Survey: Moving to Labs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Survey: Moving to Labs

DaB.-2
Hello all,

until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as
soon as possible.
There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment
of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.

Sincerely,
DaB.

 
[1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey

--
Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 0x2d3ee2d42b255885

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

liangent
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:53 AM, DaB. <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as
> soon as possible.
> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment
> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
>
> Sincerely,
> DaB.
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey

I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
available and / or provided better on Labs".

-Liangent

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

Aaron Halfaker-2
+1


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Liangent <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:53 AM, DaB. <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as
> soon as possible.
> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment
> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
>
> Sincerely,
> DaB.
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey

I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
available and / or provided better on Labs".

-Liangent

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette


_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

Tim Landscheidt
In reply to this post by liangent
(anonymous) wrote:

>> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
>> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
>> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
>> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as
>> soon as possible.
>> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
>> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
>> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment
>> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.

>> Sincerely,
>> DaB.

>> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey

> I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
> available and / or provided better on Labs".

That's "move as soon as possible".

Tim


_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

seth-35
In reply to this post by liangent
Hi!

On 01.05.2013 22:02, Liangent wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:53 AM, DaB. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey
>
> I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
> available and / or provided better on Labs".

Actually I's say "Hey, it's a wiki!" or maybe I would just add your
preferred option, but unfortunately I still can't login at that wiki,
see <https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/TS-1599>

Bye
seth

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

liangent
In reply to this post by Tim Landscheidt
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Tim Landscheidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (anonymous) wrote:
>
>>> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
>>> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
>>> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
>>> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as
>>> soon as possible.
>>> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
>>> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
>>> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment
>>> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> DaB.
>
>>> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey
>
>> I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
>> available and / or provided better on Labs".
>
> That's "move as soon as possible".

That's not exactly the same, especially when I add the clause
"provided better on Labs".

When some features I require are poorly available on Labs, it's still
"possible to move", but in the case that, if I decide to move, I have
to - for example - work around many issues on Labs, or have some more
difficult development work to do in order to utilize those features on
Labs, I'll still still stay on Toolserver.

-Liangent

> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
> Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

Ryan Lane-3
In reply to this post by DaB.-2
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM, DaB. <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello all,

until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as
soon as possible.
There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment
of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.


I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors, researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver is empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?

I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting everyone? Let's work as a team and have a well supported, well funded product that's run by all of us, with a larger scope that incorporates infrastructure and development volunteers. We appreciate your work on the Toolserver and would appreciate it in Labs as well.

- Ryan

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

Platonides
In reply to this post by DaB.-2
On 01/05/13 21:53, DaB. wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as
> soon as possible.

It does look at times as if they wanted to remove the toolserver from
behind us, but it shouldn't be considered a fight.
In this situation, the interest for that new-über-replacement it's
completely normal. It doesn't mean that they love one more than the other.


> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment
> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
>
> Sincerely,
> DaB.

Even if "labs being ready" happens in 2018?
"ready" will vary for each tool, but I foresee a process like this:

1. labs provides all the resources needed for $TOOL
2. $AUTHOR signs up in labs, gets added to the projects, etc.
3. $AUTHOR tests (benchmarks) labs and finds it acceptable for $TOOL
4. $AUTHOR learns all the labs-specific details.
5. $AUTHOR allocates some time for installing $TOOL in labs
6. Fix bugs in $TOOL when run in labs (aka. adapt $TOOL to labs)
7. (Optional) Redirect toolserver/$TOOL to labs/$TOOL

For the majority of tools, we haven't reached #1 yet.

Once labs provides (almost) everything available at toolserver, you can
start talking about when to stop supporting TS. But doing otherwise is
premature.
#2 is the only step that could take place before #1.

Then there is the 'lazy factor' for #2-7, although it is also known as
"too busy to fix this program which works ok in TS"
Some people may skip #3, while others will want to be damn sure that it
will work correctly.
The time required by #4 can be reduced making labs very similar to
toolserver.
If labs environment for the programs is very different, such as needing
to do the joins manually inside the program, that will increase #6 a lot.


_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

MZMcBride-2
Platonides wrote:

>Even if "labs being ready" happens in 2018?
>"ready" will vary for each tool, but I foresee a process like this:
>
>1. labs provides all the resources needed for $TOOL
>2. $AUTHOR signs up in labs, gets added to the projects, etc.
>3. $AUTHOR tests (benchmarks) labs and finds it acceptable for $TOOL
>4. $AUTHOR learns all the labs-specific details.
>5. $AUTHOR allocates some time for installing $TOOL in labs
>6. Fix bugs in $TOOL when run in labs (aka. adapt $TOOL to labs)
>7. (Optional) Redirect toolserver/$TOOL to labs/$TOOL
>
>For the majority of tools, we haven't reached #1 yet.
>
>Once labs provides (almost) everything available at toolserver, you can
>start talking about when to stop supporting TS. But doing otherwise is
>premature.
>#2 is the only step that could take place before #1.
>
>Then there is the 'lazy factor' for #2-7, although it is also known as
>"too busy to fix this program which works ok in TS"
>Some people may skip #3, while others will want to be damn sure that it
>will work correctly.
>The time required by #4 can be reduced making labs very similar to
>toolserver.
>If labs environment for the programs is very different, such as needing
>to do the joins manually inside the program, that will increase #6 a lot.

Platonides: This was an absolutely wonderful e-mail. Thank you for putting
it together. :-)

In some ways, as others have noted, convincing people to switch to Labs
earlier would slowly reduce the Toolserver's load. Or instead of
convincing, forcing users who are currently using a disproportionately
high amount of resources for their tools.

But... I imagine most resource-intensive tools need database replication
up and running. Maybe by the end of this month? Fingers crossed.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

DaB.-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Lane-3
Hello,
At Thursday 02 May 2013 15:29:07 DaB. wrote:
> I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors,
> researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver is
> empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?
>
> I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting
> everyone? Let's work as a team

do not forget who started the fighting: The WMF. The WMF announced to WMDE that
the database-replication is going to end in the near future, what caused that
WMDE stopped to support the Toolserver properly. The very goal with this was
to let (Tool-)Labs be the only alternative.
A fair approach would have been to create Labs as an alternative to the
Toolserver, letting the users (new and old) decide which system they want to
use. Toolserver and Labs could have existed in coexistence, exchanging
knowledge, and maybe specially in different fields after a while. But that was
not what happened. Instead the WMF decided because the are bigger, have more
money, servers and personal, and control the replication-data, that they just
could put the toolserver to an end – what didn't work as well as expected. And
now we are sitting here with confused tool-authors, annoyed tool-users and a
angry root.
I didn't start the fight and I am not interested in teaming-up with a party
which was not interested to build a team in the very beginning when it
counted. Switching or helping with Labs would signal that I'm fine with all
what the WMF did – and I'm not.

Sincerely,
DaB.


--
Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 0x2d3ee2d42b255885

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

Aaron Halfaker-2
Hey folks,

I usually steer clear of these sort of battles, but it looks like it's time to state the obvious: we need to work together better

We're wiki people, damn it.  We're the people[1] who figured out how to build an encyclopedia through (effectively) an anonymous system when those with less imagination were skeptical what it could even work at all.  Now, we're fighting against ourselves about technology to support our wiki work and it is only wasting time, energy and social capitol.  

DaB, I don't follow toolserver-l as well as I should.  What can I do to help make sure that the Toolserver cluster is well supplied at least until labs meets 99.9% of tool developers needs.  Do I need to lobby the WMF?  WMDE?

Ryan, I'm sure it was not out of some sort of malicious intent, but a large number of toolserver users and especially DaB are getting a raw deal.  At some point, someone seems to have suggested that WMF Labs ought to replace the Toolserver.  This is painful because, while Labs is not yet ready for us, the Toolserver is already being phased out.  It's not fair to just say, "Come on over to Labs and help us."  I don't see how jumping ship before the next one shows up is a good idea.  The majority of us are doing our work as volunteers.  We can't just manifest extra maintainer hours in order to spend developer time on Labs.  We're already spending more time dealing with Toolserver issues than we normally would.  

Finally, the Toolserver isn't just a resource.  It's our community.  A community is far more valuable than technology.  If we don't preserve our community, we'll all lose.  So please, when we're fighting each other, our first thought should be how to not need to fight anymore.  

So here we are.  Today was wasted arguing about who was wronged.  How do we work together better tomorrow?

-Aaron


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM, DaB. <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,
At Thursday 02 May 2013 15:29:07 DaB. wrote:
> I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors,
> researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver is
> empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?
>
> I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting
> everyone? Let's work as a team

do not forget who started the fighting: The WMF. The WMF announced to WMDE that
the database-replication is going to end in the near future, what caused that
WMDE stopped to support the Toolserver properly. The very goal with this was
to let (Tool-)Labs be the only alternative.
A fair approach would have been to create Labs as an alternative to the
Toolserver, letting the users (new and old) decide which system they want to
use. Toolserver and Labs could have existed in coexistence, exchanging
knowledge, and maybe specially in different fields after a while. But that was
not what happened. Instead the WMF decided because the are bigger, have more
money, servers and personal, and control the replication-data, that they just
could put the toolserver to an end – what didn't work as well as expected. And
now we are sitting here with confused tool-authors, annoyed tool-users and a
angry root.
I didn't start the fight and I am not interested in teaming-up with a party
which was not interested to build a team in the very beginning when it
counted. Switching or helping with Labs would signal that I'm fine with all
what the WMF did – and I'm not.

Sincerely,
DaB.


--
Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 0x2d3ee2d42b255885

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette


_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OFFLIST Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

Sumana Harihareswara-2
Thank you, more than I can say.
-Sumana

On 05/02/2013 11:20 AM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I usually steer clear of these sort of battles, but it looks like it's time
> to state the obvious: *we need to work together better*.
>
> We're wiki people, damn it.  We're the people[1] who figured out how to
> build an encyclopedia through (effectively) an anonymous system when those
> with less imagination were skeptical what it could even work at all.  Now,
> we're fighting against ourselves about technology to support our wiki work
> and it is only wasting time, energy and social capitol.
>
> DaB, I don't follow toolserver-l as well as I should.  What can I do to
> help make sure that the Toolserver cluster is well supplied *at least* until
> labs meets 99.9% of tool developers needs.  Do I need to lobby the WMF?
>  WMDE?
>
> Ryan, I'm sure it was not out of some sort of malicious intent, but a large
> number of toolserver users and especially DaB are getting a raw deal.  At
> some point, someone seems to have suggested that WMF Labs ought to replace
> the Toolserver.  This is painful because, while Labs is not yet ready for
> us, the Toolserver is already being phased out.  It's not fair to just say,
> "Come on over to Labs and help us."  I don't see how jumping ship before
> the next one shows up is a good idea.  The majority of us are doing our
> work as volunteers.  We can't just manifest extra maintainer hours in order
> to spend developer time on Labs.  We're already spending more time dealing
> with Toolserver issues than we normally would.
>
> Finally, the Toolserver isn't just a resource.  It's our community.  A
> community is far more valuable than technology.  If we don't preserve our
> community, we'll all lose.  So please, when we're fighting each other, our
> first thought should be how to not need to fight anymore.
>
> So here we are.  Today was wasted arguing about who was wronged.  How do we
> work together better tomorrow?
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM, DaB. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> At Thursday 02 May 2013 15:29:07 DaB. wrote:
>>> I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors,
>>> researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver
>> is
>>> empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?
>>>
>>> I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting
>>> everyone? Let's work as a team
>>
>> do not forget who started the fighting: The WMF. The WMF announced to WMDE
>> that
>> the database-replication is going to end in the near future, what caused
>> that
>> WMDE stopped to support the Toolserver properly. The very goal with this
>> was
>> to let (Tool-)Labs be the only alternative.
>> A fair approach would have been to create Labs as an alternative to the
>> Toolserver, letting the users (new and old) decide which system they want
>> to
>> use. Toolserver and Labs could have existed in coexistence, exchanging
>> knowledge, and maybe specially in different fields after a while. But that
>> was
>> not what happened. Instead the WMF decided because the are bigger, have
>> more
>> money, servers and personal, and control the replication-data, that they
>> just
>> could put the toolserver to an end – what didn't work as well as expected.
>> And
>> now we are sitting here with confused tool-authors, annoyed tool-users and
>> a
>> angry root.
>> I didn't start the fight and I am not interested in teaming-up with a party
>> which was not interested to build a team in the very beginning when it
>> counted. Switching or helping with Labs would signal that I'm fine with all
>> what the WMF did – and I'm not.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> DaB.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 0x2d3ee2d42b255885
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
>> Posting guidelines for this list:
>> https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
> Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
>


_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

Sumana Harihareswara-2
Since I evidently fail at trying to keep my thank-yous offlist: Aaron,
thanks for the note.

I regret that DaB. and other members of the Toolserver community have
gotten changed timelines and confused and changing messages around tools
support. It sounds like DaB. and other Toolserver community members are
still smarting from some past miscommunications and the feeling of
having something taken away from them.  I am sorry for those past problems.

What we all want to do is work to provide strong, well-supported places
for our community to make and host bots and tools -- and WMF and WMDE
have put a bunch more effort into that goal in the last half-year or so,
to avoid a repeat of past problems.  (I especially appreciate the work
by Silke and Coren on this, just to shout out.)

I'm grateful for the work DaB. has done in the past, and I think the
survey data is pretty useful to help us see how to move forward -- it
sounds like we'll have to contact Mono once more stuff is set up on Labs
to help with the move. :)

DaB. said: "Switching or helping with Labs would signal that I'm fine
with all what the WMF did – and I'm not."  I don't think other people
would read cooperation that way; I think most of us collaborate on
projects where we aren't 100% in agreement with all the decisions our
colleagues made, and we can balance disagreeing and working together.  I
hope to work with you.

with regards,
Sumana
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation

On 05/02/2013 11:24 AM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:

> Thank you, more than I can say.
> -Sumana
>
> On 05/02/2013 11:20 AM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I usually steer clear of these sort of battles, but it looks like it's time
>> to state the obvious: *we need to work together better*.
>>
>> We're wiki people, damn it.  We're the people[1] who figured out how to
>> build an encyclopedia through (effectively) an anonymous system when those
>> with less imagination were skeptical what it could even work at all.  Now,
>> we're fighting against ourselves about technology to support our wiki work
>> and it is only wasting time, energy and social capitol.
>>
>> DaB, I don't follow toolserver-l as well as I should.  What can I do to
>> help make sure that the Toolserver cluster is well supplied *at least* until
>> labs meets 99.9% of tool developers needs.  Do I need to lobby the WMF?
>>  WMDE?
>>
>> Ryan, I'm sure it was not out of some sort of malicious intent, but a large
>> number of toolserver users and especially DaB are getting a raw deal.  At
>> some point, someone seems to have suggested that WMF Labs ought to replace
>> the Toolserver.  This is painful because, while Labs is not yet ready for
>> us, the Toolserver is already being phased out.  It's not fair to just say,
>> "Come on over to Labs and help us."  I don't see how jumping ship before
>> the next one shows up is a good idea.  The majority of us are doing our
>> work as volunteers.  We can't just manifest extra maintainer hours in order
>> to spend developer time on Labs.  We're already spending more time dealing
>> with Toolserver issues than we normally would.
>>
>> Finally, the Toolserver isn't just a resource.  It's our community.  A
>> community is far more valuable than technology.  If we don't preserve our
>> community, we'll all lose.  So please, when we're fighting each other, our
>> first thought should be how to not need to fight anymore.
>>
>> So here we are.  Today was wasted arguing about who was wronged.  How do we
>> work together better tomorrow?
>>
>> -Aaron
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM, DaB. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> At Thursday 02 May 2013 15:29:07 DaB. wrote:
>>>> I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors,
>>>> researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver
>>> is
>>>> empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?
>>>>
>>>> I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting
>>>> everyone? Let's work as a team
>>>
>>> do not forget who started the fighting: The WMF. The WMF announced to WMDE
>>> that
>>> the database-replication is going to end in the near future, what caused
>>> that
>>> WMDE stopped to support the Toolserver properly. The very goal with this
>>> was
>>> to let (Tool-)Labs be the only alternative.
>>> A fair approach would have been to create Labs as an alternative to the
>>> Toolserver, letting the users (new and old) decide which system they want
>>> to
>>> use. Toolserver and Labs could have existed in coexistence, exchanging
>>> knowledge, and maybe specially in different fields after a while. But that
>>> was
>>> not what happened. Instead the WMF decided because the are bigger, have
>>> more
>>> money, servers and personal, and control the replication-data, that they
>>> just
>>> could put the toolserver to an end – what didn't work as well as expected.
>>> And
>>> now we are sitting here with confused tool-authors, annoyed tool-users and
>>> a
>>> angry root.
>>> I didn't start the fight and I am not interested in teaming-up with a party
>>> which was not interested to build a team in the very beginning when it
>>> counted. Switching or helping with Labs would signal that I'm fine with all
>>> what the WMF did – and I'm not.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> DaB.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 0x2d3ee2d42b255885
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
>>> Posting guidelines for this list:
>>> https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
>> Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
> Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
>


_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Survey: Moving to Labs

Ryan Lane-3
In reply to this post by Aaron Halfaker-2
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Aaron Halfaker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hey folks,

I usually steer clear of these sort of battles, but it looks like it's time to state the obvious: we need to work together better

We're wiki people, damn it.  We're the people[1] who figured out how to build an encyclopedia through (effectively) an anonymous system when those with less imagination were skeptical what it could even work at all.  Now, we're fighting against ourselves about technology to support our wiki work and it is only wasting time, energy and social capitol.  

DaB, I don't follow toolserver-l as well as I should.  What can I do to help make sure that the Toolserver cluster is well supplied at least until labs meets 99.9% of tool developers needs.  Do I need to lobby the WMF?  WMDE?
 
Ryan, I'm sure it was not out of some sort of malicious intent, but a large number of toolserver users and especially DaB are getting a raw deal.  At some point, someone seems to have suggested that WMF Labs ought to replace the Toolserver.  This is painful because, while Labs is not yet ready for us, the Toolserver is already being phased out.  It's not fair to just say, "Come on over to Labs and help us."  I don't see how jumping ship before the next one shows up is a good idea.  The majority of us are doing our work as volunteers.  We can't just manifest extra maintainer hours in order to spend developer time on Labs.  We're already spending more time dealing with Toolserver issues than we normally would.  


I don't think it's necessary to lobby anyone. WMDE has agreed to continue funding TS during the transition period, and the final decommissioning date is 2014-12-31 (see <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Tool_Labs/Roadmap_en>).
 
Finally, the Toolserver isn't just a resource.  It's our community.  A community is far more valuable than technology.  If we don't preserve our community, we'll all lose.  So please, when we're fighting each other, our first thought should be how to not need to fight anymore.  


That's what I'm encouraging as well. I'd like the community to move intact to Labs, including DaB. Fighting each other won't get us anywhere. If we all work together to build the new environment, it'll go quicker and we'll resolve issues together.

- Ryan

_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([hidden email])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette