Jump to content

Talk:Tech/News/2016/47

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Ле Лой in topic Labs news

Oww, I just now noticed that the page was marked for translation by normal user, User:Quenhitran. Please don't mark these for translation if they are not yet ready. --Stryn (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Quenhitran: I'm very happy and grateful that you're helping out, but the newsletter isn't really ready yet. (:
Stryn: As a an ugly solution for today, I've put a note in the newsletter that it's not ready for translation yet and put translate tags around it, so it'll be the first things translators see. That way we're keeping your translations of the things that will stay more or less the same. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've now rewritten what needed to be rewritten. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Logged out readers"

[edit]

What is this thing? Did you mean unregistered users? --Nemo 09:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe "registered" too, but "not logged". Wargo (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I mean, if I'm logging out, I'm still registered, but in this case I will see the same thing as unregistered users. Is there a better way to phrase it? "Logged out and unregistered readers"? /Johan (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
"User" is not "person". The technical term is "unregistered user", anything containing "reader" means nothing. Nemo 10:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but Tech News is an attempt to explain technical news to the average Wikimedian. This means sacrificing precision for simplicity all the time. Most will assume a user is a person, which could cause confusion if "unregistered" also covers people who are, in fact, registered. "Reader", on the other hand, is a term that most people will immediately understand: It's someone who is reading the site. I'll rephrase a bit for clarity, though, to make it sound less like reader would be a technical term. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Labs news

[edit]

Hi, is there a way to add this? Copied from the Labs email broadcast:

Two proposed policies related to Tool Labs are now up for vote on meta. [0]

The two policies are:

  • The "Right to fork policy" [1] which defines a policy for ensuring that all tools are released under an OSI approved software license and that the source code be made available to those who request it.
  • The "Abandoned tool policy" [2] which defines a policy for how a tool with no active maintainers can be adopted and eventually usurped by an interested Tool Labs member.

I would like to encourage everyone to review the polices and their talk pages on Wikitech and then cast votes on the meta RfC page either for or against each proposal individually by December 9th. Both proposals call for the creation of a committee to oversee the policy in conjunction with the Tool Labs admin staff. I would like to the community to determine if one or both policies should be adopted before attempting to define the specifics of membership and operation of the committee called for by either policy. If both policies are approved it seems logical to combine the two committees into one body. If one or both policies have consensus, then we can open a brief follow up discussion to decide how to bootstrap the committee.

[0]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abandoned_Labs_tools#Call_for_vote_on_straw_dog_proposals

[1]: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Tool_Labs/Right_to_fork_policy

[2]: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Tool_Labs/Abandoned_tool_policy

Bryan -- Bryan Davis Wikimedia Foundation <bd808@wikimedia.org> m:User:BDavis_(WMF) Sr Software Engineer Boise, ID USA irc: bd808 v:415.839.6885 x6855

Le Loy 00:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Le Loy: It's a bit too late – unless it's really, really urgent, I don't want to add things when almost everyone has already translated because it won't be part of the translations – but the vote is until 2016–12–09, so there will be plenty of time to react to it if it goes out in Tech News 2016/48. (: I'll move it to next issue. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sure! Sorry for the mess :-) Le Loy 21:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply