Talk:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap

Changes to this list
Hi everyone...I'd prefer getting comments here rather than on the list. After a discussion here where the outcome is clear, feel free to put the outcome on the main page. Thanks! -- RobLa-WMF 00:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation
I worked on the closure discussion, and can tell you what I think these were about. Ocaasi 06:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ocaasi, thanks for the clarification. Since the bulk of your comment was about the parts of this document I moved out, I'm moving your comment over to Talk:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Feature ideas -- RobLa-WMF 01:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Preparation of poll on English Wikipedia
To remind everyone where we stand currently in English Wikipedia. The first decision before us will be what we will do with the existing software between now and November 9th. Our choices are essentially these two:

1. Keep using the feature more or less as it is being used now - removing it from any pages where it appears to be causing a problem, and judiciously adding it to a few pages where it would seem to be useful. No sudden moves, no fighting. Just some quiet ongoing experimentation by those who are interested.

2. Turn the feature off on all the pages where it is used now.

This is not that poll, please don't vote here.

I'd appreciate some help with precise wordsmithing on the above, but I don't want us to have a vote on what we are going to vote on, as this is simply a vote about an interim decision that will go away completely upon release of the new version.

I also propose a "hard stop" date of December 31st - if the Foundation doesn't release a new version for us to run a new trial on by then, we will have another vote to determine what to do at that time, based on conditions at that time. One likely scenario is that if we determine that it is going to take a long time for the new version to come out (but this is doubtful, given Rob's cautious assurances), we will choose to just turn it off and wait.

This vote will be a vote, not a !vote. Adding opinions/explanations to votes is welcome, but at the end of the vote, I'm going to just add them up. A percentage over 50% will be necessary to keep it in use until the next release.

My plan is to hold a discussion here on the wording, and then the poll will start on Monday and run for 5 days.--Jimbo Wales 03:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed a personal attack here, but there was a valid point embedded in it - a weekday only poll for the interim decision could leave some out - I'll instead make it a 7 day poll.--Jimbo Wales 13:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I would remind you of the necessity of getting more Wikipedians to vote, the last time, five thousandths of a percent voted, we this turnout to be a bit higher to reflect the community. Perhaps a watchlist notice? Monday is too early for a Signpost article, but a watchlist notice might draw a few more editors. Ronk01 04:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a huge turnout is necessary for this interim poll - as high as possible is a good idea, of course, but I think the *real* turnout we will want to have is for the poll on the next version.--Jimbo Wales 13:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We had a watchlist notice for the prior poll, at least for the last 10 days or so of it. Courcelles 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree absolutely with doing that for the next major poll. This is just a quick poll for a majority vote on what to do short-term - not nearly as important.--Jimbo Wales 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

During this phase
Can we just clarify that if this goes ahead, then whenever we would currently semi-protect an article we could instead apply pending changes to it? Or would we make it more bureaucratic to apply pending changes protection to an article than we do to apply semi-protection? WereSpielChequers 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The key issue is revision display speed
What it says on the tin. Of the challenges you identify on this page, the one that is mission-critical is fixing the revision display speed during reviewing. A lot of people had problems with large pages, particularly if they were using the Vector skin; if they also had a slower internet connection, they were getting browser crashes or time-outs. Making quick fixes that don't address the core weakness of the tool isn't going to help sell this to the English Wikipedia community. If you need to juggle person-hours to work on this aspect, please do. Second is the proper reject button. Third is to address the review conflict problems. These are the most critical components that need fixing, and they are at minimum what needs to be done to sell the feature. -- Risker 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Priyanka is working on 25289 now (review performance), assuming the problem that we can reliably reproduce is the one you're referring to. Chad is working on 25294 now.  The review conflict problems are issues that need organized input to solve, but Brandon is thinking about that problem (25295).  The "easy" fixes for review conflicts are also changes that aren't necessarily ones that are worthwhile to implement. -- RobLa-WMF 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that the flagged revisions lab is being shut down, and testing is now moving over to this prototype wiki: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs/

Please dig up a couple of people to act as bureaucrats on that test wiki and grant the full range of permissions so that they can all be tested there. It also needs to have about 10K articles uploaded so that a reasonable test environment can be created, and testers can work through the range of features and put any revisions through their paces. I am assuming, of course, that you'd like to have feedback on any changes you make. Risker 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you help with this recruitment effort? -- RobLa-WMF 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)