[Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
118 messages Options
1 ... 3456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

David Cuenca Tudela
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
> about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
> and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
> adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
> do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
> someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.
>

Talking in several venues about what one is doing cannot be considered
consensus building. Actually it is the opposite, because it is an extrinsic
change and as such it cannot be appropriated by any ad-hoc community. Even
worse, it gives developers the wrong impression that they are working under
general approval, when actually they might be communicating only with the
people that normally would accept their project, but not the ones that
normally would reject it.

It is of course impossible to involve everyone, but the more voices are
included the better represented will be the interests of the ones that are
not present.

Cheers,
Micru
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Trillium Corsage
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk-3


14.08.2014, 13:33, "Ziko van Dijk" <email clipped>:
> Henning,
>
> "To describe Eric's action I am tempted to use a
> metaphor that includes black uniforms and heavy boots. But that would
> not be appropriately written by a German to a German."
>
> You may find yourself very smart with this kind of wording. Let me
> tell you from a North German to a North German: "Dat bisse nich."

Man musst nicht Norddeutscher sein verstehen zu koennen dass das Quatschvergleichung ist.

Trillium Corsage

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Rich Farmbrough
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Erik said:

>We are very open to continuing the discussion about how the feature
>should be configured, how it should be improved, and how it should be
>integrated in the site experience

The message that is being given, though is, to quote Mathilda "I'm smart;
you're dumb; I'm big, you're little; *I'm right, you're wrong*, and there's
nothing you can do about it."

And this continues in this post.  Assuming for example that those who do
not opt-out "support" the media viewer.

Let me just make my position on the media viewer clear, since I am being
uncharacteristically vocal on this subject.  I am undecided, but I think it
is probably a good thing.  However when I hear respected communities saying
there are functional and legal problems, I am inclined to believe them.  I
support therefore the "not-yet" faction.  Personally I find it irritating
(and at the same time potentially very cool), but I keep it on because I
want to see what the bulk of our readers see.

So there are interconnecting layers of issues here - and I think they are
clear, but I will lay them out in case we are talking at cross purposes.

1. Erik's actions.  This sort of thing happens a lot on on-line communities
(and elsewhere - see the Crimea!)  and I did not get too excited about the
socially inept blundering on en:WP.  But to repeat the same script on
German Wikipedia within a few days shows a lack of wisdom unbecoming to
"Deputy Director".

2. The specific question of Media Viewer.  That I believe can be resolved,
and is all about "not yet", it should never have been allowed to cause
drama. I would like to see some metrics for the value delivered by the
Media Viewer, though, rather than "Flikr does it, it must be good".  I am
disappointed after a mostly unusable Visual Editor was released with
content breaking bugs that another project is being forced down the same
path - Erik's comment "That's no way to develop software" rings rather
hollow in this context.

3.  The ongoing question of software development.  The WMF is supposed to "to
empower and engage" the communities to  disseminate content "effectively
and globally."  It is not supposed to run with its own agenda.  Bugs and
feature requests by the community are allowed to stand unattended for years
- one was closed (WONTFIX) because of an off-hand comment made by a dev on
a mailing list!  Meanwhile "nice to have" features absorb apparently huge
amounts of financial and staff resoruces. In the style re-work, extensive
feedback was solicited and provided - and ignored when it didin't suit.
(Notably a/b testing, mixing serif and sans, and using typefaces where the
glyphs are more distinct)

4. The culture at the Foundation needs to be more focussed on collaborative
and collegial work with the communities. The Foundation  is an essential
part of the Movement, if it did not exist it would be necessary to invent
it.  However it is not the senior partner, certainly not in terms of age or
resource, and, due to the open licensing, not in content.  To work
effectively with the community the Foundation needs to consider the
community as its customer, be responsive to its needs and wants, in this
way it can deliver on its charitable objectives.

Note: This does not mean a namby-pamby relationship, but rather a robust
one, where evidence based decisions can be made jointly and collegialy.
Indeed one value add from having an organisation like the WMF is the
resource to gather significant evidence on usability, readability,
accessibility, clarity, interrogability and so forth.


On 14 August 2014 14:35, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
> > roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that
> > early participation there is no possibility for later consensus.
>
>
> A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
> about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
> and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
> adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
> do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
> someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Landline (UK) 01780 757 250
Mobile (UK) 0798 1995 792
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Mike Godwin-2
In reply to this post by K. Peachey-2
Henning writes:

> To describe Eric's action I am tempted to use a
> metaphor that includes black uniforms and heavy boots. But that would
> not be appropriately written by a German to a German.

My experience over the last quarter century suggests that this
metaphor rarely works out well.


--Mike Godwin

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Andrea Zanni-2
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Henning writes:
>
> > To describe Eric's action I am tempted to use a
> > metaphor that includes black uniforms and heavy boots. But that would
> > not be appropriately written by a German to a German.
>
> My experience over the last quarter century suggests that this
> metaphor rarely works out well.


<COMPLETELY OT>I'm sorry, can I say "LOL"?</OT>

Cheers, Aubrey

>
>
> --Mike Godwin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 14.08.2014 15:35, David Gerard wrote:

> On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
>> roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without
>> that
>> early participation there is no possibility for later consensus.
>
>
> A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
> about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
> and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
> adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
> do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
> someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.
>
>
> - d.
>

This is actually not correct. Take pending changes on the English
Wikipedia as an example - people used to complain a lot on how RfC's
were closed, but this is the business of the community. I have never
heard anybody complaining that the trial sucked, or that PC itself does
not work properly. There was a discussion, there was a trial, everything
was properly announced, and everything from the developers's side was
done perfectly or close to perfectly.

Take Phase I Wikidata - this is smth I was actively participating in
and watched it from the close distance. Everything went smoothly, with
the Hungarian Wikipedia trial starting first, the Italian Wikipedia a
bit later, when feedback was taken into account, and then other
Wikipedias followed. Again, no problem with the developers whatsoever.

Now compare this with VE, AFT, Mediaviewer, and Flow will be probably
the next disaster of a comprable scale - despite the fact that WMF is
pretty open about Flow, and there are many people answering questions
basically in real time.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
It would work for me.
Peter Southwood

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of rupert THURNER
Sent: 13 August 2014 07:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Am 13.08.2014 15:56 schrieb "Magnus Manske" <[hidden email]>:
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:51 AM, rupert THURNER
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Magnus Manske
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > >> It's probably fine for "modern" viewing, although it's hard to
> > >> guess
> > that
> > >> you get to the file page via the little Commons icon for people
> > >> who
(in

> > all
> > >> likelihood) have never seen that icon, or visited Commons.
> >
> > > Indeed, the icon to the File: page is currently very opaque. We're
> > > preparing for a round of possible changes to the viewing
> > > experience, potentially including
> > > - moving caption above the fold so readers don't have to hunt for
> > > it
> > > - moving disable action above-the-fold
> > > - potentially eliminating the below-the-fold panel entirely
> > > - emphasizing the File: page more prominently as the canonical
> > > source of metadata
> > > - separating out download/use actions more clearly
> > >
> > > These changes will need to be carefully tested/validated. If you
> > > want to take a look at an early early (!) prototype (!!), see
> > > http://multimedia-alpha.wmflabs.org/wiki/Lightbox_demo , but
> > > please
> >
> > magnus, do these changes make you turn it on again? if not, what
> > would
need
> > to be better?
> >
>
> I think this is a non-issue. It took one click to get to the image
> page; now it takes two. That's my main "problem" with it.
> As I said, I'm not the target audience for this. I hope.

to give back the one click experience one would need two entry points. a tab or a toolbox link to start mediaviewer, and standard behavior on the images. for one link more in the gui everybody would be happy?

rupert
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4744 / Virus Database: 4007/8026 - Release Date: 08/13/14


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Rich Farmbrough
On 14 August 2014 16:27, Richard Farmbrough <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 3.  The ongoing question of software development.  The WMF is supposed to "to
> empower and engage" the communities to  disseminate content "effectively
> and globally."  It is not supposed to run with its own agenda.  Bugs and
> feature requests by the community are allowed to stand unattended for years
> - one was closed (WONTFIX) because of an off-hand comment made by a dev on
> a mailing list!  Meanwhile "nice to have" features absorb apparently huge
> amounts of financial and staff resoruces. In the style re-work, extensive
> feedback was solicited and provided - and ignored when it didin't suit.
> (Notably a/b testing, mixing serif and sans, and using typefaces where the
> glyphs are more distinct)


Although I concur with Erik's and WMF's actions in this particular
case (and I really don't see how it could have worked out any other
way), it's worth noting for the general case that local communities
*do* need to be able to add local enhancements to MediaWiki - because
the developers, WMF and volunteer, simply don't scale. This has been
observable even for simple administrative actions that happen to
require shell use, let alone adding new functionality.

So locally-editable site JavaScript, for locally-important gadgets and
so forth, is in fact something that's needed. This particularly
applies to non-Wikipedia wikis that get no paid developer attention
from WMF.

Of course, in an ideal world this would be later reviewed and possibly
centralised. But blocking it in general will immediately make
Wikimedia sites worse, not better, in important ways.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Marc-Andre
On 08/14/2014 02:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> So locally-editable site JavaScript, for locally-important gadgets and
> so forth, is in fact something that's needed.

That seems reasonable, but it's less clear to me that this should be
bundled with / part of the 'editinterface' right, at least as it is
currently managed (the ability to be able to change wording of system
message is only related to being able to change javascript/CSS by way of
hysterical raisins).

Regardless of which process, in the end, is adopted to make management
of sitewide customization to javascript etc, separating that from
"normal" editinterface seems to me to be prerequisite.

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

David Gerard-2
On 14 August 2014 20:27, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 08/14/2014 02:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:

>> So locally-editable site JavaScript, for locally-important gadgets and
>> so forth, is in fact something that's needed.

> That seems reasonable, but it's less clear to me that this should be
> bundled with / part of the 'editinterface' right, at least as it is
> currently managed (the ability to be able to change wording of system
> message is only related to being able to change javascript/CSS by way of
> hysterical raisins).
> Regardless of which process, in the end, is adopted to make management
> of sitewide customization to javascript etc, separating that from
> "normal" editinterface seems to me to be prerequisite.


This is true, but prerequisite to what? What I'm saying is that
switching off local scripting in general until [unspecified condition]
is met is going to be an immediately bad thing for every WMF wiki that
doesn't get lots of WMF attention, which is most of them. So that's a
thing that shouldn't be done just because admins on two wikis are
acting like my daughter just before I withdraw her computer access.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by David Cuenca Tudela
On 14 Aug 2014 14:50, "David Cuenca" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
> > about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
> > and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
> > adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
> > do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
> > someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.
> >
>
> Talking in several venues about what one is doing cannot be considered
> consensus building. Actually it is the opposite, because it is an
extrinsic
> change and as such it cannot be appropriated by any ad-hoc community. Even
> worse, it gives developers the wrong impression that they are working
under
> general approval, when actually they might be communicating only with the
> people that normally would accept their project, but not the ones that
> normally would reject it.

how should this be solved?

To me it's saying that no matter who is informed, the WMF can never expect
that their work won't be overruled.

That is problematic (regardless of who has the final authority)


> Cheers,
> Micru
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Isarra Yos
In reply to this post by Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 14/08/14 16:07, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

> This is actually not correct. Take pending changes on the English
> Wikipedia as an example - people used to complain a lot on how RfC's
> were closed, but this is the business of the community. I have never
> heard anybody complaining that the trial sucked, or that PC itself
> does not work properly. There was a discussion, there was a trial,
> everything was properly announced, and everything from the
> developers's side was done perfectly or close to perfectly.
>
> Take Phase I Wikidata - this is smth I was actively participating in
> and watched it from the close distance. Everything went smoothly, with
> the Hungarian Wikipedia trial starting first, the Italian Wikipedia a
> bit later, when feedback was taken into account, and then other
> Wikipedias followed. Again, no problem with the developers whatsoever.
>
> Now compare this with VE, AFT, Mediaviewer, and Flow will be probably
> the next disaster of a comprable scale - despite the fact that WMF is
> pretty open about Flow, and there are many people answering questions
> basically in real time.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav

It may be that specific teams, not just legal and whatnot but also
including within engineering itself, are better at handling this sort of
thing than others. Have there been any patterns with how well things go
depending on who is involved? If so, perhaps the others could learn from
them...

-I

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

svetlana
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 23:35, David Gerard wrote:

> On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
> > roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that
> > early participation there is no possibility for later consensus.
>
>
> A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
> about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
> and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
> adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
> do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
> someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.
>
>
> - d.

How could presence of interest help people to fix media viewer?
From its early beta testing, I wrote numerous feedback about how going fullscreen is a misleading redundant step.
It was not implemented.
What more interest could I have?

It's not like I care about this too much, but I'm curious as to what you expect me to be able to do to display my "interest".

svetlana

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

svetlana
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, at 09:47, svetlana wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 23:35, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
> > > roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that
> > > early participation there is no possibility for later consensus.
> >
> >
> > A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
> > about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
> > and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
> > adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
> > do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
> > someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> How could presence of interest help people to fix media viewer?
> From its early beta testing, I wrote numerous feedback about how going fullscreen is a misleading redundant step.

confusing wording; i mean: they still coded it to go fullscreen nomatter what
i wanted them to have a dialog of sorts instead

> It was not implemented.
> What more interest could I have?
>
> It's not like I care about this too much, but I'm curious as to what you expect me to be able to do to display my "interest".
>
> svetlana

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Mark
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 8/14/14, 3:35 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
>> roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that
>> early participation there is no possibility for later consensus.
>
> A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
> about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
> and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
> adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
> do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
> someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.

I actually have not found the "beta feature" feedback pages to be very
responsive. Is that what you had in mind? I've made an attempt to be on
top of these things and discuss them before the rollout, lest I come to
the party late and unhelpfully. But the beta-feature talk pages are full
of people with questions and problems and no responses or solutions, or
really any signs of life from anyone in a position to do anything.

On the plus side, I was driven by this frustration to figure out what
"git" and "gerrit" are. A simple bug in December rendered the beta
"Nearby" feature completely unusable for weeks. There were many comments
on the Talk page for that feature complaining that it had semi-recently
become completely broken. But nobody seemed to be acknowledging,
explaining, or making any effort to fix it. I eventually dug into the
matter and discovered that the recently introduced problem was obvious
and the fix was literally a 2-line patch. Then I spent about 1000x more
time than it took to author the 2-line patch to figure out how to submit
these two lines through git/gerrit bureaucracy. But being sufficiently
annoyed, I did manage to submit a patch, which was eventually applied,
and after some delay that fixed the brokenness. But that experience led
me to believe that nobody is really paying attention to beta feedback!

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

David Cuenca Tudela
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> how should this be solved?
>
> To me it's saying that no matter who is informed, the WMF can never expect
> that their work won't be overruled.
>
> That is problematic (regardless of who has the final authority)


A first step would be to abide to the principles of Open Process
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/OpenProcess

Namely:

   - Transparency - all communications and decisions are public and
   archived, so anyone interested may get all information
   - No time constraints - all decisions (democratic or not) are suggested
   or announced a reasonable timespan before they become effective. So there
   is still time for discussion and even last minute intervention.
   - Participation - in principle (this opens the chance for restrictions
   in case of problems) anyone is welcome to participate (discussions,
   decisions *and* work)
   - * Reflection and reversibility - any decision may be reversed if the
   results are not as expected. *
   - Tolerance - any system or process should have the flexibility in the
   application of its - necessary - rules
   - Sharing and collaborating on visible and accessible goals and
   resources

Then a second step would be to engage the community, not only as something
that has to be "managed", but as an equal partner that has to take up
responsibilities and who is able to affect decisions. This of course means
a paradigm shift moving away from "community liaisons" and into the realm
of helping contributors to constitute themselves enabling them to take up a
shared ownership role without the need of a formal organization.

I don't think the wmf is entirely responsible for making this happen, there
is also have to be a general will to embody such a spirit without resorting
to staff, hierarchies, or votes. The problem is that most of us live in a
world that doesn't work this way, and the attached structural flaws are
imported, when there is no need to.

Anyhow, that should be something to speak about when the tensions have been
defused.

Cheers,
Micru
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
David, who is the community and how do you get members of the community
recognise and respect the decisions it does not like that are taken on
their behalf by "its" representatives. We do not have one community, we
have many. The interests people aim for are diverse and all too often
contradictory..

Really, in the past one part of the community insisted that it ALWAYS
requires to be able to have the deciding influence for "its" project.. That
clearly pains the picture for me.
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 15 August 2014 10:17, David Cuenca <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Chris Keating <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > how should this be solved?
> >
> > To me it's saying that no matter who is informed, the WMF can never
> expect
> > that their work won't be overruled.
> >
> > That is problematic (regardless of who has the final authority)
>
>
> A first step would be to abide to the principles of Open Process
> http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/OpenProcess
>
> Namely:
>
>    - Transparency - all communications and decisions are public and
>    archived, so anyone interested may get all information
>    - No time constraints - all decisions (democratic or not) are suggested
>    or announced a reasonable timespan before they become effective. So
> there
>    is still time for discussion and even last minute intervention.
>    - Participation - in principle (this opens the chance for restrictions
>    in case of problems) anyone is welcome to participate (discussions,
>    decisions *and* work)
>    - * Reflection and reversibility - any decision may be reversed if the
>    results are not as expected. *
>    - Tolerance - any system or process should have the flexibility in the
>    application of its - necessary - rules
>    - Sharing and collaborating on visible and accessible goals and
>    resources
>
> Then a second step would be to engage the community, not only as something
> that has to be "managed", but as an equal partner that has to take up
> responsibilities and who is able to affect decisions. This of course means
> a paradigm shift moving away from "community liaisons" and into the realm
> of helping contributors to constitute themselves enabling them to take up a
> shared ownership role without the need of a formal organization.
>
> I don't think the wmf is entirely responsible for making this happen, there
> is also have to be a general will to embody such a spirit without resorting
> to staff, hierarchies, or votes. The problem is that most of us live in a
> world that doesn't work this way, and the attached structural flaws are
> imported, when there is no need to.
>
> Anyhow, that should be something to speak about when the tensions have been
> defused.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

David Cuenca Tudela
Gerard,

Citizenship in the digital world is more flexible than in the real world,
but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it cannot be
characterized. It is just a matter of providing a conceptual framework for
defining rights, obligations, etc. and it avoids precisely that a person,
or a group of people, or part or the community, or a sub-community, or any
of the several communities, overtakes a decision-making process that
belongs to the whole.

The terms of use can be considered a first approach to this tough problem,
and it has many interesting keywords: "Part of our mission is to", "You are
free to", "Under the following conditions", "With the understanding that".
Unfortunately it just a "terms of use", not a "terms of community".

If such a thing came into being, there you could state: "Part of our
mission is to promote a healthy collaboration between ourselves, you are
free to represent yourself and others in our community, under the condition
that they have provided you explicit consent and that you respect the
interests of non-represented users, with the understanding that we work for
the benefit of all humanity and not only for our own."

Cheers,
Micru


On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hoi,
> David, who is the community and how do you get members of the community
> recognise and respect the decisions it does not like that are taken on
> their behalf by "its" representatives. We do not have one community, we
> have many. The interests people aim for are diverse and all too often
> contradictory..
>
> Really, in the past one part of the community insisted that it ALWAYS
> requires to be able to have the deciding influence for "its" project.. That
> clearly pains the picture for me.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
> On 15 August 2014 10:17, David Cuenca <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Chris Keating <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > how should this be solved?
> > >
> > > To me it's saying that no matter who is informed, the WMF can never
> > expect
> > > that their work won't be overruled.
> > >
> > > That is problematic (regardless of who has the final authority)
> >
> >
> > A first step would be to abide to the principles of Open Process
> > http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/OpenProcess
> >
> > Namely:
> >
> >    - Transparency - all communications and decisions are public and
> >    archived, so anyone interested may get all information
> >    - No time constraints - all decisions (democratic or not) are
> suggested
> >    or announced a reasonable timespan before they become effective. So
> > there
> >    is still time for discussion and even last minute intervention.
> >    - Participation - in principle (this opens the chance for restrictions
> >    in case of problems) anyone is welcome to participate (discussions,
> >    decisions *and* work)
> >    - * Reflection and reversibility - any decision may be reversed if the
> >    results are not as expected. *
> >    - Tolerance - any system or process should have the flexibility in the
> >    application of its - necessary - rules
> >    - Sharing and collaborating on visible and accessible goals and
> >    resources
> >
> > Then a second step would be to engage the community, not only as
> something
> > that has to be "managed", but as an equal partner that has to take up
> > responsibilities and who is able to affect decisions. This of course
> means
> > a paradigm shift moving away from "community liaisons" and into the realm
> > of helping contributors to constitute themselves enabling them to take
> up a
> > shared ownership role without the need of a formal organization.
> >
> > I don't think the wmf is entirely responsible for making this happen,
> there
> > is also have to be a general will to embody such a spirit without
> resorting
> > to staff, hierarchies, or votes. The problem is that most of us live in a
> > world that doesn't work this way, and the attached structural flaws are
> > imported, when there is no need to.
> >
> > Anyhow, that should be something to speak about when the tensions have
> been
> > defused.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1 ... 3456