Totally agree with that, dirty common.js hacks aren't really beneficial for anyone.
Cheers, Marius On Sun, 2014-08-10 at 14:56 +0100, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote: > On 10 aug. 2014, at 14:27, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > However, we've clarified in a number of venues that use of the > > MediaWiki: namespace to disable site features is unacceptable. If such > > a conflict arises, we're prepared to revoke permissions if required. > > This protection level provides an additional path to manage these > > situations by preventing edits to the relevant pages (we're happy to > > help apply any urgent edits) until a particular situation has calmed > > down. > > I agree that the current situation is basically something that grew > historically that is no longer sustainable. For a long time this was not > really a problem and good faith made it work regardless of how broken it was, > but when it is used for manipulation, then action is required. > > This is not a new thing, but perhaps a clarification that was long over due > (and one we perhaps we shied away from too long). We need to collaborate to > iterate and improve the software for our movement. I'm the first to support > the fact that we have not been able to do that in the past for many reasons. > We are now becoming more capable, but we will also still be making a lot of > mistakes from various roles, while building the actual feedback loop required > to perfect this process. BUT that is a separate issue and there are different > venues for that, which are not Common.js -like methodologies. > > DJ , > Volunteer developer > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
