Re-reading the original email, it sounds to me like Flow is being put into maintenance mode, not killed. It also sounds to me like the resources that were being invested in Flow are going to be redirected to "the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex workarounds -- templates, categories, transclusions, and lots of instructions -- that turn blank wikitext talk pages into structured workflows..."
As those of us who have spent a lot of time with these workflows know, they can be a time-consuming pain. (Does anyone else remember trying to track the discussion about the MediaViewer deployments to Commons, DEWP and ENWP over however many dozens of separate pages, at least three wikis, and multiple email threads?) I think that Flow was intended to help with these situations. I guess that where it might be fair to say that Flow has been "killed" is in the sense that WMF seems to have decided that there are better options than Flow for addressing some of these workflow problems. It seems to me that the end goals are similar; the tools to achieve those goals may be different, and that's ok. Pine On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:24 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 September 2015 at 01:38, Ricordisamoa <ricordisa...@openmailbox.org> > wrote: > > Il 04/09/2015 01:24, Brandon Harris ha scritto: > >>> On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Ricordisamoa<ricordisa...@openmailbox.org> > >>> wrote: > > >>> I appreciate the acknowledgement of failure. > > >> I don't think that's what was said at all. You may wish to > >> re-read all of this. > > > Putting "active development" on hold when the software is little used in > > production and even some features a MVP should have had are missing, > really > > sounds like a failure to me, although Danny has been very good at not > making > > it sound like it. > > "To better address the needs of our core contributors", "we shift the > team's > > focus to these other priorities", "communities that are excited about > Flow > > discussions will be able to use it" > > > > It read to me and many others like a fairly standard set of euphemisms > for when a project is killed but nobody wants to say "killed". Perhaps > we're all reading it wrong. > > So, non-euphemistically: could someone please detail what, precisely, > is and is not the level of resource commitment to Flow? (And how it > compares to e.g. the level of resource commitment to LQT.) > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
