Talk:Community Tech

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A way to ping all of CommTech[edit]

@TheresNoTime-WMF and KSiebert (WMF): The group-mentioning template I mentioned the other day is {{ping group}} and {{participants}}. It seems that it's not fully functioning on Meta (it seems to depend on a WikiProject structure that's not really used here and wouldn't work for our team). Those templates have been tagged for deletion. But the general idea is sound, I think: that it should be reasonably easy to ping the team, either on this talk page or elsewhere on Meta. What do you think? It'd be invoked with something like {{ping group|CommTech}}. — SWilson (WMF) (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea.. do you think you can get the templates working? ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 10:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would really like that and would honestly need it right now! KSiebert (WMF) (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CommtechUser:NRodriguez (WMF)User:KSiebert (WMF)User:DMaza (WMF)User:MusikAnimal (WMF)User:SWilson (WMF)User:HMonroy (WMF)User:DWalden (WMF)User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)User:NAyoub (WMF)User:JMcLeod (WMF)User:TheresNoTime-WMF: ahah! ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 12:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CommTech Your are ge-ni-us! KSiebert (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just created {{@commtech}} to make it a bit easier ^^ ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 12:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's helpful, as I already used it wrong. :-) KSiebert (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheresNoTime-WMF: This is great, thanks for sorting it out. :) SWilson (WMF) (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Changes[edit]

Dear all,

In order to get better at making our internal processes more transparent, we wanted to let you know that over the last couple of months we have been discussing how we can improve the way we maintain our work. We would like to continue discussing this here, to include you all and make upcoming changes to our processes more visible, as it’s your wishes that we are working on implementing.

We have noticed that with the growing number of projects that we maintain, and from all teams at the Foundation we do maintain the most projects whilst keeping our head count the same, we don’t spend as much time as we would like on actually making wishes come true.

So, after discussing with other teams and internally we are thinking about introducing the following changes:

  1. During the prioritization stage we will start considering maintenance.
    If we estimate that a feature will require an immense amount of maintenance, we may have to reduce the prioritization score, as we might not be capable of keeping all functionalities intact in :the future
  2. We will consult more with other teams about implementation details.
    Our hope is that this will make it more likely that other teams would continue maintaining our work, if we implemented it in a way that matches their expectations.
  3. We will agree about how long we will maintain wishes as a team.
    We will work hard on finding maintainers of our work and make it clear who, be it another internal team or interested members of the community, continues maintaining our work.
    In any case, we want to discontinue assuming that we can maintain all tools forever while not being able to handle the load of bug requests and additions and be more honest with ourselves about what we can achieve.
    A default maintenance time will be between 6-12 months.
    We will encourage the community to resubmit wishes or propose maintenance requests for tools.
  4. We will make transparent what the maintenance status is.
    Besides the “active” and “passive” development statuses, we will also introduce “Unsupported by CommTech”

@CommtechUser:NRodriguez (WMF)User:KSiebert (WMF)User:DMaza (WMF)User:MusikAnimal (WMF)User:SWilson (WMF)User:HMonroy (WMF)User:DWalden (WMF)User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)User:NAyoub (WMF)User:JMcLeod (WMF)User:TheresNoTime-WMF: Feel free to comment and discuss more below everyone! KSiebert (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. It'll be nice to have some more clarity around when we should stop working on a project. At the moment, we have the ever-growing list at Community Tech/Maintenance, and any time a bug comes in on any of them we sort of triage and try to figure out if we should do anything (I say "sort of" because the reality is that there are too many incoming bugs for them all to get looked at, and especially for projects that we haven't touched in a while the tendency is for it to feel like too much of a context switch to figure out enough to even triage a bug). I'm not really sure what the overall answer is though, because of course all existing projects should be maintained! SWilson (WMF) (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding our existing projects: I do believe we can find a way to see which projects are still being used so much that it's clearly necessary to continue maintaining them. I also wonder if there's a way we could let the community vote which ones in our Community Tech/Maintenance list are most of interest from them, as we are implementing them for and with technical contributors in the community. Maybe someone from the community wants to chime in? On the other hand we were thinking of ways to track usage of our tools to maybe take a data driven decision, but the way we track this data seems like it's not standardised so it's hard to compare. KSiebert (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KSiebert (WMF): I was going to suggest getting some input from the community 🙂 I've just asked the Tech News writers if it would be worth mentioning these changes/this thread in the next issue to try to drive a bit of community feedback ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 17:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vi:Wikipedia:Báo cáo cơ sở dữ liệu/Thành viên tích cực có lịch sử đóng góp lâu đời nhất[edit]

Hi. May I ask what the purpose of this page is? All edits made after June 25 2019 contain nothing useful. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: I'm taking a little look now and will get back to you.. ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 16:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Just to keep you updated, I ran the SQL query that the bot does manually at Quarry query 65200 — it took around 25 minutes to run, and the output seems to be similar to that at the viwiki page.. perhaps it would be more useful to only return users with edits? I'm running a test of that at Quarry query 65208, so we'll see how it looks when it finishes! ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 17:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That sounds a lot better. Thanks! NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and the results at look a bit more sensible at least 😊 I've logged this issue on your behalf, and have submitted a pull request which will hopefully resolve it — thank you for the report! ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 18:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some changes were made by MusikAnimal (WMF) which will hopefully improve the quality of the data reported there ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 21:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page navigation[edit]

I added a link to IPA audio renderer to our talk page nav template. Is it worth adding wishlist items prior to 2021 as well? SWilson (WMF) (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea :) ~TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • she/her) 10:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. I think I've done them all. Not sure what should be added to the RC list, because it's probably not worth adding the old ones. Although, no harm in doing so either, I guess. SWilson (WMF) (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]