As I understand it, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/phabricator-upstream/ is supposed to represent the complete, current list of WMF needs for Phabricator. So any discussion in this list should, in order to be re-usable in the future and fully transparent, be reflected in that list via, at least, making changes to tasks and citing this discussion in the comments. So, are there specific Phab upgrade needs, or upgrade needs that have been expressed but not captured in a Phab task? If so, could their owners please add them to the board?
I have a few questions looking at that board that I'm happy to write up if someone can answer in this thread. Can the meaning of the columns be documented, e.g. here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/6/ ? Looking at it, I have to wonder: - what is the difference is between Wikimedia Requests and Upstreamed? - If something has been Upstreamed, does that mean Phacility is going to work on it? Where would I go to learn the Phate of upstreamed requests? - How does something move from Backlog to Need Discussion to Ready to go to Upstreamed? - Are any of these lists prioritized? Thanks, Joel *-- Joel Aufrecht* Team Practices Group Wikimedia Foundation On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Rob Lanphier <ro...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > If we're going to be investing money into improving Phabricator > upstream... > > It's really good that we're having a healthy debate about the > usability of Phabricator. I've enjoyed working with Phab a lot more > than the tools that it has replaced, but it is by no means perfect. > We have a role to play in helping Phab upstream make Phab more > perfect. > > That said, I think we should be careful with our assumptions about how > much influence we can buy with the money we have. We need to be smart > about how we spend it, but we also need to respect that we don't know > what our role is in upstream's priority setting and roadmap. We > shouldn't assume we're their most important customer. > > Without identifying specific issues, let's assume that we have a > feature list ordered like this: > * Feature A > * Feature B > * Feature C > ----- cut line for what we'd pay for ---- > * Feature D > * Feature E > ----- cut line for features that we care about at all ---- > * Feature F > * Feature G > > My (admittedly limited) understanding is that upstream is choosing > between Feature C and Feature G as the next big thing they work on. > If we chip in for Feature C, we could tip the balance and cause them > to choose Feature C over Feature G. > > I fear that a lot of the feedback seems to be "stop worrying about > Feature C; Feature A is *way* more important". If upstream is making > a C vs G decision, and we try distracting them with A, they may choose > to ignore us and opt for Feature G. There is a significant > opportunity cost in time and energy to spend influencing upstream to > pay attention to Feature A. > > So....getting out of the abstract and into the specific: is improving > calendaring (T1035) important enough to invest a little money in, > *considered independently* of the other features we may want? Is it > above the "cut line for what we'd pay for" or is it less than that? > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > 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
