Pine, given the questions at this point seem to be directed to the Collaboration team, with the intention of clarifying what their plans are, perhaps it would be best to encourage them to answer the questions rather than continue the speculation.
Danny, perhaps you could take the lead on responding to David Gerard's question? On 4 September 2015 at 04:59, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm speculating that an analogue for Flow's situation will be Echo's > situation: somewhat maintained, but on the back burner for feature > development. (Although I occasionally hear rumors of feature additions to > Echo, and I think Echo might play well with improved discussion tools. I'd > also like to see global watchlists and global notifications.) Hopefully > we'll get a reply from Danny in the near future with more definitive > answers about Flow's situation. (: > > Pine > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't think putting a $$ value on it is necessary to answer David's > > question (Or even sufficient from a user perspective). The core of it > > is: > > > > *Will anyone (from WMF) be coding any new features, that don't exist yet. > > *Will features that half work or are currently in the process of being > > developed, be completed (Assuming there are any, I'm not following > > flow development that closely). > > *Will someone be working on existing bugs during this time (Or at > > least existing bugs at some level of seriousness. And if so, what > > level of seriousness would be required for someone to do it) > > *Will someone be triaging and fixing new bugs as they come in (And > > again, how does the answer vary depending on the seriousness of the > > bug). > > *Is the team planning to come back to Flow at a later date in a > > serious way, or is this the end of active development for the > > foreseeable future. > > > > -- > > bawolff > > > > On 9/4/15, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Regarding specific resource-level commitments: I've always had a hard > > time > > > with getting project-level financial data from WMF. I'm still waiting > for > > > replies to questions that I asked about the Annual Plan a couple of > > months > > > ago. I do think that information like that should be public, and it > would > > > be nice if WMF would move toward more financial transparency that's at > > > least on par with what's provided by US government agencies. I'd like > to > > > keep the financial transparency discussion a bit separate from the > > > discussion about Flow's status. If WMF starts to provide public details > > > about project-level accounting in general, I would welcome that. > > > > > > Pine > > >> > > >> > > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
