improve this problem we all want to solve. > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:01 AM, svetlana <svetl...@fastmail.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, at 06:58, Quim Gil wrote: > > > > - encourage feedback by absolutely /anyone/ about the next features > > they'd > > > > like, > > > > > > > > > > Betas and Bugzilla today. Phabricator should make it easier to provide > > > feedback in a wider range of topics, not only "bugs". > > > > 99% of users of Wikimedia projects don't /know/ about these tools. That's > > the problem, and your response is not reflecting it. > > > > Yes, I agree. Can we do better? > > I think the core of the problem is how to increase the participation of > tech-curious contributors, and how to structure it in a way that informs, > influences, and actually joins the development process effectively. > > How can we increase the participation in technical matters among Wikimedia > editors and readers? For some thoughts on this topic, see > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_technical_volunteer_outreach.jpg > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project_talk:New_contributors#English_Wikipedia_first_26213 > > Increasing participation by volume of participants is a goal per se. > However, this participation needs to be somewhat structured in order to > become efficient. For instance, having "more Tech Ambassadors" is good, but > wouldn't it be better if we all knew which Wikimedia projects and areas of > expertise are they covering? > > I even think that having a sense of meritocracy among tech ambassadors > would be useful, just like it is useful at some point to know who is an > official maintainer of a repository, who has been granted permissions to > merge new code. > > Am I referring to the Technology Committee that Pine is proposing? I don't > know. What I know is that tech meritocracy (and any meritocracy) works > better when it emerges from the grassroots, and therefore I'm skeptical > about any process that would start with a mandate from the Board or with a > WMF goal. > > There are many smart, productive, and dedicated technical volunteers in our > community. In relation to the problems we are describing here, they have an > understanding, an experience, and a vision that most board members and WMF > employees can't match. I wonder what do they think, what would they do? And > I wonder how can the rest of us help them. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
