Talk:Wikimedia Developer Summit/2016/Archive 1

Just a friendly reminder to make the "invitation-only" part more understandable (maybe add a Request an invite! link right after, leading to the Registration section?). More importantly though, I'm vetoing the Italian restaurant we went to last year. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the logistical challenge of taking 100+ people out to dinner, but as a fellow Italian(-American), I agree re. the dinner selection. Harej (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed and agreed. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I won't be using that restaurant again. It is part of the feedback from last years event which we are following. This is also not an "invitation only" event so I have removed that wording from the page. thanks! Rfarrand (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Outcomes and needed participation
A quick note: I believe we need to concentrate on producing actual concrete outcomes from this meeting, which needs:
 * clear focus on high-level goals
 * "modernizing MediaWiki" -> what does that entail?
 * how will things affect core developers building infrastructure?
 * how will things affect feature developers & extension developers building tools for users?
 * how will things affect users/readers/editors, and their workflows?
 * what can we do to clarify how and to what extent we're supporting third-party MW installs and their users?
 * clear focus on having the right people available
 * the people who will be implementing stuff!
 * WMF staff and contract devs
 * volunteer devs
 * third-party install devs
 * the people who will be deciding what the WMF staff and contract devs do and when they do it
 * WMF engineering managers <- VERY IMPORTANT
 * WMF engineering PMs <- VERY IMPORTANT

Without buy-in from the managers who decide what projects get WMF resources and the PMs who help prioritize tasks day to day, we can expect to have very little impact, no matter how many developers we have talking. --Brion Vibber (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(To summarize: we should think of this as a planning off-site, not a hackathon or a conference. --Brion Vibber (WMF) (talk))
 * I'm not sure I like the idea of turning a more casual gathering of technical Wikimedians into an event where people spend their time trying to persuade Wikimedia Foundation middle-management of the virtue of their ideas/proposals. That sounds a bit dreadful. And having Wikimedia Foundation engineering managers and project managers around doesn't address volunteer or third-party developers, of course. If anything, we should be seeking out ways to reduce reliance on the Wikimedia Foundation and to not let it be a bottleneck.
 * I agree with having clear goals. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First we all define the specific topics we want to discuss, then we all make sure that the people that can help solving these topics participate in the discussions before and during the event. It is that simple. High-level goals are useful to propitiate certain topics, but if someone has a topic that requires discussion and agreement, there is nothing stopping them to file a proposal (as soon as we open the call for participation, next week). Also note that sessions scheduled must be backed by online discussion and previous work, so volunteers, managers etc can and should participate beforehand. The Summit should be the culmination of dozens of ongoing discussions.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)