I agree with bawolff, although I also see Quim's point about reopening this discussion at this particular point in time.
But I think it's an important conversation to have, even if it's not going to be directly relevant to this year's dev summit. We used to have a project called "Flow", short for "Work Flow", which recognized that the WMF projects aren't *just* collaborative content creation, but also embody a lot of codified *process*. That seems to be exactly what Phab is providing for us. Did we get scared off by our first attempt at solving the work flow problem? Or are we eventually going to try to tackle that? --scott On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It is easy to reply "yes, of course", but looking at the overall list of > > possible improvements of MediaWiki, I think the Wikimedia movement would > > prefer the investment of developer time in other areas. These cases are > > imho too niche from the perspective of writing free encyclopedias, > > dictionaries, media repositories, etc. > > > > In any case, I wouldn't stop anyone willing to work on these features... > > but neither would I put the organization of the Summit at the expense of > > any of these features being implemented in MediaWiki. Wikimedia > Phabricator > > is a Wikimedia tool that already provides those features, so... > > > > To, me most of these strike me not so much as mediawiki lacking features as > everyone already being on phabricator and wanting to integrate with those > people. If you take out the integrate with existing phab content arguments, > you are basically left with a bunch of features MediaWiki already has. > > -- > bawolff > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > -- (http://cscott.net) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
