Jump to content

Foundation website meeting, July 2004/Meeting log

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Please note that times are UTC+1

Pre-meeting: Anthere recommended people read Wikimedia website

[22:12] <Anthere> * wikimedia.org versus wikimediafoundation.org
[22:12] <dannyisme> wikimedia.org
[22:12] <Anthere> I know Tim opinion, so we listen to you on this
[22:12] <Xirzon> wikimedia.org
[22:12] <Anthere> please, give arguments
[22:12] <Xirzon> for reasons of simplicity alone
[22:12] <maveric149> dannyisme; no;
[22:12] <dannyisme> easier to type
[22:12] <Fire> ack, danny.
[22:12] <Xirzon> the foundation.org does not add enough information to justify a longer name
[22:12] <maveric149> we do not have the .com and there is the m vs p confusion
[22:12] <Angela> wikimedia.org can be a redirect to wikimediafoundation.org, so it doesn't matter which is easier to type
[22:12] <dori> dannyisme: we could set up redirects to the longer url
[22:13] <dannyisme> simplicity has a major value to it
[22:13] <Xirzon> in any case, whatever we choose, I'd say the domain names should point to the same target
[22:13] <Angela> I agree
[22:13] <bdesham> agree
[22:13] <Fire> I agree
[22:13] <dannyisme> agree
[22:13] <maveric149> angela; eventually wikimedia.org should be a portal for all projects
[22:13] <dori> agree
[22:13] <maveric149> have its own content fed to it via rss feeds
[22:13] <Anthere> agree
[22:13] <Xirzon> Angela: that is not necessarily true, if we redirect wikimedia.org to wikimediafoundation.org, the latter url will be bookmarked/memorized
[22:13] <Fire> Also a good idea
[22:13] <maveric149> but that eventuality will depend on getting the .com
[22:14] <Angela> I think RSS feeds can be on the projects themselves; there's no need to have wikimedia.org for that
[22:14] <Coeur> I prefer wikimedia-foundation.org (with a dash)
[22:14] <dannyisme> who has the .com now
[22:14] <Xirzon> do we have wikimedia-foundation.org ?
[22:14] <Angela> no
[22:14] <Xirzon> ok, it's free
[22:14] <Xirzon> if we want to go with wikimediafoundation.org we should definitely register the dash variant
[22:14] <Jamesday> Mav, agree with the portal - and I suppose that means that the foundation has to be one of those projects with its own site.
[22:14] <Xirzon> but I'd prefer to go simply with wikimedia.org
[22:15] <Angela> considering how often the press accidentally use wikipedia.com in stead of .org, I think we want to be telling them the wikimediafoundation.org address to avoid that problem
[22:15] <brion> i have to admin i much prefer wikimedia-foundation.org to wikimediafoundation.org
[22:15] <dannyisme> i still think simplicity is important
[22:15] <dori> I don't think even microsoft has as many domains as wikimedia (of course they have the lawyers)
[22:15] <Anthere> I would prefer wikimedia and wikimediafoundatoin separate
[22:15] <Anthere> for mav reasons
[22:15] <Jamesday> gatesfoundation.org seems to be useful enough and exists:)
[22:15] <maveric149> jamesday; the foundation is the foundation while the projects are what the foundation supports
[22:15] <Angela> brion: how is easier with a hyphen?
[22:15] <maveric149> there is an important distinction
[22:15] <brion> it's more legible.
[22:15] <Jamesday> mav, I agree.
[22:15] <bdesham> agree on the more legible bit
[22:16] <maveric149> hyphens are evil, but we should buy the domain anyway
[22:16] <dannyisme> how much would it cost?
[22:16] <Xirzon> having wikimedia.org and wikimediafoundation.org two different websites would maximize confusion
[22:16] <Fire> I'd make faster a typo typing wikimediafoundation.org then wikimedia-foundation.org
[22:16] <Jamesday> hyphens in URLs have been petty much universally rejected because people don't type them.
[22:16] <Coeur> The Google ranking is better when keywords are readable in the domain name. So the best ranking would be with a dash.
[22:16] <maveric149> dannyisme; about 20 bucks for the .com and .org for a year
[22:16] <dori> how much do domains cost to renew each year? >$20?
[22:16] <Anthere> Coeur has a point
[22:16] <Angela> I don't think the cost is going to be an issue
[22:17] <Xirzon> cost is a non issue
[22:17] <bdesham> dori: about $20
[22:17] <maveric149> GoogleRank only really applies to the project domains
[22:17] <Angela> the main thing is whether there is any point having wikimedia and wikimedia(-)foundation separate
[22:17] <Anthere> I agree
[22:17] <Xirzon> imho not, would cause a lot of mix-ups
[22:17] <Jamesday> The question seems to be what will people type - where will they expect wikimedia.org to go and where will they expect wikimediafoundation to take them?
[22:17] <Anthere> ihmo yes, because they are not the same thing
[22:17] <brion> I'd prefer that wikimedia.org simply redirect to wikimediafoundation.org [or wherever the foundation site goes]
[22:17] <Angela> I don't see what reason there is to separate them. Anything that is on wikimedia.org could be merged with the Founadtion website couldn't it?
[22:18] <maveric149> jamesday; a link to the foundation website will continue to be at wikimedia.org
[22:18] <brion> Currently wikimedia.org has no content, it just points to other sites.
[22:18] <bdesham> have wikimedia.org be the portal; foundation.wikimedia.org be the wmf site; wikimediafoundation.org redirects to foundation.wikimedia.org.
[22:18] <maveric149> wikimedia.org is more for internal matters until we can get the .com
[22:18] <Xirzon> bdesham: lol
[22:18] <Coeur> Angela, I would prefer a separation. The wikimedia-foundation.org would be for the main foundation, while wikimedia.org would be a portal.
[22:18] <maveric149> we still do not have the .com
[22:18] <Jamesday> bdesham, that would invite problems from whoever owns wikimedia.com
[22:18] <Anthere> who has the .com ?
[22:18] <Anthere> do we know how hard to get it ?
[22:19] <Angela> but the Foundation website will have prominent links to the projects on its main page, so it is already acting as a portal
[22:19] <maveric149> the organization and the group of projects are two different, but related things
[22:19] <maveric149> portal; not disambiguation
[22:19] <dori> has anyone contacted whomever has the wikimedia.com account?
[22:19] <Xirzon> maveric149: the foundation website itself should be a portal (i.e. include news, forums etc.) to be interesting
[22:19] <Jamesday> One of the reasons for disliking wikimedia.org is insecurity of financial donations because people often type or have their browser type .com
[22:19] <Anthere> dori, apparently not
[22:19] <Xirzon> having a single, collaboratively maintained website has many benefits
[22:19] * bdesham is now known as bdesham|away
[22:20] <maveric149> xirzon; the foundation website needs to be about the foundation while the wikimedia.org website is about the set of projectrs
[22:20] <dori> Anthere: I think one of the board members should
[22:20] <Angela> if we have both, people will end up linking to wikimedia.org just because it's easier and won't understand that the two are separate
[22:20] <Coeur> wikimedia.com is owned by Daniela Rohers: http://www.whois.net/whois.cgi2?d=wikimedia.com
[22:20] <Anthere> dori noted
[22:20] <_sj_> I think separating the foundation site from the bare "wikimedia.org/com" is useful.
[22:20] <dannyisme> you can contact them at info@wikimedia.com
[22:20] <Xirzon> maveric149: websites can have multiple pages. the question is - does this content fall under different umbrellas? imho no, and the distinction would only be confusing
[22:20] <Angela> maveric149: why can informaton about the projects not just go on the Foundation website?
[22:21] <maveric149> no it will not be confusing;
[22:21] <Xirzon> people who want to go to the wikimedia foundation website will inevitably type wikimedia.org
[22:21] <maveric149> the difference is between content vs the organization that helps to host that content
[22:21] <Xirzon> especially when they have learned from pervious experiences that this site exists
[22:21] <Jamesday> Xirzon, the different .org and .com owners would be more confusing, I think
[22:21] <Xirzon> and they will be confused if the foundation content is not there
[22:21] <maveric149> xircon; not if we advertise the longer name;
[22:21] <Xirzon> Jamesday: good point, but that's a different question - we can redirect wikimedia.org to *foundation.org
[22:22] <dori> about the portal, there is no reason for not putting the portal on the same front page as the foundation, so I don't think there is an issue with that
[22:22] <_sj_> for instance, I think the foundation should have a website which has an unequivocal editorial process, and which could devote itself to things other than project issues
[22:22] <Angela> if we just redirect the wkimedia.org one, we don't need to worry so much about not having the .com
[22:22] <Xirzon> maveric149: just look at how many people still link to wikipedia.com despite all of our best efforts to dissuade them from doing so
[22:22] <maveric149> besides there still be a link to foundation website from wikimedia.org; just like right now
[22:22] <Fire> Tim's on.
[22:22] * TimStarling is on IRC
[22:22] * TimStarling (tim@TimStarling.wikipedia) has joined #wikimedia
[22:22] * ChanServ sets mode: +v TimStarling
[22:22] <Jamesday> Xirzon, yes, we can - and since we can't redirect the .com, that's a reason for advertising and using the full form ourselves.
[22:22] <Anthere> hi Tim
[22:22] <dannyisme> but people often tend to type .com without thinking
[22:22] <Anthere> we are on point 1
[22:22] <WalterBE> bdesham: price of many domains like .com, org andso $8,50 at www.mydomain.com - I use them. Works well.
[22:22] <Fire> Hi Tim
[22:22] <TimStarling> hi, sorry I'm late
[22:22] <maveric149> xirzon; so; they still get to the right place
[22:22] <Anthere> have a cup of coffe
[22:22] <Xirzon> Jamesday: that is a separate matter of whether the two should be separate
[22:22] <Anthere> e
[22:23] <_sj_> Case studies of groups that have worked with WMF, partners, information about associated staff and members which is stable on the order of months...
[22:23] <dori> dannyisme: there is also the issue of browsers automatically tacking on .com
[22:23] <Anthere> I summarize for tim
[22:23] <Xirzon> maveric149: people who can follow links and read instructions will get to the right place, yes
[22:23] * Raul654 (~Raul654@pcp09702488pcs.limstn01.de.comcast.net) has joined #wikimedia
[22:23] <Xirzon> maveric149: my mother couldn'T even find wikipedia with a search engine. this type of target group has to be reached as well
[22:23] <_sj_> in contrast with a rapidly changing project portal, which does not need such a strict editorial policy,
[22:23] <dannyisme> but what about people who dont read instructions
[22:23] <dannyisme> we want to be as easily accessible as possible
[22:23] <_sj_> ... certainly the Foundation's main page and a WMF-project portal would have prominent links to one another.
[22:24] <Jamesday> Traditional is to type in the name of the company without any punctuation.
[22:24] <maveric149> sj; exactly
[22:24] <Angela> I don't think people will understand the difference between the 2 if they are separated
[22:24] * Snowspinner (~Snak@adsl-68-20-38-108.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net) has joined #wikimedia
[22:24] <Fire> jep sj
[22:24] <_sj_> Angela: if you make the mistake once,
[22:24] <_sj_> the layout and format will make it clear you are not where you intended,
[22:24] <_sj_> and the prominent link to the other will take you where you want to go...
[22:24] <maveric149> angela; yes they will; one is about content and one is about the org
[22:24] <_sj_> no harm done.
[22:24] <Xirzon> maveric149: the two can be discussed on the same site without any problems
[22:24] <_sj_> If we combine two different concepts from the outset, we have no such simple solution...
[22:25] <maveric149> xirzon; no they cannot since they are different things
[22:25] <Xirzon> maveric149: they are not too different to be meaningfully integrated
[22:25] <maveric149> AGAIN we do not have the .com
[22:25] <Xirzon> e.g. editorial policy can be enforced through whitelists
[22:25] <Angela> the Foundation *is* about the projects though. Why separate them?
[22:25] <dannyisme> what are our chances of getting the .com
[22:25] <Xirzon> maveric149: AGAIN, that is a separate issue
[22:25] <Anthere> I fear that if we have 2 sites, we'll have high redundencies
[22:25] <Jamesday> They could be integrated.. but since we don't own the .com, that pretty much rules out using the wikimedia.org name.
[22:25] <maveric149> ONE is about the foundation and the other is about the set of projects
[22:25] <maveric149> different things
[22:26] <Xirzon> maveric149: wikipedia is about foxes and about sitcoms. different things
[22:26] <dori> dannyisme: that person didn't seem like a professional cybersquatter to me, maybe it won't be that hard
[22:26] <Xirzon> same site
[22:26] <brion> i'll just point out that one of these "sites" is a list of four links AND NOTHING ELSE.
[22:26] <Fire> danny: As far as it is not a domain geabber, there's always a possibility to get it.
[22:26] <Fire> s/geabber/grabber/
[22:26] <_sj_> brion: a very good point.
[22:26] <_sj_> we don't have an all-wikimedia portal yet
[22:26] <brion> so i don't think it's problematic to put the links on the foundation page.
[22:26] <maveric149> brion; it can and should be a real portal
[22:26] <_sj_> all-wikimedia project* portal
[22:26] <yannf> dori: yes i bought a site which was squatted last year
[22:26] <Xirzon> the gist of the matter is this
[22:26] <Angela> maybe this should be decided later if we ever get any content for the wikimedia.org site. Currently, there's nothing on it, so right now it might as well redirect
[22:27] <Xirzon> wikimedia is fundamentally about doing things in a collaborative fashion and giving interesting information to people
[22:27] <Anthere> but there is really nothing on wikimedia.com
[22:27] <Anthere> it looks like a site waiting to be sold
[22:27] <TimStarling> just to pipe in, I'm on the side of the people who want one site
[22:27] <Xirzon> just because traditional non-profits make their foundation websites very static and boring doesn't mean that we have to
[22:27] <Angela> can we put this on hold for now until we have any content that needs to be separated?
[22:27] <Anthere> which smell bad
[22:27] <Raul654> How much traffic do the other projects get compared to the wikis?
[22:27] <yannf> dori: that may not be so difficult, but can't say before asking the owner
[22:27] <dori> ok, there don't seem to be too many new arguments, how about a vote and moving on?
[22:27] <maveric149> angela; for now I guess that is an OK option
[22:27] <Xirzon> having a single website which provides both information about the organization and about what we do provides a greater incentive for people to visit and memorize that site, and it creates a more coherent community which works on it
[22:27] * Rabautius (rabautius@pD9E96291.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #wikimedia
[22:27] <Anthere> in case there is only ONE site
[22:28] <Rabautius> hi
[22:28] <TimStarling> I don't think you can have two different meanings for the word "wikimedia" without things getting confusing and silly
[22:28] <Fire> Hello, Rabautius
[22:28] <_sj_> I prefer "foundation.wikimedia.org" to blessing the use of a different domain name...
[22:28] <Anthere> I suggest taht it be wikimediafoundation IF we do not have the wikimedia.com
[22:28] <Anthere> otherwise wikimedia itself
[22:28] <Hemanshu> that makes sense
[22:28] <Angela> ok. We can have a vote later if there is ever any content that needs separating then, yes?
[22:28] <_sj_> but that is different from making "www.wikimedia.org" the foundation site. angela: yes.
[22:28] <Raul654> Argh - all the fast moving text is making my headache worse :(
[22:28] <Xirzon> I suggest some effort be undertaken to get the .com
[22:28] <Jamesday> Xirzon , that works until the owner of wikimedia.com sends a donate to wikimedia.com spam.
[22:28] <Xirzon> Jamesday: that is completely unrelated
[22:28] <Xirzon> Jamesday: the single website can be wikimediafoundation.org/.com
[22:29] <_sj_> what's next?
[22:29] <Anthere> okay, let's say we vote on having one or two sites
[22:29] <_sj_> oh, but angela
[22:29] <_sj_> for the time being, what name should we use?
[22:29] <Anthere> the site itself will be decided depending on the .com
[22:29] <Anthere> okay ?
[22:29] <dannyisme> wait, what about sj's idea foundation.wikimedia.org
[22:29] <Xirzon> okay, ant
[22:29] <dori> by the way, about the votes, will it be everyone votes, or board members vote?
[22:29] <Jamesday> Anthere, that's not something to vote on individually - the choice depends on what the sites are.
[22:29] <TimStarling> who is voting, the Board or everyone?
[22:29] <Xirzon> dannyisme: the current owner of .com could still create foundation.wikimedia.com
[22:29] <maveric149> angela; we cannot use the wikimedia.org domain for much right now sicne we do not own the .com
[22:29] <TimStarling> (say the Board)
[22:29] <Anthere> why jamesday ?
[22:29] <Angela> I don't think we need to vote right now do we?
[22:30] <Xirzon> Angela: we should vote on one site vs. two sites
[22:30] <dannyisme> let's vote
[22:30] <Angela> we need to get the .com domain and register the hyphened version. For now the site is wikimediafoundation.org
[22:30] <Anthere> this, I agree Angela
[22:30] <Jamesday> Because foundation.wikimedia.com would work nicely - it's conveniently short. foundation.wikimediafoundation.com is getting cumbersone.
[22:30] <Xirzon> Angela: this is independent of the .com question
[22:30] <_sj_> sounds good.
[22:30] <Raul654> Ok, what's the next order of buisness?
[22:30] <maveric149> angela; I agree
[22:30] <_sj_> yes, I think in the end
[22:30] <_sj_> foundation.wikimedia.com is the best name
[22:30] * dori half expects some cybersquatter to be in this session and register all the new names proposed :)
[22:30] <Xirzon> er, what is our conclusion here? one site or two?
[22:30] <maveric149> we are NOT a .com
[22:30] <_sj_> assuming we can get it.
[22:30] <Hemanshu> .com?
[22:30] <_sj_> of course, mav
[22:31] <Raul654> Mav - but we should get it anyway
[22:31] <Anthere> I summarize
[22:31] <TimStarling> oh, I see jwales isn't here, so we don't have a quorum
[22:31] <dannyisme> no, but we want to own the com anyways
[22:31] <Jamesday> sj, if we own wikimedia.com, I agree and would go with one site there.
[22:31] <Angela> for now, one site. In future, we may have the .com and separate them
[22:31] <Hemanshu> .com became obsolete long ago ;)
[22:31] <Raul654> Tim - Is Jimbo coming?
[22:31] <Angela> Raul654: Jimbo can't make it
[22:31] <dannyisme> no, he is not coming raul
[22:31] <dori> Raul654: no
[22:31] <Raul654> Ah
[22:31] <_sj_> Jamesday, good.
[22:31] <Xirzon> ok, so the current wikimedia.org will redirect to wikimediafoundation.org for now?
[22:31] <Fire> The think is not that we are a com or a org, but the thing is to own both, as far as people like to use .com :)
[22:32] <Angela> is this agreed then (for now): "currently using wikimediafoundation.org. In future, we may have the .com and separate them"
[22:32] <dannyisme> agreed
[22:32] <Fire> agree
[22:32] <Jamesday> Xirzon, I'd say yes - for now I think we need the split.
[22:32] <maveric149> agreed
[22:32] <brion> sounds good
[22:32] <Xirzon> Angela: yes, with emphasis on "may" - i.e. this is to be discussed
[22:32] <Anthere> agreed
[22:32] <dori> Xirzon: I would say so, but I would also put the contents presently at wikimedia.org at wikimediafoundation.org
[22:32] * Hashar (another@Hashar.wikipedia) has joined #wikimedia
[22:32] <TimStarling> ok
[22:32] <Angela> ok, can we move on to whether we want to edit the site on Meta or whether we want a separate Foundation wiki
[22:32] <_sj_> ok
[22:32] <Fire> Angela: ok
[22:32] * AnathemaTM (~echo@p508E2614.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #wikimedia
[22:32] <Anthere> * Meta vs. separate wiki
[22:33] <_sj_> what are the disadvantages to a separate wiki?
[22:33] <Raul654> Sj - redundancy
[22:33] <maveric149> If we keep it on meta then some code changes will be needed
[22:33] <Anthere> I tend to think the current discussion goes toward a separate wiki
[22:33] <Xirzon> I'd say we should move forward in fully internationalizing the software
[22:33] <maveric149> I would prefer that IF the code changes are made
[22:33] <Xirzon> so that we can use meta as the foundation wiki effectively
[22:33] <Angela> the advantage of a separate wiki is that we can have different access levels. We don't necessarily want the Sysops on the Foundation wiki to be the same as the sysops on Meta
[22:33] <brion> The current pages imported from meta are a quick hack that i set up one day on request to have something editable up quick. A separate wiki would be more maintainable.
[22:33] <Xirzon> maveric149: besides i18n, which other code changes do you have in mind?
[22:34] <maveric149> angela; two words; user rights
[22:34] <dannyisme> is the foundation site even going to be a wiki?
[22:34] <maveric149> xirzon; the ability of stewards to make new pages for wikimediafoundation.org
[22:34] <Xirzon> mediawiki supports basic whitelists, these could be used at least for defining a set of wikimedia pages to be editorially maintained
[22:34] <TimStarling> I have suggested making it static HTML
[22:34] <dannyisme> i think that's a good idea tim
[22:35] <dori> Xirzon: can whitelists be used to restrict per namespace? that way we could just set up a namespace within meta
[22:35] <maveric149> Tim; I would like the ability to just more easily use the current set up
[22:35] <Anthere> I strongly support meta NOT being foundation
[22:35] <Anthere> these are two different things
[22:35] <Angela> we'll come on to that next, but even if it's not a wiki, it has to be maintained somewhere. Is there any reason for that place to be Meta?
[22:35] <TimStarling> but Anthere is not keen on that idea because she doesn't know how to write HTML
[22:35] <Xirzon> dori: that could be hacked relatively easily
[22:35] <Anthere> meta is to work together
[22:35] <Raul654> So we set up a foundation wiki which is whitelisted. No editing without special priviliges?
[22:35] <Anthere> foundation is to be visible from outsiders
[22:35] <Fire> Anthere: Strong strong Ack
[22:35] <_sj_> Tim: how about this --
[22:35] <Anthere> ack ?
[22:35] <_sj_> have a separate foundation wiki,
[22:35] <dannyisme> ack?
[22:35] <Fire> Acknowledgement :)
[22:35] <maveric149> TimStarling: maybe exporting the printable version of pages to the foundation website would allow the use of wiki
[22:35] <Angela> ack = agree
[22:35] <_sj_> export changes as static html to a live section of the site
[22:35] <Xirzon> working together and being visible from the outside do not necessarily ocntradict each other
[22:36] <_sj_> wiki sections of the site are visible only to logged-in users.
[22:36] <Xirzon> but having some whitelist control on very public pages is desirable
[22:36] <Hemanshu> for the record, if I am not commenting, I am nodding ;)
[22:36] <_sj_> we shouldn't have live-editing, anyway
[22:36] <_sj_> no matter how trusted the editors intentions
[22:36] <Anthere> yes it does xirzon, we can not be as open ihmo
[22:36] <Jamesday> A different site wiki seems best to me - can have a fair number of editors and a very limited set of admins with protected pages for the key material, like money.
[22:36] <Xirzon> I think we should start out on a hypothesis of trust and move on from there
[22:36] <_sj_> (people make mistakes!)
[22:36] <Angela> is there any reason to use Meta or do we all agree on it being separate?
[22:36] <_sj_> separate.
[22:36] <Anthere> separate
[22:37] <dannyisme> separate
[22:37] <Fire> sep
[22:37] <Xirzon> i.e. we should look at specific cases where we need to be less trustful, rather than assumming that we have to for the entire wikimedia wiki
[22:37] <maveric149> just like now; but better
[22:37] <Hemanshu> separate
[22:37] <Xirzon> not separate
[22:37] <Coeur> separate :)
[22:37] <Raul654> seperate, I think
[22:37] <yannf> separate
[22:37] <Angela> Xirzon: why not?
[22:37] <dori> I would say separate or with a new namespace on meta
[22:37] <Raul654> as long as it is made clear
[22:37] <Raul654> I think this will definitely add to confusino
[22:37] <Raul654> confusion*
[22:37] <Xirzon> Angela: There's no point, harness the creative energy of the existing meta community to build a great foundation website
[22:37] <_sj_> we should be internationalizing MediaWiki for meta:, regardless.
[22:37] <Xirzon> build a single portal to generate maximum interest
[22:37] <maveric149> there needs to be a distinction betwee meta and the foundation
[22:38] <Anthere> Xirzon, the main page for example would be highly different
[22:38] <Hemanshu> so separate site means separate community?
[22:38] <Jamesday> Xirzon, one eoncern is that it's undesirable to let many people have the technical capability to change donation links.
[22:38] <Xirzon> maveric149: it can be an editorial distinction rather than a site distinction
[22:38] <maveric149> stuff on the foundation website needs to be official in some respect
[22:38] <Xirzon> Anthere: there can be two portals, like there are on wikipedia
[22:38] <Xirzon> i.e. community portal vs. main page
[22:38] <Anthere> where ?
[22:38] <Anthere> ah, true
[22:38] <Angela> the Foundation site is more for external people, so we would want a different side bar. Options like "page history" etc aren't useful for the press
[22:38] <TimStarling> can we make a list of the things we want to put on wikimediafoundation.org?
[22:38] <Anthere> and two tool bars ?
[22:38] <Xirzon> Jamesday: as I said, whitelists are a feature supported by mediawiki
[22:38] <Hemanshu> I think the proposals can be on meta and the actual site could be separate
[22:39] <Anthere> I think the two sites do not have the same goals
[22:39] <Hemanshu> maybe even not wiki
[22:39] <Jamesday> Angela, I agree - a different skin with that at the bottom would perhaps be best
[22:39] * Hemanshu hears shouts of boo
[22:39] <Anthere> they do not recover each other well
[22:39] <dannyisme> no, hemanshu, i agree with you
[22:39] <Angela> TimStarling: there's a list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_website
[22:39] <Anthere> but for erik, no one seems to support one unique website
[22:39] <maveric149> hosting the text on meta and exporting that to the static foundation website is what I would like
[22:39] <_sj_> Hemanshu - yes, though the initial editing should be wiki for speed and ease of use... the final product could be non-wiki.
[22:39] <Xirzon> Anthere: well, it would still be the best thing to do :)
[22:39] <Anthere> perhaps
[22:40] <Anthere> not convinced
[22:40] <Anthere> but does anyone else have arguments ?
[22:40] <Jamesday> Xirzon, whitelists for individual pages, and restricted so a sysop can't cahnge that setting?
[22:40] <TimStarling> Mav is suggesting FileReplacement
[22:40] <maveric149> we just need the ability to create new pages for foundation website and use wiki
[22:40] <Xirzon> Jamesday: yes, whitelists are independent of sysop status
[22:40] <maveric149> use the printable version instead of the raw wikitext
[22:41] <TimStarling> the thing about that is that there needs to be some method for inserting HTML, especially for the paypal form
[22:41] <Anthere> what is white list ?
[22:41] <dori> maveric149: I'd agree with that, but again, only if it's in a different namespace
[22:41] <TimStarling> also for a whitelist
[22:41] <Jamesday> Anthere, list of approved editors for that page only
[22:41] <Jamesday> IF that capability is there, it's no longer too risky to use meta - because the donation links can be protected.
[22:41] <Angela> mav's point brings us on the the Wikitext vs HTML. Do we want the whole thing to be exported to HTML, or just to allow HTML as part of the normal wiki editing?
[22:41] <maveric149> Erik mentioned the existance of a type of user rights management function
[22:41] <Jamesday> That still leaves the site appearance as a concern, though.
[22:41] <Anthere> yes but risk is NOT the only argument
[22:41] <Xirzon> user rights management being a text editor :)
[22:41] <Angela> we'll come on to access levels later
[22:42] <maveric149> exported to HTML is fine
[22:42] <Xirzon> the current rights system in mediawiki is based on the LocalSettings.php
[22:42] <TimStarling> I've said by email that there are two ways to insert HTML into wikitext
[22:42] <Angela> the only problem with exporting to HTML is that everyone has to know HTML for that to work
[22:42] <TimStarling> one is to remove the filters
[22:42] <Anthere> it is more about mixing what is internal work from public display
[22:42] <TimStarling> the other is to have special templates or other kinds of special syntax
[22:43] <TimStarling> and I said that either way, it is a few hours of development work
[22:43] <Coeur> Can we mix Wikitext and HTML ?
[22:43] <dori> it would be neat if wikimedia supported more finely grained permissions (have levels from 0...N) and pages and different functions were set at different levels, but that would requite a major rewrite
[22:43] <Jamesday> Perhaps a preliminary question would help? Is it desirable that the foundation site looks different from meta?
[22:43] <dori> or rather mediawiki
[22:43] <Xirzon> we should just have a <html> tag
[22:43] <Angela> perhaps allowing HTML but not making it compulsory would be best
[22:43] <Anthere> I agree with James
[22:43] <Hemanshu> remove all the filters at once sounds extreme
[22:43] <_sj_> Some of the desired pages
[22:43] <_sj_> may be very hard to edit,
[22:43] <Angela> currently the Fundraising page *has* to be HTML to work. Do we want that for all pages?
[22:44] <_sj_> due to their elaborate markup.
[22:44] <maveric149> Could we have a Wikimedia: namesspace that could only be edited by Stewards?
[22:44] <Xirzon> TimStarling: allowing html to be encapsulated in <html> should not be too hard
[22:44] <Xirzon> TimStarling: the parser is ready to strip out this kind of stuff before parsing anyway, cf. math, timeline etc
[22:44] <_sj_> James: I think so, the foundation site should look rather different from meta.
[22:45] <Jamesday> _sj_, so do I.
[22:45] <maveric149> _sf_ I 100% agree
[22:45] <Angela> I agree
[22:45] <dori> the foundation site should look different, it should be simpler
[22:45] <TimStarling> Xirzon: that's an interesting idea
[22:45] <_sj_> I also think that any number of special pages
[22:45] <dannyisme> agreed
[22:45] <maveric149> it should also not look like a wiki, IMO
[22:45] <_sj_> can be created outside the normal wiki process
[22:45] <Anthere> this goes in the direction of separated
[22:45] <Jamesday> Xirzon, that's interesting.
[22:45] <Anthere> but we could have the edition on meta nonetheless
[22:45] <_sj_> so that if someone who is a dreamweaver expert ends up helping keep the main page beautiful
[22:45] <TimStarling> it still means that all editors can write HTML
[22:45] <maveric149> Anthere: i agree
[22:46] <Jamesday> Anthere, or we could have test and live versions on a different site.
[22:46] <_sj_> they should be able to insert their own non-wikified page, with the communities consent.
[22:46] <Xirzon> if wikimedia is to be a separate wiki, it should just be a mediawiki, and we could gradually change the skin to be different frmo meta
[22:46] <_sj_> and yes, there would still be an edition of such special pages on meta,
[22:46] <Xirzon> the current mediawiki skin system is very flexible
[22:46] <_sj_> with everything but the layout/formatting/images.
[22:46] <Anthere> Jamesday: what do you mean by test version ?
[22:46] <Jamesday> Xirzon, that is the solution I think will work most easily
[22:46] <Coeur> Dori: maybe the foundation site should be simpler, but so should be the wikipedia (in my opinion)
[22:46] <TimStarling> ok now you're saying that you want it to look different from meta
[22:46] <Jamesday> Anthere, two versions of a page
[22:46] <Xirzon> TimStarling: who?
[22:46] <Anthere> oki
[22:46] <Jamesday> Just as there would be if a page was on meta and on a live site.
[22:47] <TimStarling> that's a more serious amount of work, despite Xirzon saying that it's all easy
[22:47] <Jamesday> But easier to copy and move if they are on the same site, I think.
[22:47] <Anthere> okay, just to check
[22:47] <dori> Coeur: the thing is, the foundation and wikipedia have different functions, the foundation is mainly to provide information, the wikis focus on the editing part
[22:47] <Angela> we need to decide how people will edit this first. Will they be able to type wikitext? Will they need to type HTML? Will anyone need shel access to update the site?
[22:47] <Xirzon> TimStarling: well, have you seen JeLuF's MySkin? you can do quite a lot with that already
[22:47] <Anthere> who thinks the wmf site should look different ?
[22:47] <Angela> I think it should look different
[22:48] <dannyisme> i do
[22:48] <_sj_> *aol*
[22:48] <Hemanshu> I do
[22:48] <Jamesday> Different
[22:48] <brion> different from what?
[22:48] <Xirzon> Angela: wikitext and html for special cases like forms, imho
[22:48] <_sj_> meta.
[22:48] <brion> from meta, or from how it looks now?
[22:48] <Anthere> from meta
[22:48] <Hemanshu> from meta
[22:48] <maveric149> TimStarling; would it be possible to point FileReplacement to the printable version of a page and thus have the abiltiy to use wiki text?
[22:48] <Angela> different from a wiki
[22:48] <Jamesday> Brion, not the same look as meta
[22:48] <Xirzon> if they are to be separate, they should look different
[22:48] <brion> then yes. it looks different from meta now.
[22:48] <TimStarling> we don't have file replacement
[22:48] <Anthere> then that means the live site should not be on meta
[22:48] <Anthere> correct ?
[22:48] <Jamesday> That is, can we rule out using meta as the live foundation just because we want a different appearance?
[22:48] <maveric149> Tim: I mean the export thingy we ue now
[22:48] <Xirzon> Jamesday: nope
[22:48] <Hemanshu> TimStarling: couldn't it be done manually?
[22:49] <Hemanshu> somehow
[22:49] <Anthere> I think we can rule this out James
[22:49] <Coeur> Dori, the editing part is best for identified users. When unidentified, we could use a simple and easier layout.
[22:49] <TimStarling> maveric149: yes that's possible
[22:49] <dori> Coeur: the anons would riot
[22:49] <Xirzon> Jamesday: having a different appearance for a set of pages within the same wiki would be possible with a small hack
[22:49] <Jamesday> Xirzon, can the skin be customised for a subset of pages?
[22:49] <Angela> we don't want that export for all pages though, right? Because it requires people to know HTML
[22:49] <maveric149> Tim; then we could use as much wiki as possible then?
[22:49] <brion> Jamesday: no
[22:49] <Jamesday> OK, possible - can you write more about that - it seems a popular reason not to use meta.
[22:49] <Xirzon> brion: wouldn't be too hard though
[22:50] <TimStarling> it's all very well for us to all agree that a MediaWiki skin that looks different to meta is a good idea
[22:50] <Anthere> Brion and Erik seem to say opposed things
[22:50] <TimStarling> but someone still has to do that work
[22:50] <Coeur> Dori: that would be an holywwod movie: the riot of the anons
[22:50] <brion> if you wanted that you'd have to change the code to allow it. there is no code tos upport it right now.
[22:50] <Jamesday> Anthere, just discussing how easy or hard it woudl be to do (and I suppose whether it is worth doing)
[22:50] <maveric149> We could offer a bounty on coding that
[22:50] <Hemanshu> and it's a lot of work?
[22:50] <Angela> If we export the pages as we do not, it's easy to make it look different
[22:50] <Xirzon> brion is correct, right now it is not possible, but given that the skin is just a single parameter, making it possible would not be too hard
[22:50] <Xirzon> no bounty required
[22:51] <Anthere> what would be the extent of the difference ?
[22:51] <Anthere> bounty is a separate issue
[22:51] <maveric149> if the work is not being done, then a bounty is required
[22:51] <Jamesday> Do we want a look of this sort? http://gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
[22:51] <Anthere> bounty is a separate issue
[22:51] <Angela> can we discuss that part later please
[22:51] <Anthere> what is important is whether that is feasible
[22:51] <maveric149> k
[22:51] <Fire> We have bounty as a issue later
[22:51] <Xirzon> Anthere: can you clarify the question?
[22:51] <Anthere> in decent time
[22:51] <Angela> for now, we just need to decide whether we can edit wikitext or whether people need to use HTML
[22:51] <Xirzon> ok, brion, correct me if I'm wrong
[22:51] <Anthere> which types of changes could be made ?
[22:52] <maveric149> the issue does depend on whether or not certain things get coded
[22:52] <maveric149> so perhaphs we need a two level vote
[22:52] <Xirzon> but if I understand correctly, the skin is currently set in Language.php, and having it customizable for a set of pages defined in a MediaWiki: page would be near trivial except for possible caching issues
[22:52] <Anthere> mav, if we need it coded, we'll try to do what is needed for it to be coded
[22:52] <Anthere> what matters is whether feasible or not
[22:52] <Jamesday> Mav, not meta, not meta from me
[22:52] <_sj_> Angela: right now,
[22:52] * Looxix is now known as Prtttttt
[22:52] <Angela> the site as it is now requires people to know HTML, and needs shell access to make changes such as adding new pages
[22:52] <_sj_> someone would need to create a new Mediawiki skin
[22:52] <Hemanshu> I think Cologne Blue skin would be a nice start
[22:52] <_sj_> that suits the desired look of the site.
[22:53] <TimStarling> Xirzon: so you're volunteering?
[22:53] <brion> i think the skin is used for some operations during parsing, so you'd have to detect which skin to use before beginning that.
[22:53] <brion> if you'd like to have a go, feel free
[22:53] <Fire> Angela: Yes
[22:53] <_sj_> Then people would onyl need to edit wikitextl
[22:53] <Jamesday> Hemanshu, I really like that skin's general appearance.
[22:53] <_sj_> save for one or two special sections (forms, for instance)
[22:53] <Anthere> I still think that feasible or not
[22:53] <maveric149> Angela; Tim already said that the export thingy could be pointed to the printable version of a page; thus no need for HTML except for things that wiki cannot do
[22:53] <Anthere> the two sites should be separated
[22:53] <dori> Angela: before we can decide that, we need to decide who should be able to edit foundation pages
[22:54] <Angela> so, are we going to show people a wiki (possibly with a modified skin)? Or, are we going to show them exported HTML pages?
[22:54] <maveric149> angeal; exported HTML pages
[22:54] <TimStarling> Xirzon?
[22:54] <Xirzon> Angela: I'd say a wiki - eat your own dogfood
[22:54] <Jamesday> Angela, wiki with modified skin is what I'd like to see - very modified skin.
[22:54] <Xirzon> TimStarling: yes?
[22:54] <TimStarling> are you volunteering?
[22:54] <Hemanshu> direct editing would have to be limited
[22:54] <Xirzon> TimStarling: not right now, no
[22:54] <_sj_> dori: we're getting to access levels in a minute. (:
[22:54] <Angela> ok. Does anyone disagree with HTML pages exported from the printable version?
[22:54] <TimStarling> well stop telling me that everything's trivial
[22:54] <Xirzon> TimStarling: why?
[22:55] <Jamesday> In part because the people doing work are in many different places and a wiki is an excellent way of working together without much overhead.
[22:55] <dori> HTML or wiki with modified skin, no way should we show a mediawiki page like we have now, it looks ugly for a foundation site
[22:55] <Anthere> I do not understand what implies "exported from the printable version"
[22:55] <_sj_> Angela: it can either be exported HTML pages
[22:55] <Jamesday> Angela, I disagree.
[22:55] <Coeur> Angela: a wiki I prefer
[22:55] <Hemanshu> me neither
[22:55] <_sj_> or a new skin (which looks the same, and doesn't offer a "log in" link if you're not logged in).
[22:55] <Angela> Jamesday: may I ask why?
[22:55] <TimStarling> because it's not. If I'm the one coding it, I'd prefer to put my own estimates on difficulty
[22:55] <maveric149> anthere; it would mean that HTML would be displayed to readers while wiki text would be the actual page code
[22:55] <Xirzon> TimStarling: how is it not trivial?
[22:56] <_sj_> how easy would it be to create a skin that is significantly different for logged-in and logged-out users?
[22:56] <TimStarling> rather than have you declare everything "trivial" and me spend a few days on it
[22:56] * Looxix (luc@212-100-182-207.adsl.easynet.be) has joined #wikimedia
[22:56] <Hemanshu> logged-out users are our audience
[22:56] <Jamesday> Because I don't see a reason to use print pages when a wiki can have all of the appearance which I think is required.
[22:56] <_sj_> Hemanshu: the question is,
[22:56] <_sj_> is it easy to make a skin which acts like a wiki
[22:56] <_sj_> for logged-in users
[22:56] <Jamesday> Print is just a different set of skin properties, after all.
[22:56] <_sj_> but looks like non-wiki html for everyone else?
[22:56] <Xirzon> TimStarling: I reserve to make my own judgment, you are free to contradict it.
[22:56] <_sj_> I think the answer is yes.
[22:56] <Fire> Hemanshu: Yes
[22:56] <Coeur> I think yes sj
[22:56] <Angela> is there any reason to use the current page-export system (which requires shell access)?
[22:57] <Hemanshu> _sj_: depends on which developer you ask apparently ;)
[22:57] <dori> Angela: only the permission thing
[22:57] <Jamesday> _sj_, see the gatesfoundation.org page - thee links at the bottom of that site are a fine place for normal wiki edit links.
[22:57] <_sj_> angela: it's a crude content-management system,
[22:57] <_sj_> which is better than none.
[22:57] <Coeur> And this is what we want: a wiki with a cool skin for people unauthorized to edit the pages
[22:57] <brion> if we _want_ to use the current page-export system, i could rework it a bit to allow for adding more page in a cleaner fashion. however it's quite crude.
[22:57] <_sj_> we will eventually need one.
[22:57] <_sj_> but I don't think we need to build on the current page-ex. system;
[22:57] <TimStarling> Xirzon: your judgement is unimportant
[22:58] <Jamesday> _sj_ what was your question earlier?
[22:58] <Hemanshu> I don't like the design of gatesfoundation.org
[22:58] <Xirzon> TimStarling: I reserve to make my own judgment on that :)
[22:58] <dori> can we please leave flames out of this discussion
[22:58] <brion> my preference is for a separate wiki, with raw html section support (i am volunteering to code this)
[22:58] <maveric149> if we keep the page export system, then we will need the ability to do two things: 1) edit in wiki 2) have stewards create new pages
[22:58] <Anthere> brion, is it possible to edit real wikipage and export them with your system ?
[22:58] * Submarine (~david@massena-8-82-225-77-14.fbx.proxad.net) has left #wikimedia
[22:58] <_sj_> explain about "have stewards create new pages"
[22:58] <Angela> so, can we just use a wiki now with no export and possibly change the skin later?
[22:58] <brion> Anthere: with the current system no. it uses the wiki page's text as raw html only
[22:58] <Coeur> The GateFoundation design is using a fix width. I prefer a full window width.
[22:58] <_sj_> jamesday: about how easy it is to create a wiki skin, which looks like a non-wiki site if you're not logged in
[22:59] <Jamesday> _sj_ I htink that it is easy to create a skin which looks like a normal page with some legal links at the bottom.
[22:59] * AnathemaTM (~echo@p508E2614.dip.t-dialin.net) has left #wikimedia
[22:59] <Anthere> but could it be upgraded brion N
[22:59] <_sj_> (no log-in links, no history/recent changes, etc.)
[22:59] <_sj_> good.
[22:59] <brion> Angela: the skin can be changed to look like a non-wiki site, yes
[22:59] <dori> at this point, I would also say a separate wiki, with raw html support, a different skin, and whitelists is the way to go
[22:59] <maveric149> _sj_; when new pages are needed for the foundation, then somebody will have to set-up the export
[22:59] <brion> Anthere: not easily. the easiest way would be to just install a wiki :D
[22:59] <Angela> what brion says sounds ideal. Any objections?
[22:59] <_sj_> maveric: why not just log onto the foundation wiki and add them?
[22:59] <Hemanshu> does easy=I volunteer?
[22:59] <Anthere> sigh
[22:59] <_sj_> presumably all stewards will be able to.
[22:59] <brion> i volunteer to make such a skin if no one else wnats to
[22:59] <Xirzon> there's nothing wrong with starting with the standard skin and changing it as someone comes up with a better one
[22:59] <Anthere> I am not clear at what Brion suggest
[22:59] <_sj_> angela: yes, we can just use a wiki now and change the skin later.
[23:00] <Anthere> may he rephrase more precisely ?
[23:00] <Jamesday> brion, different wiki with HTML section support and a skin to look like a site with legal links at the bottom sounds good to me.
[23:00] <Angela> brion suggests we edit wikitext. People can use HTML *if they want to*, but it's no compulsory
[23:00] <Coeur> sj a log-in link is always... required... no ?
[23:00] <_sj_> no!
[23:00] <brion> Anthere: i'm suggesting to make wikimediafoundation.org a wiki on its own. it will be enhanced so we can include raw html section in it (for donation links)
[23:00] <maveric149> Brion; so logged-in users would see all the wiki-specific things, while non-logged-in users would not? I like that idea
[23:00] <Jamesday> Angela, with HTML only where necessary sounds good - there are a few things which only HTML can do.
[23:00] <brion> and the skin will be changed to reduce the amount of "edit this" cruft
[23:00] <_sj_> if you follow a link fro meta:, for instance, you can go straight to a login screen.
[23:00] <Anthere> I like this idea
[23:01] <Angela> great
[23:01] <_sj_> good
[23:01] <brion> maveric149: should be possible
[23:01] <dannyisme> sounds good
[23:01] <Xirzon> ok
[23:01] <Anthere> different appearence for reader and editors ?
[23:01] <maveric149> everybody like that then?
[23:01] <_sj_> Anthere: yes.
[23:01] <Xirzon> editors can change their skin
[23:01] <Anthere> okay with me
[23:01] <Fire> sounds very good
[23:01] <TimStarling> yes, that's fine
[23:01] <Jamesday> gates has 20 something links at the bottom and I'm sure we could do a skin with less than that:)
[23:01] <dannyisme> how difficult is it to do before we start asking people to do it?
[23:01] <dori> okie dokie
[23:01] <brion> well, there goes my weekend ;)
[23:01] <_sj_> what about access levels? who can edit this wiki?
[23:01] <Angela> can we move on on subdomains then?
[23:01] <Anthere> brion, can we start without waiting on it ? or do we have to wait ?
[23:01] <Coeur> yes Snthere
[23:01] <Coeur> yes Anthere
[23:01] <dannyisme> well, if it's only a weekend ..
[23:01] <Angela> we'll come onto access levels later Sj
[23:01] <Anthere> if so, how long do you think you need to do it ?
[23:01] <_sj_> oops, sorry!
[23:02] <Jamesday> dannyisme, probably take a few days to get completely right if there is design agreement first.
[23:02] <_sj_> wasn't checking the agenda.
[23:02] <dannyisme> ok
[23:02] <Jamesday> Getting design agreement will be harder than doing it< i think:)
[23:02] <Angela> do we want the Foundation wiki to be on one site (one recent changes etc) or have subdomains per language?
[23:02] <_sj_> I see a lot of big sites using different directories
[23:02] <_sj_> one per lang
[23:02] <brion> Anthere: making it work should be pretty quick. i'll try to have something ready in the next day or two.
[23:02] <dannyisme> subdomains
[23:02] <Jamesday> Angela, one site I think.
[23:02] <maveric149> say thanks to bion at: http://leuksman.com/misc/donate
[23:02] <Fire> One site
[23:02] <maveric149> brion that is
[23:02] <Hemanshu> subdomains
[23:02] <Anthere> okay brion
[23:02] <Jamesday> One site in part fr one set of financial links, with good visibility
[23:02] <Coeur> a design aggreement could be done via a contest and a vote
[23:03] <Xirzon> one site for now for reasons of simplicity, put a bounty on full internationalization of mediawiki asap
[23:03] <Angela> sounds good to me
[23:03] <dori> Angela: I would say subdomains, but possible have xx.wmf.org go to wmf.org/xx/
[23:03] <Hemanshu> unless the actual work on the wiki would be dumping text from some other wiki
[23:03] <dannyisme> sounds good
[23:03] <Jamesday> Coeur, or people suggesting sites which they think look good and saying why, then pickign ppular design elements.
[23:03] <Hemanshu> just
[23:03] <maveric149> xirzon; agred
[23:03] <_sj_> (and then really big corps have entirely different websites for each lang)
[23:03] <Anthere> again, bounty is not current issue
[23:04] <_sj_> one site for now.
[23:04] <_sj_> when i18n comes in, it can remain one site...
[23:04] <_sj_> but be cooler.
[23:04] <Jamesday> brion, thanks:)
[23:04] * Prtttttt (luc@212-100-182-207.adsl.easynet.be) Quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.35 [Mozilla rv:1.5/20031007]")
[23:04] <_sj_> how to handle inter-language links?
[23:04] <_sj_> do we want them at all?
[23:04] <_sj_> or just a top-level "pick your language" from the main page?
[23:04] <Hemanshu> sure why not?
[23:04] <Fire> Anthere: We just have to note these things to integrate them when speaking about bounty issues
[23:04] <Angela> any objections to having one domain? (And we'll look at getting that properly internationalised)
[23:04] <maveric149> _sj_ inline with templates
[23:04] <Anthere> this is internationalization of mediawiki suggestion
[23:05] <Anthere> but right now templates
[23:05] <_sj_> if we could hide them from visitors, that might be nice
[23:05] <Anthere> is that okay with you Angela ?
[23:05] <Hemanshu> Angela: no subdomains?
[23:05] <Jamesday> It sounds as though we should discuss why some people want one site and some people want subdomains for a little while?
[23:05] <Angela> yes Anthere
[23:05] <maveric149> Anthere; meta needs that as well
[23:05] <Anthere> hide languages ??? why ?
[23:05] <Jamesday> Perhaps we can eliminate that disagreement, or at least understand it better?
[23:05] <Anthere> correct mav
[23:05] <Fire> Agree mav
[23:06] <maveric149> one database, one wiki, but changeable language is what we need for meta and the foundation website
[23:06] <Angela> agreed
[23:06] <Xirzon> well, subdomains buy us two things
[23:06] <dannyisme> agreed
[23:06] <Xirzon> 1) interlanguage links
[23:06] <Anthere> there is the issue of navigation
[23:06] <Xirzon> 2) different ui language
[23:06] <Xirzon> they cost us single sign-on for editors
[23:06] <_sj_> and wiktionary. (:
[23:06] <Xirzon> and combined recent changes
[23:06] <Xirzon> that is the same discussion that was on the mailing list re: meta
[23:06] <brion> we can do interlanguage links on the same domain, actually
[23:06] <Anthere> and we widely decided one site
[23:06] <Xirzon> the best solution to that problem is to fundamentally rewrite language handling in mediawiki
[23:07] <Coeur> sj, I think that big corps have different websites for each lang because it costs too much to translate everything from the main website, so they allow to have smaller foreign website with their own webmaster and own organization
[23:07] <Anthere> correct
[23:07] <Xirzon> brion: true
[23:07] <Hemanshu> one database, one wiki may be useful for foundation site if stuff is simply going to be dumped there from another wiki
[23:07] <Jamesday> Xirzon, that's what they dont' do with the current de.wikipedia.org or en.wikipedia.org setup.
[23:07] <_sj_> there won't be much UI for our visitors, will there?
[23:07] <brion> ui language is another issue. nikola had some patches for it but it doesn't work with MediaWiki: pages so we haven't merged it yet
[23:07] <Xirzon> Jamesday: what do you mean?
[23:07] <TimStarling> I've pointed out before that it's possible to have interlanguage links pointing back to the same site
[23:07] <_sj_> everything they see will be hand-coded on each page.
[23:07] <Anthere> brion we can do interlanguage links on the same domain, actually ???
[23:07] <_sj_> Coeur: yes
[23:07] <Xirzon> brion: but you still run the risk of namespace conflicts and the like
[23:07] <Jamesday> Xirzon, a link from en to de isn't a simple link wihtin a site at present.
[23:07] <Xirzon> Jamesday: true
[23:07] <brion> Anthere: yes. we can just set all languages to use the same site, but have different language names :D
[23:07] <_sj_> Coeur: not always a cost issue; just that they want to allow each subgroup to pick a
[23:07] <Jamesday> You can't just go Wikimedia English main page to get from de to en
[23:07] <_sj_> layout and style best suited to their local audience
[23:08] <Angela> there aren't going to be a huge number of pages, so namespace conflicts are not likely to be much of an issue
[23:08] <Jamesday> And I'd like that degree of simplicity - and it also delivers a shared RC immediately
[23:08] <Xirzon> I think we should directly tie this question to whether we want to rewrite mediawiki language support or now
[23:08] <Xirzon> or not
[23:08] <TimStarling> but the UI language won't change to match the content language if you have them on the same site
[23:08] * sannse (sannse@dsl-80-42-137-251.access.uk.tiscali.com) has joined #wikimedia
[23:08] <Xirzon> this is a major issue, and a lot depends on it
[23:08] <Anthere> shared RC is very important
[23:08] <_sj_> of course we do...
[23:08] <Jamesday> Tim, why should it? UI language is a user preference
[23:08] <_sj_> does anyone not want to rewrite it?
[23:08] <Jamesday> Not a site preference.
[23:08] <Xirzon> if we do, then we should just agree to do it, and if nobody volunteers, put a bounty on it
[23:09] <Anthere> but we will definitly have names conflict
[23:09] <Angela> TimStarling: we need subdomains to have separate UIs?
[23:09] <Xirzon> and then have a single site
[23:09] <Jamesday> That is, if I'm on fr, I want English UI language
[23:09] <TimStarling> currently you need different wikis
[23:09] <dori> Anthere: there won't be too many edits I would think (at least after it comes to a usable state), so it wouldn't be that big of a problem to have separate RCs
[23:09] <Anthere> What is UI ?
[23:09] <TimStarling> in the future, who knows?
[23:09] <brion> Angela: they can be separate wikis on the same domain too (wmf.org/en, wmf.org/de)
[23:09] <TimStarling> we could do it any way
[23:09] <dori> Anthere: user interface
[23:09] <Coeur> same question as Anthere :)
[23:09] <Anthere> jeeee
[23:09] <Coeur> ok thank you
[23:09] <Anthere> could you remember there are not only en here ???
[23:09] <Xirzon> so
[23:10] <Xirzon> can we agree to use one site for now and then pursue the internationalization issue?
[23:10] * Looxix (luc@212-100-182-207.adsl.easynet.be) Quit ("Arggggg")
[23:10] * Looxix (luc@212-100-182-207.adsl.easynet.be) has joined #wikimedia
[23:10] <_sj_> brion: we will need to get rid of the "wiki" in the URL paths
[23:10] <Hemanshu> I demand Hindi translations ;)
[23:10] <Anthere> yes
[23:10] <maveric149> balkanization is bad; the UI language issue needs to be taken care of elesewhere since Meta has the same issue
[23:10] <Fire> Yes
[23:10] <Angela> any objections to what Xirzon said?
[23:10] <Anthere> hemanshu, will you do them ?
[23:10] <Jamesday> UI is user interface - the language used for "Edit this page"
[23:10] <Hemanshu> :D
[23:10] * Raul654 (~Raul654@pcp09702488pcs.limstn01.de.comcast.net) Quit
[23:10] <dori> no objections from me
[23:10] <maveric149> agree
[23:10] <brion> agree
[23:10] <dannyisme> agree
[23:10] <Anthere> agree
[23:10] <_sj_> yes.
[23:10] <Jamesday> Xirzon, I agree with one site for now.
[23:10] <Fire> agree
[23:10] <Angela> the next point on the agenda was "Will the viewable website be in the same place as the editable webiste?" but I think we've covered that it will be, potentially with different skins. Ok?
[23:11] <_sj_> yes
[23:11] <maveric149> yes
[23:11] <Jamesday> I think that in general we want user interface language to be a user preference for all wikis anyway - not just for hte foundation.
[23:11] <Fire> Yes
[23:11] <dori> yes
[23:11] <Xirzon> Will the viewable website be in the same place as the editable webiste?
[23:11] <Fire> Jamesday: Ack
[23:11] <maveric149> Jamesday; good point
[23:11] <Xirzon> I think we already answered that one
[23:11] <Fire> I strongly agree
[23:11] <Hemanshu> agree with Jamesday
[23:11] <Xirzon> if we have a wiki they will be identical
[23:12] <Jamesday> (then we ask whether there shoudl be different UI preferences for each individual wiki, thinking ahead to the time we have common login)
[23:12] <Xirzon> Jamesday: that's part of the needed functionality, yes
[23:12] <Coeur> Xirzon and Angela: Yes, I would agree it be in the same place
[23:12] <maveric149> are we done with this item?
[23:12] <Xirzon> can we move on to access levels?
[23:12] <Jamesday> Angela, same place, but perhaps "test" and "live" versions sometimes.
[23:13] <Hemanshu> maybe we could have a Draft namespace for pages not completed for viewing
[23:13] <dori> moveon(.org)
[23:13] <Angela> Access levels...
[23:13] <Jamesday> Just different pages as we already do for tests of some wiki pages during disputes.
[23:13] <maveric149> hemanshu; interesting idea
[23:13] <Xirzon> Hemanshu: I think draft pages should just not be prominently linked
[23:13] <Xirzon> and have maybe a draft header to be sure
[23:13] <maveric149> xirzon; good idea
[23:14] <Hemanshu> maveric149: it's a tiny point actually :) just sounds big
[23:14] <Xirzon> * Level of restriction needed (Board members/sysops/confirmed users/logged in users/anons)
[23:14] <Jamesday> Xirzon, I agree that the test or any other internal pages shouldn't be prominently linked from the live pages.
[23:14] <maveric149> if there are no links from other pages, then only logged in users would see it
[23:14] <TimStarling> how many people should be allowed to edit the site?
[23:14] <Coeur> What is a "confirmed user" ?
[23:14] <maveric149> all stewards, board members and officials
[23:14] <Jamesday> Different numbers for different parts:)
[23:14] <Xirzon> I would be in favor of being as open as possible and making restrictions for individual pages only as we do on meta
[23:14] <Xirzon> but ..
[23:14] <Angela> a confirmed user is someone approved by a sysop
[23:14] <dannyisme> ask the other way: who shouldnt be allowed and why
[23:14] <dori> I think it should be just board members, and board member approved editors
[23:14] <maveric149> and anybody else the board agrees to allow
[23:14] <Xirzon> right now I only have a relatively vague idea what is going to be on this wiki
[23:14] <Jamesday> Key pages (finance, main page) protected would be enough, perhaps.
[23:15] <Xirzon> can we look at some use cases?
[23:15] <brion> the main use case is the present contents of wikimediafoundation.org
[23:15] <maveric149> access will have to be greatly restricted since the site will allow for full HTML
[23:15] <dori> Xirzon: http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising
[23:15] <Xirzon> maveric149: hmm, unless we whitelist that, that'S a good point
[23:16] <Xirzon> if it's only going to be stuff written by officials and trustees, then of course only officials and trustees need access
[23:16] <Anthere> hold on
[23:16] <Hemanshu> some pages will ofcourse be protected
[23:16] <Jamesday> Xirzon, perhaps a whitelist for full HTML - I wonder what other wikis would prefer - that is, if we make it a standard feature, what is the best implementation?
[23:16] <Xirzon> do we want our general users to do anything on that wiki?
[23:16] <Anthere> Angelaa confirmed user is someone approved by a sysop
[23:16] <Hemanshu> and presumably number of sysops will be small
[23:16] <Anthere> what if one user is confirmed by one, and not confirmed by another ?
[23:17] <TimStarling> you're thinking in terms of technical levels of access
[23:17] <Angela> Anthere: I thoguht a confirmed user was where you had to have a sysop create the account for someone?
[23:17] <dannyisme> i dont see why general users would need to do anything
[23:17] <maveric149> IMO, anybody we wants to edit the foundation wiki needs to present a compelling reason why and needs to be known and trusted
[23:17] <TimStarling> what about just who you think should edit?
[23:17] <Anthere> I go pick for a link
[23:17] <Anthere> please do not decide everything while I am away
[23:17] <Angela> ok :)
[23:17] <TimStarling> if you only decide on a technical method for restricting access, you then have to make a policy
[23:17] <Xirzon> of course anthere .. now let's vote ;)
[23:17] <dori> at the fundamental level, we don't really need a wiki for the foundation site, the only reason for having a wiki is that the ones who will be maintaining it are used to it and may not know html, thus we don't need to be open at all for this wiki
[23:18] <Jamesday> mav, someone presents a new layout idea. How trusted do they need to be to implement it in an unlinked test page so people can see how it looks?
[23:18] <Hemanshu> agree with dori
[23:18] <Jamesday> That is, what harm can they do?
[23:18] <Xirzon> well OK
[23:18] <Xirzon> my proposal is this then
[23:18] <Anthere> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF/Home_Page
[23:18] <maveric149> JamesDay; meta is not going anywhere
[23:18] <Coeur> I want to be able to correct typos and spelling mistakes... can I become a confirmed user for this ?
[23:18] <sannse> it might be useful to have general editors looking out for typos etc. as well, youwouldn't want someone finding one to spend says looking for someone who can fix it
[23:18] <Anthere> erik, ideas of what could be on this site
[23:19] <Anthere> the top bar is meant to be the left meny
[23:19] <Xirzon> let's have a small number of editors, but make it reasonably easy to assign editing status without assigning full blown sysop status
[23:19] <maveric149> perhaps full HTML would only be allowed on protected pages?
[23:19] <Jamesday> mav, that's true, thogh layout may cause different effects.
[23:19] <dori> sannse: there won't be that many pages, they should all be spellchecked
[23:19] <Hemanshu> good idea if it's easily implementable
[23:19] <maveric149> jamesday: there is also test. we could have test.wikimediafoundation.org
[23:19] <Jamesday> mav, a whitelist would probably be better, because I can see other sites wnating to split those two capabilities
[23:19] <Anthere> if it's only going to be stuff written by officials and trustees, then of course only officials and trustees need access
[23:19] <Anthere> does not allow translations to be mad
[23:20] <Anthere> so is not a good option
[23:20] <Coeur> Dori: and about translated pages ? They need to but spellchecked in every languages on earth
[23:20] <Xirzon> Anthere: that is relatively little content
[23:20] <maveric149> Jamesday; explain whitelist?
[23:20] <Xirzon> Anthere: on the demo, that is.
[23:20] <Jamesday> list of pages where full html is allowed
[23:20] <dori> Coeur: there won't be translations unless there is a good number of people willing to do them
[23:20] <Coeur> Why Dori ?
[23:20] <Jamesday> That is, it stops you from creating a silly page which goes to an undesirable site.
[23:20] <maveric149> jamesday; that is a current MediaWiki feature?
[23:20] <Angela> how about protecting official pages, but leaving the rest of the site unprotected so people can make translations?
[23:20] <dori> Coeur: because these are important pages, they represent the foundation, and they need to be well translated
[23:20] <Hemanshu> Coeur: coz we don't want bad/incomplete translations
[23:20] <Jamesday> mav, neither is a current mediawiki feature
[23:21] <Jamesday> So if we're doing a new feature, we shoud try to pick one which is of most general use.
[23:21] <maveric149> Angela; then it would be no different than meta
[23:21] <Xirzon> TimStarling: the current rights assignment UI allows arbitrary groups to be set, right?
[23:21] <Jamesday> Angela, that sounds OK for a trial.
[23:21] <CimonAvaro> If there is a very small pool of authorized users, fixing some hackers vandalism may not be speedy.
[23:21] <dannyisme> do we want translations in all languages?
[23:21] <TimStarling> it would be different in terms of the identity of the sysops
[23:21] <Jamesday> Can be changed late if we have problems.
[23:21] <Anthere> Sorry erik, I needed sleep this week
[23:21] <Anthere> and could not make it entirely
[23:21] <Coeur> Then should we create a Translator status ?
[23:21] <dannyisme> toki pona and klingon too?
[23:21] <Hemanshu> hacker
[23:21] <TimStarling> Xirzon: kind of
[23:21] * WalterBE (~chatzill@ Quit ("Chatzilla 0.9.64b [Mozilla rv:1.7/20040707]")
[23:22] <TimStarling> it does, yes
[23:22] <dori> CimonAvaro: there won't be any vandalisms if editing is restricted
[23:22] <TimStarling> but not very elegantly
[23:22] <maveric149> yes - whatever we do should improve MediaWiki for general use
[23:22] <CimonAvaro> dori: only by hackers.
[23:22] <Anthere> I am against Klington
[23:22] <maveric149> hacks should be avoided
[23:22] <dannyisme> translator status is a good idea
[23:22] <Xirzon> ok, if we can set arbitrary groups, then allowing users to edit pages without making them sysops should be possible without changing code
[23:22] <dori> CimonAvaro: if someone can hack mediawiki, then we have bigger problems
[23:22] <Anthere> I think we should aim at a dozen languages
[23:22] <maveric149> translator status = good
[23:22] <Coeur> More Anthere
[23:23] <Anthere> coeur, look at meta
[23:23] <Anthere> and think again
[23:23] <Angela> is there any reason not to place some restrictions on editing?
[23:23] <TimStarling> Xirzon: do you mean setting cur_restricitions to something other than sysop?
[23:23] <maveric149> we would need to coordinate updates
[23:23] <Hemanshu> we need committed people for each language we select
[23:23] <Xirzon> TimStarling: yes
[23:23] <TimStarling> I don't think that works
[23:23] <Xirzon> Xirzon: er, no
[23:23] <Fire> I am against languages like klingon, volap?k, toki pona etc. People knowing these languages do of course know another language, so there is no need for that.
[23:23] <Anthere> (malheuresement)
[23:23] <dori> I would be ok with just 10 translations from the top 10 wikis
[23:23] <Xirzon> TimStarling: I mean using the current whitelist feature in DefaultSettings.php, which works with groups
[23:23] <dannyisme> all wikis with over 5000 articles
[23:23] <Fire> s/language/languages/
[23:23] <maveric149> top ten is a good idea
[23:23] <Jamesday> Coeur, the mani pages may have more translations but something like donations needs to be watched very carefully.
[23:23] <TimStarling> Xirzon: ok
[23:23] <Hemanshu> we don't want languages to appear and disappear... stay unupdated
[23:24] <Coeur> English, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, French, Spanish, German, Italian, ... it will need 25 languages at least
[23:24] <Angela> deciding which languages we'll have isn't something we need to decide today
[23:24] <Anthere> why not 25
[23:24] <Anthere> but not 150
[23:24] <Fire> No
[23:24] <Jamesday> Lets assume that we want 100. Wht do we require?
[23:24] <maveric149> simeple; if there are no translators, then there will be no translation
[23:24] <Xirzon> well, we can agree not to have a klingon version at least ;)
[23:24] <Anthere> so, best to say it will be restricted
[23:24] <dannyisme> that will come at a later stage
[23:24] <dori> Hemanshu: definitely not, I mean top 10 what we have now, we can review it later see if we need to add more, remember that these pages won't be translated just once, they will have to be maintained
[23:24] <Fire> Translators :)
[23:24] <Jamesday> That is, how can we keep it secure or what other problems need to be solved?
[23:24] <dannyisme> we only translate to languages in which there are vibrant wikipeida communities
[23:24] <_sj_> re:translators
[23:25] <Hemanshu> yes, my point is well taken
[23:25] <Hemanshu> ;)
[23:25] <_sj_> we need to make sure that pages are translated in the proper order
[23:25] <Anthere> no dannnyisme
[23:25] <Anthere> we need some translations for outsiders
[23:25] <Fire> sj: "proper order" ?
[23:25] <Anthere> for languages very much used in the world
[23:25] <Anthere> so, we also need spanish and arab
[23:25] <dannyisme> the vibrant communities cover the languages very much used
[23:25] <Jamesday> If we can meet those requirements, I suppose we could have 1,000... can we meet them?
[23:25] <_sj_> it is no use to have a greek translation of a single subpage
[23:25] <Anthere> we must try to push this
[23:26] <Hemanshu> we can think about translations for outsiders later
[23:26] <maveric149> how will updates be handled? Does publicantion of the English version have to wait for translations?
[23:26] <_sj_> when there is no translation of the main page
[23:26] <Angela> Anthere: I agree
[23:26] <Coeur> It will requires it is a language recognized by some kind of official organization like ONU. This way, no Klingon or Elfic.
[23:26] <dannyisme> no, mav
[23:26] <_sj_> or rather, if there is some use, it will still be confusing
[23:26] <Hemanshu> it may require some offline work
[23:26] <Anthere> May I dare saying that perhaps original pages could be in other languages than english ?
[23:26] <dori> Anthere: probably unreasonable for now, we just don't have the users to keep up with the translations
[23:26] <Anthere> so that it might be nonenglish -> english ?
[23:26] <dannyisme> we post in english and then allow for translations to be made
[23:26] <_sj_> yes anthere!
[23:27] <Anthere> dori, we can try, hope makes us live
[23:27] <dannyisme> and we appoint people in each project who will be translator contacts
[23:27] <maveric149> dannyisme; ok
[23:27] <Anthere> I will post things in french
[23:27] <dannyisme> either they do it, or they appoint someone
[23:27] <dori> Anthere: trying will mean half finished pages, old pages, etc
[23:27] <_sj_> but are we officially talking about multilingual issues now?
[23:27] <Anthere> not fight for someone to make them in english if they do not feel like it
[23:27] <_sj_> I was waiting until the end,
[23:27] <dori> it will make the foundation look unprofessional
[23:27] <Xirzon> I think we're straying a bit off course here
[23:27] <_sj_> this is not related to access
[23:27] <Anthere> dori, agreed
[23:27] <_sj_> I don't think a translator access
[23:27] <Xirzon> we should make a decision as to how we want to handle access assignment
[23:27] <_sj_> or even an 'editor access' is needed.
[23:27] <maveric149> version numders will have to be used
[23:27] <Angela> shal we come back to translations later?
[23:27] <_sj_> I do think that soon
[23:27] <Angela> do we want to limit account creation? (ie - only sysops can create accounts for people)
[23:27] <Anthere> Xirzon, not entirely
[23:27] <Xirzon> and what potential changes to the software we need
[23:27] <_sj_> we will need "publisher access"
[23:27] <Hemanshu> how many languages are covered by our smallest trusted group?
[23:28] <_sj_> although we don't currently have a publishing system in place.
[23:28] <Anthere> translation means we need many editors potentially
[23:28] <dannyisme> what is the precise role of sysops if access is so limited anyways
[23:28] <Xirzon> Anthere: true
[23:28] <Anthere> and perhaps that mean some people wil not have right to create pages
[23:28] <Xirzon> however
[23:28] <Anthere> but to edit them only
[23:28] <Anthere> ?
[23:28] <Xirzon> we do not want a translator to be able to edit the English fundraising page, for example, do we ?
[23:28] <dannyisme> no, we dont
[23:28] <Fire> No
[23:28] <Anthere> dannysiem, some people do not want restricted access
[23:29] <Anthere> even for a typo ?
[23:29] <dori> I still stand with board members and board member approved (full vote) editors only
[23:29] <Xirzon> I think we might be able to do this with the current whitelist system, but I'm not sure
[23:29] <dannyisme> me too dori
[23:29] <Hemanshu> we trust you to translate but that's about it ;)
[23:29] <dannyisme> if we have a white list, we wont need sysops
[23:29] <Anthere> thanks hemanshu
[23:29] <Xirzon> we want whitelist+sysop, danny
[23:29] <Angela> Anthere: are you ok with saying all editors have to be approved by the board?
[23:29] <Anthere> I will translate in french non existent english pages
[23:29] <Xirzon> sysops will be board officials who can edit protected pages of high importance
[23:29] <Anthere> I am okay with this Angela
[23:29] <Xirzon> whitelist members will be able to edit non-protected pages of low importance
[23:30] <dannyisme> ok, so sysops are only board members
[23:30] <Anthere> but you also know the problem we met
[23:30] <Anthere> so we have a problem here
[23:30] <Xirzon> dannyisme: well, and appointed officials
[23:30] <Looxix> which problem ?
[23:30] <TimStarling> hey what's that wiki on worldwidewiki.net? They have page "owners" who can set access rights
[23:30] <Angela> Anthere: we can fight about who we approve of later ;)
[23:30] <Anthere> well, how do we decide who is authorized ?
[23:30] <TimStarling> maybe we should use tikiwiki or something :)
[23:30] <maveric149> Tim; sounds neat
[23:30] <Jamesday> _sj_, we already have publisher access - if the publishe page is a protected page you need to be able to edit a protected page to publlish
[23:30] <Xirzon> TimStarling: wakkawiki, it's fairly cool
[23:31] <_sj_> Jamesday: true.
[23:31] <Xirzon> TimStarling: that's where I got the idea for doubleclick editing
[23:31] <Anthere> Angela; okay only if we have some pages with limited access, and some pages with less limited access
[23:31] <Hemanshu> there's something cooler than MediaWiki
[23:31] <Angela> Anthere: fine with me
[23:31] <Anthere> otherwise, we'll end up with just 3 editors
[23:31] <Hemanshu> how soon were you going to bring it up? ;)
[23:31] <_sj_> angela/anthere: we are hiding talk pages from regular visitors.
[23:31] <_sj_> so we can allow anyone to edit those talk pages...
[23:31] <Hemanshu> good idea
[23:31] <maveric149> good idea
[23:31] <Hemanshu> anyone anyone?
[23:31] <_sj_> the question is, who can migrate things from talk to the regular pages...
[23:31] <sannse> who would be able to see talk pages then?
[23:32] <_sj_> anyone logged in.
[23:32] <Angela> is everyone happy with the Board assigning editing rights, and having some pages more protected than others?
[23:32] <_sj_> if you follow a link from meta that says
[23:32] <maveric149> yes
[23:32] <dannyisme> yes, angela
[23:32] <Xirzon> sure
[23:32] <Hemanshu> ofcourse it's needed
[23:32] <_sj_> (yes)
[23:32] * WalterBE (~chatzill@ has joined #wikimedia
[23:32] <Jamesday> Angela, I tink that it will be too restricted unless the board is very broad with rights
[23:32] <Xirzon> that's what the board is for
[23:32] <Anthere> so, 2 level access ?
[23:32] <dannyisme> with different people assigned to different pages
[23:32] <Fire> wb walter
[23:32] <dori> Anthere: there is no problem with only 5 (or a handful once you add the board approved), the translators could post their work on meta
[23:32] <Jamesday> One key wiki strength is lots fo people so people can do things as time allows and spread the load.
[23:32] <maveric149> start small; access can be exapnded later
[23:32] <_sj_> Anthere: all-users, editors, and sysops
[23:32] <Angela> Anthere: yes, trusted with the most official pages, and trusted with the rest of it
[23:32] <dannyisme> exactly
[23:33] <Xirzon> Jamesday: true, but as I understand it, people want wikimedia*.org to be fairly small sites
[23:33] <_sj_> Anthere: only sysops can edit protected pages;
[23:33] <maveric149> work on meta; good idea
[23:33] <Anthere> sorry, I am confused now
[23:33] <Anthere> hold on, I am lost
[23:33] <Jamesday> Xiron, it sounds as though it may reach 10,000 pages
[23:33] <Hemanshu> and we don't want visible stubs and inaccurate pages
[23:33] <_sj_> and delete pages, presumably, as on other wikis
[23:33] <Anthere> who can edit what and where ?
[23:33] <dori> oh by the way, since we're going with a wiki, I think all editors will need to assign the copyrights to the foundation
[23:33] <Hemanshu> so we don't want that part of the wiki character to be visible
[23:33] <Angela> Anthere: what I'm suggesting is that the board gives out editing rights, but doesn't make everyone a sysop
[23:33] <Xirzon> Jamesday: I was thinking more along the lines of 30-100 for each language
[23:33] <maveric149> dori; also a good idea
[23:33] <_sj_> and there will later be a second level of protection
[23:33] <Anthere> who can edit what and where ?
[23:34] <_sj_> for pages that only editors can edit.
[23:34] <_sj_> sysops: can edit all pages
[23:34] <Hemanshu> offer options please
[23:34] <Jamesday> Xirzon, yes, perhaps 100 per language - enough so a small set of editorswill be too much work
[23:34] <Xirzon> Angela: not sure this is possible with the current whitelist system though
[23:34] <Angela> Anthere: all editors approved ny the board can edit non-protected pages. The people we choose to be sysops can edit protected ones
[23:34] <_sj_> editors: can edit all non-protected pages
[23:34] <_sj_> anyone: can edit all talk pages
[23:34] <Xirzon> Jamesday: 10 people per language should be enough
[23:35] <maveric149> _sj_ sounds OK to me
[23:35] <_sj_> (anyone: can perhaps also edit many non-critical pages; not decided yet)
[23:35] <Coeur> No Xirzon
[23:35] <Angela> anons wouldn't be able to edit at all. If they want to comment, they can do so on meta. We could have a link to a "comments" page
[23:35] <Coeur> It could require 20 people
[23:35] <_sj_> Angela: right
[23:35] <dori> Xirzon: depends on how willing to keep up those 10 people are
[23:35] <Xirzon> Coeur: I'm not proposing a fixed limit
[23:35] <Coeur> ok
[23:35] <_sj_> even if Talk: pages aren't normally visible to foundation-site users
[23:35] <Fire> Coeur: To translate 100 lines?
[23:35] <_sj_> they could URL-hack to such a page
[23:35] <Hemanshu> we don't want people wasting time deleting vandalism from the foundation site
[23:35] <sannse> will everyone be able to have an account (and so edit/see talk pages)
[23:35] <Anthere> so, no vandalism potentially visible
[23:35] <Coeur> I thought it was 100 pages Fire
[23:35] <Anthere> from outsiders
[23:35] <_sj_> Anthere: right
[23:36] <Angela> right
[23:36] <Fire> oh, orry, coeur.
[23:36] <Xirzon> alright
[23:36] <Xirzon> let's move on here
[23:36] <Fire> right Anth
[23:36] <maveric149> what's next?
[23:36] <Xirzon> I think we agree that we want a two-tier access system
[23:36] <_sj_> email conf?
[23:36] <Hemanshu> yes
[23:36] <dannyisme> yes
[23:36] <Anthere> why are some people mentioning edition on meta ?
[23:36] <Xirzon> no
[23:36] <_sj_> how hard should it be to be a non-approved editor?
[23:36] <Jamesday> Why would anyone not be able to edit a talk page to provide feedback or ask a question?
[23:36] <Angela> Anthere: if anons want to comment, they do so on meta, not on the Foundation wiki
[23:36] <_sj_> Anth: if anons aren't allowed,
[23:37] <Jamesday> That's a function for the fondation site
[23:37] <Anthere> okay, only anon
[23:37] <Hemanshu> Jamesday: anyone anyone?
[23:37] <Xirzon> Jamesday: hmz, maybe we can make that possible, not with the current functionality though
[23:37] <Anthere> is having an accouunt free or restrited ?
[23:37] <Coeur> I think anybody should be able to comment... let's keep the wiki philosophy
[23:37] <Jamesday> Hemanshu, anyone = random stranger who stops by teh site and wants to ask a question
[23:37] <Anthere> why could anon not edit talk apge ?
[23:37] <maveric149> accounts would need to be set by sysops, IMO
[23:37] <dori> next it's skin changes, I think we decided that those with access should see all the links (different skin) and all others should see a simpler skin
[23:37] <_sj_> Jamesday: we can add a feedback form for them.
[23:37] <dannyisme> then create a comment page
[23:37] <TimStarling> Coeur: the wiki philosophy is that anyone can edit
[23:37] <Angela> Anthere: restricted I think.
[23:37] <Hemanshu> we could grab the email address of people commenting and sell them ;)
[23:37] <Xirzon> Anthere: having an account doesn't give you any immediate powers other than changing your skin, so I think it should be free
[23:38] <_sj_> talk pages won't be visible to random visitors, though.
[23:38] <Coeur> That's chat I am saying Tim
[23:38] <TimStarling> Coeur: you're thinking of the blog philosophy
[23:38] <Jamesday> _sj_ I don't see a reason to block it.
[23:38] <dannyisme> even a bulletin board type page where they can leave a message
[23:38] <dori> Anthere: because talk pages could be mistaken for foundation pages, remember the primary function is not to be a wiki
[23:38] <_sj_> more like a feedback form that editors see,
[23:38] <_sj_> but that other visitors don't.
[23:38] <Coeur> No, I say that anybody whould be able to edit the comments
[23:38] <Anthere> no dori, talk page will be non visible to non log in
[23:38] <Hemanshu> dannyisme: registration required by email address?
[23:38] <_sj_> it's NOT OKAY to allow a visitor to stop by and say "hi, nice site, you f***rz"
[23:38] <Xirzon> TimStarling: Would you prefer a FileReplacement style open edit model for the foundation wiki?
[23:38] <Jamesday> dori, talk pages would look like talk pages, I think.
[23:38] <_sj_> and have other visitors see that when they visit a feedback page
[23:38] <Xirzon> sj: why?
[23:38] <dannyisme> no, even anons can add comments on a bulletin board
[23:38] <Coeur> sj, it would be moderated by the following visitor
[23:38] <TimStarling> Xirzon: no, I think what we've been discussing is fine
[23:38] <Jamesday> If there's not already a talk page mediawiki message I suppose there could be one which could ensure that they look different.
[23:39] <_sj_> I don't know. I didn't build this society...
[23:39] <dori> people could still find their way to talk pages (i.e. from google), I think it's a bad idea
[23:39] <Anthere> I understood non loggued in visitors would not see talk pages ?
[23:39] <maveric149> dori; no index
[23:39] <Anthere> did I misunder stand ?
[23:39] <Angela> any discussion can happen on meta right?
[23:39] <TimStarling> I'm just saying we're not maintaining the Wiki Way just by letting people edit talk pages
[23:39] <_sj_> dori: google doesn't track pages that require login to visit...
[23:39] <Jamesday> Anthere, I hope that htey would see them
[23:39] <Hemanshu> Anthere: yes, that was suggested
[23:39] <Xirzon> well, talk pages are our current feedback mechanisms, so using talk pages here seems like the simplest solution
[23:39] <Angela> I don't think we even need talk pages on the Foundation wiki
[23:39] <Anthere> Jamesday: why ?
[23:39] <dori> maveric149: that won't do it, people could google bomb our links on some other site, seems like it will be a favorite troll feature
[23:40] <Jamesday> Because talk pages are the obvious places to ask questions.
[23:40] <Anthere> Angela: were would non authorized users edit then ?
[23:40] <Xirzon> but
[23:40] <dannyisme> once again, add a bulletin board where people can ask questions/make comments
[23:40] <Coeur> Angela, if wedon't have talk page, how can a visitor report a mistake or submit new information ?
[23:40] <Angela> Anthere: they can't edit until authorised. They can leave comments on meta
[23:40] <Xirzon> the problem with talk pages is that for newbies, it is not very obvious where to check for replies
[23:40] <_sj_> dori: we can require a login cookie before showing talk pages.
[23:40] <Hemanshu> I think the foundation website won't be a popular destination for vandals and troublemakers... We will keep them engaged at the Wikipedia ;)
[23:40] <dori> Angela: exactly, using meta for discussion will be good
[23:40] <Jamesday> Xirzon "please bookmark this page and check tomorrow to see if you have a reply"
[23:41] <dannyisme> what about discussions by people who are just checking out the site and want to ask a question
[23:41] <Xirzon> Jamesday: exactly
[23:41] <maveric149> Angela; let's at least start it that way
[23:41] <Angela> there will be one comments page, linked from every page which goes to Meta. Anyone can comment there and suggest corrections
[23:41] <maveric149> per namespace permissions could be added later
[23:41] <maveric149> next item?
[23:41] <dori> dannyisme: we could have a contact us page, or email us, whatever
[23:41] <Xirzon> Angela: sounds good
[23:41] <Anthere> Mave, does my opinion matter or only anglea one ???
[23:41] <Jamesday> Angela, that sounds like a terrible idea
[23:41] <Anthere> STOOOOOOP
[23:41] <Angela> Anthere: ok with you?
[23:41] <Anthere> NOOOOO
[23:41] <dannyisme> no dori, that will not be enough
[23:41] <dori> Angela: that sounds good to me
[23:41] <Hemanshu> meta is good
[23:41] <Coeur> then the email thing would redirect to every single confirmed user ?
[23:41] <Jamesday> Why not one talk page per topic on the site with different people answering?
[23:41] <dannyisme> what if people want to ask about donating to us
[23:41] <Anthere> we should not move to the next item if we do not agree
[23:41] <maveric149> Ant; both matter; i must of lost your post
[23:42] <dannyisme> we need more than just a contact page
[23:42] <Xirzon> Angela: although having that discussion page on meta could be confusing, given that meta has a completely different layout
[23:42] <TimStarling> only 15 minutes left before Angela has to go to bed
[23:42] <Angela> Anthere: I mean is the comments being on Meta ok with you
[23:42] <Anthere> no
[23:42] <dannyisme> exactly xircon
[23:42] <TimStarling> how many more points do we have?
[23:42] <Fire> JD: Maybe also a feature: "Mail me when someone answers"'d be possible to notify these users...?=
[23:42] <Angela> Anthere: where do you want comments to be?
[23:42] <dannyisme> and unless people are familiar with our other sites, they will get lost there
[23:42] <Jamesday> Fire, tha'ts a feature request for mediawiki already:)
[23:42] <dori> dannyisme: why would we need more?
[23:42] <Anthere> on talk pages ?
[23:42] <Xirzon> I'd prefer us to have a simple, moderated bulletin board, but that would have to be coded/installed by someone
[23:42] <_sj_> we've gone through half of design
[23:43] <_sj_> and touched on translation
[23:43] <maveric149> anthere; per namespace editing would have to be coded into MediaWiki, unless all other pages are protected
[23:43] <dori> dannyisme: perhaps a separate discussion board?
[23:43] <_sj_> but still have another 3 or 4 points to go through
[23:43] <Hemanshu> ok how about this anyone can edit talk pages but email address required
[23:43] <dannyisme> yes, i have mentioned bulletin board twice already
[23:43] <Angela> if we can have talk pages editable by anons, but not regular pages, that would be fine
[23:43] <Jamesday> Xirzon, post a comment works fine already - talk pages are a bulletin board system.
[23:43] <Hemanshu> that is login with email address
[23:43] <maveric149> bb sounds good to me
[23:43] <dori> dannyisme: I must have missed it, this channel moves too quickly
[23:43] <Xirzon> Jamesday: only works for new comments, not responses
[23:43] <Angela> I'd prefer to have one comments page for the whole site rather than separate talk pages for each page
[23:43] <Anthere> we want to protect article page
[23:43] <Coeur> like http://boards.wikipedia.org/ ?
[23:43] <Jamesday> Hemanshu, that sounds fine
[23:43] <Anthere> not restrict feedback
[23:44] <Anthere> ihmo
[23:44] <dannyisme> exactly, angela
[23:44] <Jamesday> And it also allows us to easily build a mailing list using existing mediawiki functions.
[23:44] <Anthere> I think comment on meta will just get lost
[23:44] <maveric149> is a bb godd then?
[23:44] <dannyisme> one bulletin board where run of the mill visitors can ask questions
[23:44] <Hemanshu> requiring email address does not sound too restrictive
[23:44] <Angela> Anthere: if we only have one comments page on meta, it wouldn't be lost
[23:44] <Anthere> so, we should have one place on the site to give feedback
[23:44] <dannyisme> yes
[23:44] <Xirzon> hmm
[23:44] <Anthere> on the website iteslef
[23:44] <Xirzon> do we want public and private feedback, or only public feedback?
[23:44] <Anthere> on meta would be confusing
[23:44] <dannyisme> yes
[23:44] <Jamesday> Angela, each person will have different interests on their watchlist, so why make them all check one page?
[23:44] <Xirzon> I presume we want both
[23:44] <Anthere> different look, different adresse
[23:44] <dannyisme> public
[23:44] <Anthere> confusing
[23:44] <Jamesday> Better to split.
[23:44] <dori> Anthere: it won't get lost because only a handful of users will need to keep an eye on it (namely those with access to the foundation wiki)
[23:44] <dannyisme> but it will be moderated
[23:45] <Anthere> it will be confusing to the one giving feedback
[23:45] <maveric149> antthere; yes, on meta would be confusing. I only suggested it as a temp measure
[23:45] <Xirzon> hmz
[23:45] <_sj_> Xirzon: I think we want feedback, visible only to logged-in users.
[23:45] <Angela> Anthere: ok, but what about using a bulletin board like the mediation one instead of using the wiki at all for comments?
[23:45] <_sj_> it is confusing to visit an official site,
[23:45] <dori> Xirzon: I would also say both, many donors will want private communication
[23:45] <Anthere> maveric149: I think people here do not see it as temporary
[23:45] <_sj_> and see comments about how it might be different
[23:45] <Xirzon> I'm thinking about use cases again
[23:45] <dannyisme> that would work angela
[23:45] <Anthere> I do not like bulletin board much
[23:45] <Jamesday> Replying on meta also gets us back to security and unapproved comment concerns which helped to drive us to a different wiki site.
[23:45] <Xirzon> what kind of feedback will we want to deal with?
[23:45] <Xirzon> we will want to deal with two kinds of feedback primarily
[23:46] <Xirzon> questions regarding the wikimedia foundation, donation proposals etc.
[23:46] <Xirzon> and comments regarding specific pages
[23:46] <_sj_> I prefer talk pages on the foundation site.
[23:46] <Xirzon> upon reexamination, it seems to me that these two kinds of feedback are best treated separately
[23:46] <Jamesday> Comments and questions related to the topic of the associated page.
[23:46] <_sj_> we can add a "feedback" link on each page,
[23:46] <dannyisme> and just plain "love your site" feedback too
[23:46] <Xirzon> the first kind is primarily communicated privately
[23:46] <_sj_> which automatically includes the page you were on in the message.
[23:46] <Angela> is it possible to let anons edit the talk pages without letting them edit anything else?
[23:46] <Xirzon> and it might be best to just have a mailing list processor for this type of feedback
[23:46] <maveric149> _sj_ feedack links good
[23:46] <Anthere> Erik, we will have a contact page
[23:46] <Jamesday> "why aren't you doing this" is something the people responsible for a particular page would want to see, but others may want to ignore.
[23:46] <_sj_> Angela: yes, that is what were discussing before
[23:46] <Xirzon> whereas we could use regular talk pages for page-specific feedback
[23:47] <Xirzon> so ..
[23:47] <Xirzon> at the bottom of each page we could have
[23:47] * Looxix_ (luc@212-100-182-207.adsl.easynet.be) has joined #wikimedia
[23:47] <dannyisme> why, james
[23:47] <dannyisme> what if they give good ideas?
[23:47] <Xirzon> "Ask us a question (private)" and "Comment on this page (public)"
[23:47] <Angela> having both methods seems ok
[23:47] * Looxix_ (luc@212-100-182-207.adsl.easynet.be) Quit (Client Quit)
[23:47] <dori> if we have a board, we shouldn't have too many threads to keep things concentrated
[23:47] <Jamesday> dori, yes, some donors do want private discussion - I've discussed things with one who did.
[23:47] <maveric149> Xircon; good idea
[23:47] <dannyisme> works for me
[23:47] <Xirzon> I think for page-specific comments, we should really stick to talk pages
[23:47] <Anthere> where would the public comment go ?
[23:48] <Fire> Good Idea xirz
[23:48] <Hemanshu> agreed
[23:48] <Jamesday> dannyisme, that's why I want them linked to the right page:)
[23:48] <Angela> Anthere: shall we let anons edit any talk page then?
[23:48] <Anthere> I agree with this
[23:48] <Anthere> talk page yes
[23:48] <Jamesday> See the meta what we use the money for page, which generated questions, suggestions and offers.
[23:48] <Jamesday> All related to the topic of that page.
[23:48] <Xirzon> I'd say let anons edit talk pages
[23:48] <_sj_> ... i don't think the comments should really be "public"
[23:48] <Anthere> we are based on wiki system
[23:48] <Hemanshu> having some vandalism deleting bots wouldn't be bad
[23:48] <maveric149> talk page OK, a bb would be better but could be added later
[23:48] <Anthere> that is also our fabric mark
[23:48] <dori> Anthere: that will mean a lot of effort cleaning up vandalisms for people who need their time for more important things
[23:48] <_sj_> in the sense that I thought we weren't showing Talk links for each page to anons
[23:48] <dannyisme> what is the problem with a bulletin board
[23:48] <Angela> vandalism on talk pages isn't such a big issue
[23:49] <Anthere> dori, and what about starting this way
[23:49] <dori> also, confusion as I said, we need to keep this site simple, not wiki like
[23:49] <Xirzon> maveric149: again, that is really a general issue - talk pages have the same problems on every wiki, and at some point we will want to put a bounty to develop a better system
[23:49] <Anthere> the bulletin board is also likely to contain vandaslims
[23:49] <Anthere> which will have to be cleaned up
[23:49] <Jamesday> _sj_ I do think that the comments and replies should be public
[23:49] <dori> Anthere: yes, but people are much more familiar with bb than with talk pages
[23:49] <Xirzon> ok
[23:49] <maveric149> whoa! Wait a minute; if HTML would be available site-wide then allowing anon edits on talk pages would be real bad
[23:49] <Anthere> ?
[23:49] <Anthere> no
[23:49] <Hemanshu> the number of pages will be small enough to be visible in a watchlist I suppose :)
[23:49] <Jamesday> If one person asks a question, there are likely to be others with the same question who ca benefit from the same answer.
[23:50] <Angela> can we allow HTML only on non-talk pages?
[23:50] <Anthere> why Mav ?
[23:50] <Xirzon> maveric149: so we need to limit html to some pages, at the very least all non-talk
[23:50] <Xirzon> so
[23:50] <Hemanshu> true
[23:50] <maveric149> xirzon; I agree but that would be more complicated to code
[23:50] <Jamesday> Angela, yes, since that feature hasn't been written yet.:)
[23:50] <Xirzon> to anyone refactoring this chat later, we need to extract certain techncial requirements from it
[23:50] <TimStarling> we're way into fantasy-land now
[23:50] <Jamesday> And it's something which is clearly more risky on a talk page.
[23:50] <TimStarling> with no committment from a developer to implement any of this
[23:51] <Xirzon> TimStarling: again, if no volunteers are found, we can put up bounties
[23:51] <Jamesday> Tim, Brion has committed to do HTML
[23:51] <maveric149> Tim: my point exactly
[23:51] <TimStarling> are we up to the bounty point yet?
[23:51] <Anthere> no
[23:51] <Jamesday> Easy enough in any implementation I can think of to limit it to not include talk.
[23:51] <maveric149> jamesday; brion has volunteered to make a wiki that does not look like a wiki to anons
[23:51] <Angela> perhaps we need to decide some temporary measures that we will use until things are coded
[23:51] <Anthere> next point is # Email confirmation for account creation ?
[23:51] <brion> (update: i've got HTML partially working, but blocklevels is interfering with layout. i need to rearrange the restore portion)
[23:51] <Anthere> I think we agree on this
[23:51] <Xirzon> Anthere: do we?
[23:52] <Xirzon> I see no point in email confirmation for account creation
[23:52] <Xirzon> what is the point? having an account does not mean you can edit
[23:52] <Anthere> we said mostly thgat we would agree on accounts creation
[23:52] <Jamesday> Anthere, perhaps. I wonder whether we want not to require that if we want to use it for a mailing list, but confirmation is good even for that purpose.
[23:52] <maveric149> yes - everybody with an account needs to have email confirm
[23:52] <Xirzon> maveric149: why?
[23:52] <Anthere> is that some one asking for an accoutn and we approve
[23:52] <Angela> right, so email confirmation before you can edit then, rather than before you can have an account?
[23:52] <maveric149> xirzon; feedback
[23:52] <Anthere> or is it us creating accounts upon request ?
[23:52] <TimStarling> I don't think we need email confirmation because the board will be able to handle authentication
[23:52] <Jamesday> Email confirmation is almost useless for anything except confirming that an email address was valid at the time the confirmation email was sent, though.
[23:52] <Xirzon> TimStarling: exactly
[23:53] <Hemanshu> will that help in keeping sockpuppets, vandals and mischief mongers out?
[23:53] <Xirzon> maveric149: account & editing rights = two different things
[23:53] <Angela> or just board approval before you can edit, rather than needing an email?
[23:53] <maveric149> xirzon; everybody who edits that site needs to be accoutable
[23:53] <maveric149> angela; both
[23:53] <dori> also, since we're probably going to have people assign copyrights to the foundation, accounts will probably have to be full names only (IMO)
[23:53] <Anthere> perhaps we should allow editing talk page to accounts only
[23:53] <Xirzon> maveric149: having an email address doesn't really help there
[23:53] <Jamesday> dori, tha't s not required for a copyright assignment
[23:53] <maveric149> dori; 100% agree
[23:54] <Anthere> and amking accounts would require email authentificaiton ?
[23:54] <maveric149> also looks more professional
[23:54] <Jamesday> And there are good reasons not to assign copyright to the foundation - it's a bad legal idea.
[23:54] <dori> Jamesday: doesn't it make it more lawsuit-proof though?
[23:54] <Xirzon> an email address has virtually no value as a means of authentication
[23:54] <Jamesday> dori no!
[23:54] <Anthere> dori, I see not why
[23:54] <Jamesday> It makes it far, far worse!
[23:54] <Angela> is making an account not the same as being allowed to edit then?
[23:54] <Xirzon> Angela: no
[23:54] <Anthere> zirzon, yes, but it slows doing vandalism
[23:54] <Hemanshu> what would you make an account for other than for editing? :)
[23:54] <Xirzon> Angela: you could create an account, but by default you would be in the "user" group, so you could change your skin, comment on talk pages, sign etc
[23:55] <Angela> right, so let anyone have an account, but only let approved people edit
[23:55] <maveric149> why would people who can't edit need accounts?
[23:55] <Hemanshu> ah
[23:55] <Jamesday> Dori, "free encyclopedia" You sue the foundation, if the foundation loses, the foundation no longer owns the work.
[23:55] <Xirzon> Anthere: not if we want to allow anons to comment on talk pages anyway
[23:55] <dori> Jamesday: the foundation will need to have ownership of the pages *about* the foundation
[23:55] <maveric149> dori: I agree
[23:55] <dori> Jamesday: I am only talking about the wiki pages on the foundation site
[23:55] <Anthere> that was an inbetween suggestion Xirzon
[23:55] <Fire> mav: To make the comments!
[23:55] <Jamesday> dori, for the foundation site itself, that's a different matter.
[23:55] <Jamesday> I was thinking more generally
[23:55] <Hemanshu> we want people to be able to change the skin of the foundation wiki?
[23:55] <Angela> can we discuss copyright another time please or this could go on all night
[23:55] <Jamesday> Yes, I agree that for the foundation site it's not so bad to have copyright assigned.
[23:56] <maveric149> yes
[23:56] <dannyisme> yes
[23:56] <_sj_> mav: every user can edit talk pages; not everyone can edit all content pages.
[23:56] <Anthere> okay, so no email issue
[23:56] <dori> Angela: this is just for the foundation wiki, I don't think anyone could have any reasonably objections to assigning copyrights to the foundation
[23:56] <_sj_> jamesday: what's wrong with PD assignment instead?
[23:56] <brion> ok, i think i got html working
[23:56] <Hemanshu> doesn't need to be GFDL/PD for sure
[23:56] <Coeur> James, email verification is to ensure the email is not from someone else. If I register an account with someone else's email, then this person will receive spam whenever a new reply is made.
[23:56] <Jamesday> Hemanshu, account to sign up for mailing list is one use.
[23:56] <Anthere> # Board approval of pages
[23:56] <Angela> brion: cool :)
[23:56] <maveric149> _sj_ that requires features we do not have
[23:56] <_sj_> 'k
[23:56] <Xirzon> er, what was our conclusion on email conf.?
[23:57] <Xirzon> yes or no?
[23:57] <Angela> not necessary
[23:57] <Anthere> no
[23:57] <Xirzon> ok
[23:57] <Jamesday> Coeur, it doesn't stop that - it's very easy to forward email.
[23:57] <Fire> No
[23:57] <TimStarling> no
[23:57] <dori> no
[23:57] <Coeur> ah true, I didn't thought about it
[23:57] <Xirzon> board approval of pages, hmz, seems to be unnecessary given the scheme we discussed?
[23:57] <Jamesday> I'd say yes but mainly because I'm thinking of a welcome email after signign up for a mailing list.
[23:57] <Anthere> I think an important question is about official pages. should we mark them approved or non aproved
[23:57] <Angela> do we want to mark certain pages as approved? Or are all pages approved?
[23:57] <Jamesday> I assume that we'd want to do that.
[23:57] <Anthere> transaltion issue
[23:58] <Anthere> mostly
[23:58] <Coeur> I think email conf is necessary
[23:58] <Jamesday> Anthere, all pages amrked as unapproved seems saafest.
[23:58] <_sj_> all non-talk pages should be approved.
[23:58] <Jamesday> Then do something to remove that mark
[23:58] <Angela> the issue is how can the board approve of something in a language none of us speak?
[23:58] <dori> all pages approved if only board members and board member approved users are allowed to edit
[23:58] <maveric149> all pages that anons can see should be approved
[23:58] <Xirzon> what does "mark" mean exactly?
[23:58] <Hemanshu> how many languages does the board cover :)
[23:58] <Anthere> 2
[23:58] <Angela> Xirzon: no idea yet
[23:58] <dannyisme> you will have to pick translators you trust angela
[23:58] * Raul654 (~Raul654@pcp09702488pcs.limstn01.de.comcast.net) has joined #wikimedia
[23:58] <dori> Angela: the board will have to trust a number of users who can speak it
[23:58] <_sj_> Angela: we will have to develop a base of trusted translators
[23:58] <maveric149> the mark should be whether or not the page is viewable
[23:58] <Anthere> the board cover about 2 languages
[23:59] <dannyisme> but no one speaks japanese on the board
[23:59] <Hemanshu> 2 only
[23:59] <_sj_> once there are more than one or two trusted transl's fluent in a given lang,
[23:59] <Anthere> only
[23:59] <Angela> if we're limiting editing anyway, shall we assume all the pages are official and that we trust the translators?
[23:59] <maveric149> start small and grow
[23:59] <Hemanshu> so we need to find trusted users for other languages
[23:59] <dannyisme> yes, angela
[23:59] <_sj_> two of them can jointly suggest a translation for publication
[23:59] <Jamesday> Mav, not sure that we want to block that if we have all unapproved pages showing a clear unapproved indicator.
[23:59] <_sj_> Angela: yes
[23:59] <_sj_> translations can start on talk pages
[23:59] <dori> Angela: not all/any translators, just a big number of them from the appropriate wiki
[23:59] <Xirzon> the only problem is languages with only 1 or 2 speakers who could screw things up
[23:59] <_sj_> or translation-specific areas where people work on such things
[23:59] <sannse> two translators sounds good - if we can find them
[23:59] <Hemanshu> trusted, committed users
[23:59] <dori> Xirzon: they wouldn't be supported
[23:59] <_sj_> (as for the image-upload interface text)
[00:00] <Coeur> We can have elections on every wikipedia with 10000+ articles to elect translatord
Session Time: Sun Jul 25 00:00:00 2004
[00:00] <Angela> Coeur: that sounds ok
[00:00] <maveric149> coeur; good idea
[00:00] <Fire> Good Idea
[00:00] <_sj_> Coeur: we don't need to set the bar that high
[00:00] <Anthere> sigh, elections
[00:00] <_sj_> 10000
[00:00] <Hemanshu> elected translators? and if they want to stop translating?
[00:00] <Angela> Anthere: are you ok with not marking any pages official?
[00:00] <Coeur> 5000+
[00:00] <Anthere> okay
[00:00] <Xirzon> 5000+ seems OK to me
[00:00] <Jamesday> Coeur, or we can have all members who speak a language working together to produce the best possible translation.
[00:00] <maveric149> ok
[00:00] <Xirzon> but elections? not sure that is necessary
[00:00] <_sj_> and they should probably be "approval", not competitive elections.
[00:00] <Jamesday> And an approved person copying the result.
[00:01] <dori> Jamesday: I like that better
[00:01] <Xirzon> an admin-candidate style process seems more appropriate
[00:01] <_sj_> anyone who wants to can ask to be a translator
[00:01] <Looxix> Jamesday: yes I prefer this
[00:01] <Hemanshu> non-competitive elections hmm
[00:01] <_sj_> Jamesday: this is right
[00:01] <Hemanshu> :)
[00:01] <_sj_> we are talking about the approvers
[00:01] <TimStarling> we're going to have to skip some items on the agenda
[00:01] <Jamesday> That is, the protected final page is only done by approved people.
[00:01] <Anthere> I am not convinced by elections at all
[00:01] <Coeur> James, we are talking about approved editors.
[00:01] <Rifcher> Dinner to serve...bb
[00:01] * Rifcher (RoseParks@175.new-york-07rh16rt-08rh15rt.ny.dial-access.att.net) has left #wikimedia
[00:01] <dannyisme> i suspect taht if they do a bad job and misrepresent their language, other people will jump on them
[00:01] <TimStarling> leave them for another day
[00:01] <_sj_> by rose
[00:01] <Anthere> okay
[00:01] <Fire> danny: hehe, sure
[00:01] <Hemanshu> yes, we must give people opportunity to jump on them
[00:01] <Hemanshu> :D
[00:02] <Jamesday> dannyisme, more people can be expected to produce a better translation - it' show we make articles better normally
[00:02] <maveric149> anybody should be able to translate, but the elected/appointed translates would "approve" the translation
[00:02] <Xirzon> ok
[00:02] <_sj_> I'll write something up about managing translations
[00:02] <Anthere> okay sj
[00:02] <dannyisme> exactly
[00:02] <Anthere> about design ?
[00:02] <Hemanshu> that's it
[00:02] <dori> ok, I gtg, for the record I support bounties if they're approved by the wiki community and the donors are told about them upfront, later
[00:02] <Jamesday> mav, agreed - approve by releasing it to the protected, live page
[00:02] <Xirzon> can we agree for now that we do not need an approval process? or did I miss something?
[00:02] <Anthere> I think that we are mostly waiting for Brion on this
[00:02] <Angela> Xirzon: yes, agreed
[00:02] <brion> hm?
[00:02] <Anthere> Whata about setting up a contest once set ?
[00:02] * dori (~dori@Dori.wikipedia) Quit ("Leaving")
[00:02] <_sj_> Xirzon: except for the implicit 2-level access approval process
[00:02] <Xirzon> TimStarling: what issues do you think should be skipped?
[00:03] <Angela> Anthere: a contest would be good
[00:03] <dannyisme> but in a very limited time frame
[00:03] <_sj_> we're down to "interlanguage links" and "developer bounties"
[00:03] <Anthere> dori, I think no donators currently agreed to bounties
[00:03] <dannyisme> not 3 months
[00:03] <dannyisme> for teh contest
[00:03] <Anthere> sure
[00:03] <maveric149> AWARD MONEY
[00:03] <Xirzon> Anthere: we have the 10000 EUR from Prix Ars Electronica
[00:03] <maveric149> that can be used for bounties
[00:03] <Raul654> seriously?
[00:03] <Anthere> yup, so no donations
[00:03] <Raul654> They gave us cash?
[00:03] <Hemanshu> we should also have backup translators ready
[00:03] <Xirzon> not sure if they gave us the check yet - danny?
[00:04] <Angela> Raul654: yes :)
[00:04] <Anthere> yes
[00:04] <dannyisme> dont know
[00:04] <Anthere> yes
[00:04] <dannyisme> i think they gave it to jimbo
[00:04] <TimStarling> I've thought a bit about bounties
[00:04] <Xirzon> ok
[00:04] <Angela> Jimbo picked up the check in Austria
[00:04] <Raul654> Now why don't we win more awards like that? :)
[00:04] <sannse> we will :)
[00:04] <Anthere> are you ready to go ask for them ?
[00:04] <dannyisme> also, mav, can you make an option that people donate to specific bounties?
[00:04] <_sj_> design contest : bounty? in the form of a nice globe?
[00:04] <Xirzon> Raul654: the webby was crappy, we were asked to pay if we wanted something physical
[00:04] <Jamesday> Do we currently need a bounty for anything?
[00:04] <Angela> are there more design issues we need to discuss now, or leave that for the contest later?
[00:04] <maveric149> dannyisme; neat idea
[00:04] <Raul654> Xirzon - that's pretty sad
[00:04] <Hemanshu> we should send a press release to theregister.co.uk ;)
[00:04] <Xirzon> Jamesday: only possibly the internationalization of the software, which is quite a big thing
[00:04] <TimStarling> I'm not particularly interested in working for a bounty
[00:05] <Anthere> yes Angela
[00:05] <TimStarling> I'll work on an hourly rate though
[00:05] <Jamesday> Xirzon, I think that it's desired anyway, so I'm content to see what happens
[00:05] <Anthere> anyway, we decidede for a wiki
[00:05] <maveric149> Tim: we will give you money if you like it or not? ;)
[00:05] <Jamesday> It's a natural part of the common login work.
[00:05] <Hemanshu> haha
[00:05] <Anthere> I supposed the interfacze will be internationalized
[00:05] <TimStarling> say US$20/hr
[00:05] <Hemanshu> who will you report to?
[00:05] <Angela> Anthere: hopefully at some point, yes
[00:05] <Hemanshu> Jimbo?
[00:05] <dannyisme> wait
[00:05] <dannyisme> on bounties
[00:05] <Anthere> ....
[00:05] <dannyisme> and the law
[00:06] <maveric149> TimStarling; and developers would est the amnount of time? Good idea to set bounty
[00:06] <_sj_> yes, someone has to look into that.
[00:06] <dannyisme> are we required to get tax forms from people we give bounties to?
[00:06] <TimStarling> maveric: I've worked that way before
[00:06] <Xirzon> TimStarling: in both cases you only get the money after you're finished and the foundation is happy with the result though
[00:06] <Angela> Anthere: until it is properly, we'll have to use templates
[00:06] <dannyisme> income tax, etc.
[00:06] <Anthere> no problem
[00:06] <maveric149> xirzon; agreed
[00:06] <dannyisme> we have to account for every penny we spend
[00:06] <dannyisme> that means we need receipts
[00:06] <Jamesday> Xirzon, it's a bad idea for a contractor to accept a contract like that.
[00:06] <maveric149> templates are fine for this
[00:06] <dannyisme> and that means we need receipts for bounties
[00:06] <dannyisme> and tax forms
[00:07] <Xirzon> Jamesday: most of my software development contracts have been like that
[00:07] <dannyisme> stop stop stop stop stop
[00:07] <Xirzon> for freelancers this is typical, at least in Germany
[00:07] <dannyisme> income tax and financial reporting
[00:07] <maveric149> call it award money for a compettion; not a contract
[00:07] <dannyisme> can you please check with an accountant
[00:07] <_sj_> I have to run. Is someone going to write up the contest idea, for more discussion later?
[00:08] <dannyisme> or i will check with my acocuntant
[00:08] <Xirzon> contest is bad
[00:08] * Hashar (another@Hashar.wikipedia) Quit ("Cant join #real_life (banned see: http://twenkill.dyndns.org/plog/ )")
[00:08] <_sj_> I'll write about translation review/process tomorrow.
[00:08] <Jamesday> dannyisme, accountant needed, I think
[00:08] <maveric149> xircon; why?
[00:08] <Xirzon> contest means that multiple people do work, and only one of them gets paid
[00:08] <Anthere> only if there is a bounty
[00:08] <Jamesday> Xirzon, right.
[00:08] <Anthere> we ^perhaps do not need one then
[00:08] <Xirzon> Anthere: ?
[00:08] <Anthere> that is the first rzeason bounty is bad
[00:08] <_sj_> (and if you're writing about the design contest, consider having a nice prize.)
[00:08] <Anthere> not hte cntest
[00:08] <Xirzon> Anthere: no, with bounty this is not true
[00:08] <Angela> can we look at Interlanguage issues before coming on to the bounty idea?
[00:08] <Anthere> the contest is good
[00:09] <Anthere> yup
[00:09] <maveric149> Xirzon; there may be several different people pursuing a real bounty.
[00:09] <Xirzon> you first apply for the bounty, then someone applies for implementing, and if we accept, that bounty is "locked"
[00:09] <Jamesday> Mav, that's one reason why it's a bad idea.
[00:09] <_sj_> oh, I thouht we were dont with interlang issues
[00:09] <Xirzon> it can be transferred to someone else
[00:09] <Looxix> but is the idea of bounty itself accepted ?
[00:09] <Angela> Interlanguage links we can do. That's sorted. What about translating the sidebar?
[00:09] <Xirzon> er
[00:09] <Xirzon> you first apply for the bounty, and if we accept, that bounty is "locked"
[00:09] <dannyisme> as long as the payment is accountable
[00:09] <Hemanshu> bye
[00:09] <Angela> bye Hemanshu
[00:09] <dannyisme> if we cannot account for the payment, we can be charged with favoritism
[00:09] <Jamesday> Xiron, that works much better for the person doing the work.
[00:09] <Anthere> Looxix no
[00:09] * Hemanshu (~MICROSOFT@Hemanshu.wikipedia) has left #wikimedia ("Leaving")
[00:10] <maveric149> jamesday; i don't want to deal with contracts at this point. Call me lazy
[00:10] <Looxix> ah
[00:10] <Anthere> but Xirzon is very queen on it
[00:10] <Xirzon> OK
[00:10] <Xirzon> queen?
[00:10] <dannyisme> queen?
[00:10] <Xirzon> I'd rather be king
[00:10] <Angela> we're on interlanguage issues ... (not bounties)
[00:10] <Anthere> errr
[00:10] <Anthere> perhaps a misnommer :-)
[00:10] <sannse> keen?
[00:10] <maveric149> templates
[00:10] <Jamesday> mav, I can understand that - I dont' like contracts either (but they are entirely unavoidable in software unless you want the contractor to own the result)
[00:10] <Anthere> very interested ?
[00:10] <Angela> can the sidebar be translated? Are we ok using templates as temporary sidebars for now?
[00:10] <TimStarling> a bounty is a contract
[00:10] <sannse> I think you meant "keen" Anthere
[00:10] <Xirzon> are there any objections against a bounty system per se, as described - i.e. only one person can work on a bounty at a given time?
[00:11] <Anthere> good , thanks sannse
[00:11] <maveric149> Tim: you are correct
[00:11] <TimStarling> the offer of a bounty constitutes an offer to contract
[00:11] <Anthere> angela, I think it is no use
[00:11] <_sj_> visitors to the foundation site should see a very limited sidebar;
[00:11] <TimStarling> the fulfillment of the work is the acceptance
[00:11] <Anthere> let them talk
[00:11] <_sj_> its lang can be a skin preference
[00:11] <Jamesday> Tim, yes, but not a sufficient one - need to ensure that ownership of the resulting work is clear.
[00:11] <Jamesday> (and GFDL is one possible resulting ownership)
[00:11] <Angela> ok, so assume interlanguage issues were covered above, yes?
[00:11] <Angela> and move onto bounties?
[00:11] <Xirzon> anthere, do you object to the bounty idea?
[00:11] <Anthere> when the volcano is erupting, the la va goes down anyway :-)
[00:11] <_sj_> ahhh. (: bye
[00:11] <Anthere> or up...
[00:12] <Angela> :)
[00:12] <TimStarling> Angela: yes, I think we've covered interlanguage issues
[00:12] <Angela> 1) does anyone object to bounties?
[00:12] <Xirzon> TimStarling: I think bounties will be set based on hourly rates
[00:12] <Jamesday> I think interlanguage is resolved.
[00:12] <TimStarling> well, I've said that I'm not interested in working for them
[00:12] <Anthere> yes
[00:12] <TimStarling> does that count as an objection?
[00:12] <Anthere> so, there are two points
[00:12] <Looxix> I think it is not a very good idea
[00:12] <Xirzon> TimStarling: we might have hourly contracts with you separately
[00:12] <Jamesday> I object because I don't think that they are fair to the person doing the work.
[00:13] <Anthere> which activities in development could require bounties ?
[00:13] <Xirzon> Jamesday: what particularly is unfair?
[00:13] <Anthere> how do we handla two people doing it ?
[00:13] <Jamesday> Tim, wouldyou accept a fixed price contract offer?
[00:13] <Angela> I object to them from a psychological point of view, but I don't intend to oppose them if people want to try it
[00:13] <maveric149> anthere;anything that is otherwise not getting done
[00:13] <Xirzon> Anthere: 1) large stuff like the i18n, 2) we don't
[00:13] <Jamesday> That is, which part of bounty tdo you dislike and why?
[00:13] <TimStarling> Jamesday: sure, after negotiation on the terms
[00:13] <Jamesday> Tim, wise man:)
[00:13] <Anthere> maverick149, that project has been working for 3 years and a half without them
[00:14] <Xirzon> what's the difference between "bounty" and "fixed price offer", Jamesdays?
[00:14] <Anthere> it is tough to saty "nothing is getting done"
[00:14] <Anthere> I understand they might be needed
[00:14] <Angela> en:Attribution theory would suggest that paying volunteers would decrease their motivation to work on this, not increase it
[00:14] <maveric149> Anthere: There are still certain things in MedaiWiki that have not gotten done
[00:14] <Jamesday> One of the devs had a private chat with me a while ago (not Tim) and indicated that he preferred donating time because he didn't like being tied down to a committment.
[00:14] <Jamesday> Which causes me to be conerned that a bounty might discourage work.
[00:14] <Anthere> but saying nothing is done is a bit insulting for all what has been done
[00:14] <Xirzon> what's the difference between "bounty" and "fixed price offer", Jamesday?
[00:14] <Jamesday> Xirzon, lack of negotiaton is one difference
[00:14] <Anthere> and what if people stop working at all
[00:15] <Anthere> because they will wait a bounty ?
[00:15] <Jamesday> All the money at the end is another - it's a poor contract to sign.
[00:15] <Xirzon> Jamesday: I'm absolutely in favor of negotiations with the developers
[00:15] <Jamesday> On the other hand..
[00:15] <TimStarling> the thing I don't like about a bounty is the excitement it implies
[00:15] <Jamesday> "thank you bonuses" could be used
[00:15] <Xirzon> well,
[00:15] <Jamesday> With no prior commitment at all
[00:15] <Xirzon> what I want is an open application process
[00:15] <Coeur> I prefer a "bounty", because it can be given to any one doing the job. A "contract" will only possibly reward the one with whom the contract was signed.
[00:15] <Xirzon> and I want to minimize risk for the foundation
[00:16] <TimStarling> it's suggestive of irrational duplicated effort for only a chance of payment
[00:16] <Xirzon> I think, however
[00:16] <Jamesday> Like that great feature x wrote - the bourd could decide to say thanks financially, I suppose.
[00:16] <Xirzon> that if we have certain people who have delivered in the past on their contractual agreements
[00:16] <Xirzon> then we can give them better terms in the future
[00:16] <Jamesday> Tim, and discourages cooperation.
[00:16] <TimStarling> yes
[00:16] <Angela> is there any need for bounties? Is this actually going to result in any more coding than already happens?
[00:17] <Xirzon> Angela: I think so, yes
[00:17] <Coeur> I don't know Angela
[00:17] <Jamesday> Coeur, how would you like to thank tim for the features he's already written?
[00:17] <maveric149> Angela; only for things that are not currently being done
[00:17] <TimStarling> it may result in people coding different things
[00:17] <Jamesday> You knwo that he has delivered but he did them in his own time
[00:17] <elian> maybe for the bounties we should ask the developers?
[00:17] <Fire> By him a beer when you see him
[00:17] <Fire> Buy
[00:17] <Coeur> With a community decision, James.
[00:17] <Xirzon> Let's take a specific issue
[00:17] <TimStarling> I have a paypal account
[00:17] <Xirzon> the internationalization of MediaWiki
[00:17] <Anthere> in all cases, the amount of money should be set by an independant person
[00:17] <Xirzon> which is currently quite crappy, to be frank
[00:17] <Angela> is there a way we can convince the developers to code what we want them to code without promising them money?
[00:17] <Jamesday> Coeur, yes.
[00:18] <Xirzon> because each different language needs its own separate installation
[00:18] <Anthere> who wil have to evaluate the time to spent on it
[00:18] <Xirzon> ui is not localized etc.
[00:18] <maveric149> TimStarling: can I link it from the fundraising page just like Brion?
[00:18] <Anthere> then set a price amount
[00:18] <Jamesday> Rather than bounties, we could use a thank you awards system.
[00:18] <Xirzon> this kind of stuff is something that tends to not get done
[00:18] <elian> better organization of feature requests?
[00:18] <Anthere> this should not be paid per hour decided by the developer
[00:18] <TimStarling> maveric149: if you like
[00:18] <elian> sorted by priority
[00:18] <Xirzon> Jamesday: As a developer, this is terrible, because I don't know if I'll get any "award" for the time I put in
[00:18] <Jamesday> Xirzon, it depends on how you are lookign at development.
[00:18] <dannyisme> could we perhaps decide on features that will have bounties and those that wont?
[00:19] <Xirzon> with a bounty I can say "This month, I'll accept this bounty, I'll be finished by the 15th, so I can pay my rent"
[00:19] <Jamesday> I look at it as "James donating his time"
[00:19] <TimStarling> if you emply a member of the current development team to work on the Wikimedia website, it means they will be working less on site performance
[00:19] <Jamesday> and money in thanks would be welcome but not required.
[00:19] <Coeur> Good idea James (the thank-you-awards made by donations from members)
[00:19] <TimStarling> I don't think you change the total amount of work, just the priorities
[00:19] <Anthere> hello angela ?
[00:19] <Angela> ?
[00:19] <Jamesday> Tim, I generally agree.
[00:19] <Anthere> shall we discuss of board member issues meanwhile ?
[00:19] <Xirzon> TimStarling: well, I for one would be willing to invest more time given bounties
[00:19] <Anthere> if we accept bounties, how do you think we shoul decide the amount given ?
[00:20] <Jamesday> Unless the wok is at such a rate that it's necessary to offer money to get more work done... but I don't think that we have that proble.
[00:20] <maveric149> Abtere; a dev committee will have to come up with a way
[00:20] <Xirzon> Anthere: I proposed someone from the developer team and someone technical who is not a developer make the decision, both would not be allowed to accept bounties
[00:20] <Jamesday> Coeur, or by a board fund for the purpose as well - board adn members may value things differently.
[00:20] <Coeur> Xirzon, you shouldn't live with bounties in mind. It is a bonus, not a stable ressource of profits.
[00:20] <WalterBE> If WikiMedia gives a thank you bounty to software devellopers some editors of articles may find the also whould like to get a "thank you" like that.
[00:20] <Xirzon> Coeur: it's stable enough
[00:21] <Angela> Anthere: the committee could come up with something, perhaps up to a maximum amount set by us
[00:21] <Looxix> I think that if we want some dev job to be done it should first be stated as so and explained very clearly what exactly must be done, how it must interact, ...
[00:21] <Anthere> nod
[00:21] <Coeur> Xirzon, well stable at 0$ ;)
[00:21] <elian> the problem with bounties is IMO that once a bounty is set out, it becomes a single developer's task
[00:21] <Looxix> some people want to help but don't know how
[00:21] <Anthere> I think more newcomers would be willing to help, if the way was clearer
[00:21] <Xirzon> elian: a single developer can accomplish a whole fucking lot
[00:21] <Jamesday> Anthere, if it's thank you rather than bounty it's easy - you know how long it took to do
[00:21] <maveric149> WalterBE; very different since the article is a single page while dev work affects all project wikis
[00:21] <elian> Looxix: better organization of feature requests and priorities, yes
[00:21] <Xirzon> collaborative work on this stuff is difficult in practice anyway
[00:21] <Jamesday> Or you know how good the brilliant idea which saved the site was.
[00:22] <Anthere> Jamesday: No
[00:22] <Looxix> elian: exactly
[00:22] <Xirzon> e.g. most of the 1.3. skin system has been exclusively gabriel's work
[00:22] <Anthere> I know it may have taken 3 months
[00:22] <Anthere> but only 10 hours in 3 months
[00:22] <Jamesday> elian, I agree with that problem.
[00:22] <Anthere> or 100 hours
[00:22] * Xirzon sighs
[00:22] <Anthere> I would prefer that once a year (say) we name three activities
[00:22] <Jamesday> Anthere, there is a possibility to know how long is a fair estimate.
[00:22] <Anthere> which were very good, and thank them
[00:23] <Jamesday> It's much easier after you see hte work than before.
[00:23] <maveric149> anthere; once a quarter would be better
[00:23] <Jamesday> Just a general rule of programming estimates is that your error margin is often 300%
[00:23] <Xirzon> I'd suggest that we allot 3000 EUR to testing out the bounty system
[00:23] <Anthere> that was an example
[00:23] <Anthere> for example, for the pst months, I could say 1) new skin 2) ... and 3) ...
[00:23] <Coeur> And about testers ? A developper can code crap and rely on testers to fix the issues... would this be rewarded as much as a developper coding properly ?
[00:24] <Xirzon> Coeur: no
[00:24] <Jamesday> Coeur, it could be - itis necessary work and less fun than developing
[00:24] <maveric149> couer; fixing that type of thing could be a bounty itself
[00:24] <Jamesday> That's actually a better use for money than developing - developrs tend not to want to do it:)
[00:25] <Xirzon> bounties are primarily for things that are either too big or too uninteresting to be part of the regular mediawiki dev process
[00:25] <Anthere> bounties MIGHT be
[00:25] <maveric149> xirzon; I agree
[00:25] <Anthere> they might also be for debugging....
[00:25] <dannyisme> yes, but there may be a situation where people only want to work for bounties
[00:26] <Anthere> or for big server update
[00:26] <maveric149> Anthere: also stuff that does not always get done
[00:26] <Anthere> such s ?
[00:26] <Jamesday> Tim, what are your views?
[00:26] <dannyisme> leaving the regular mediawiki dev stuff to get abandoned
[00:26] <Xirzon> dannyisme: unlikely, some people have in fact already stated that they don't want any bounties ever
[00:26] <Angela> are bounties going to be equivalent to normal pay, or just a tokeistic amount?
[00:26] <Anthere> example dannyisme ?
[00:26] <Looxix> too big or too uninteresting things need to be a collaborative work
[00:26] <Xirzon> Angela: I'd say start fairly low, and scale it up as we can afford it
[00:26] <maveric149> how about a test of the bounty system?
[00:26] * elian_ (~elian@pD9E50E6D.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #wikimedia
[00:26] <Angela> I mean, do people actually expect to be able to make a living out of this or is it just a bonus?
[00:26] <TimStarling> Jamesday: we're still talking in terms of bounties
[00:27] <dannyisme> and why only bounties for developers?
[00:27] <Anthere> brion ?
[00:27] <maveric149> if it fails or reduces the amount of incentive for developers, then it can be nixed
[00:27] <TimStarling> and my opinion on bounties hasn't changed
[00:27] * bdesham|away is now known as bdesham
[00:27] <Anthere> Angela and I would like to close the meeting
[00:29] <Angela> meeting closed. Thank you all for coming :)

Post-meeting: Continued discussion on developer bounties.