Topic on Talk:Technical decision making

Well, interestingly this change was reverted:

https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_decision_making&diff=prev&oldid=6388659

So here we are. We all know that Google Docs can be useful, but I'm quite sure in Wikimedia we can avoid to both adopt and promote proprietary software in general. It's easy nowadays to share a Libre online collaborative document, since we have https://cryptpad.fr/ - Collabora - OnlyOffice - EtherPads - SandStorm - etc.; - and all of these are good software.

So I'm quite sure that we can easily at least stop having Google Docs as a requirement to be involved in such technical decisions. I don't think that any clarification is needed, but, in doubt, feel free to explore reasons in m:Wikimedians for software freedom.

I think everybody will generally agree with this. We know the situation, but we cannot ask Wikimedians to all become Google customer to be part of their Wikimedia movement.

Thanks for what we can do to mitigate and fix this situation.

I think everybody will generally agree with this.

It is clear you think this is the case. However, that does not make it true. If you wish for Wikimedia management to change their policy, you should contact them and ask for this change to happen.

Thanks. Note I was talking about avoiding Google Docs, to be not a requirement to participate in this page on Meta Technical decision making, and I was not talking about Wikimedia Foundation.

I think this was easy, and do-able, since the scope is limited.

But, by the way, I already contacted management to change the big picture. But, in 2023 the CTO clearly explained to me that it's not their priority, since Wikipedia has to invest resources to fight TikTok®, etc., and btw each team can already change tools if they want, and other interesting reasons I honestly also partially agree with (Am I wrong? User:Laurentius Board of Trustee and Mehrdad who joined the conversation).

In any case, also to change the big picture in WMF it's do-able. We are probably talking about 300 USD / month for a serious enterprise video-conference solution like BigBlueButton on a random provider; instead of relying on non-sustainable best-effort projects like m:Wikimedia Meet.

If you suggest to contact the CEO instead, well, yes, it's also do-able.

But, is it really all of this necessary, just specifically for the page Technical decision making? Probably not.

I agree that google docs is an antipattern here. The entire point of decision making is to ensure its public so that everyone is on the same page. Google docs hides decision making away, and has limited history feature so we cannot easily go back and see how things change.

That said, you cannot simply change it in an unilateral edit. This page describes the process, it doesn't define the process. An edit to this page doesn't change the process, it just makes the documentation wrong. Its the same as how you can't change who is president simply by editing w:President of the United States

OK but let's do something.

A:

If the page Technical decision making should not be touched, we should probably add a banner to the top, like we usually see around. Bonus point: pointing out the workflow to change things (I guess talking in a talk page is not enough to change things here). That's do-able.

B:

I got the point. Don't worry. I will never do again similar minor edits:

https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_decision_making&diff=prev&oldid=6388659

Premising that, no, that change was not intended to destroy this workflow. The change literally involves four (4) words. The reasons are:

- first occurrence: we can avoid a link "Google Docs" that points to Wikimedia Commons. That link is confusing for both humans and robots. We can avoid that easily. Suggestions?

- second occurrence: we can say "spreadsheet" instead of "Excel". And yes we can say "collaborative document" instead of "Google Docs" if we agree that we are not nuking the decision process. Suggestions?

You're allowed to make minor edits, i wouldn't call this minor in context.

Regardless, we are talking about a process that as far as i know, was abandoned about a year ago. Really this page should probably be marked historical more than anything else unless the situation has changed (although it probably makes sense to let the tdf retrospective play out first)

Regardless, we are talking about a process that as far as i know, was abandoned about a year ago.

I'd use a different term, perhaps "paused" or "deferred".

Really this page should probably be marked historical more than anything else unless the situation has changed (although it probably makes sense to let the tdf retrospective play out first)

Indeed.

Uh :O

Are you aware of what should people do nowadays instead, to propose technical changes?

You may think I'm completely lost, but my root problem was just... finding a place to talk about something like this without being closed as invalid (and without having to use Google Docs :D if possible):

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T309328

Thanks for any "Yeah look here → ...". Sorry if I landed here.

As far as i understand, you aren't being held up on the technical decision making (what this process was for) but on the political decision making. At this stage, you need to show that this is what the (non-technical) wikimedia community wants. That it is what admins and stewards want. The best place for that would probably be an RFC on meta, since this would affect how global blocking works.

Oh, thanks funny.

I'm here because I was looking for "request for comments"

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment

That has a banner pointing here

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_decision_making

Instead this is my right destination :D

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment