Talk:Reading/Web/Projects/Related pages/Draft RFC

Alsee, thank you so much for starting this RFC. I am a bit worried that this is too broad isn't exactly clear what is the issue that we are tackling with the feature --is it generally the path forward for related pages? In addition, the feature is still in testing phase, and the beta nature on desktop that only allows logged in users to test the feature, which does already exclude most readers, to whom this feature is directed. I believe Related pages, could be of great value to new Wikipedias and smaller ones, while our only-English conversation and RFC is only making it difficult to engage different voices (it takes time to drive wider engagement). While I am not opposing the idea of the RFC, I am a bit uncertain about the specifics of what we can achieve from it, I also wonder if you think that this is something that we can replicate for further features? Or we should better explore ways that allow early engagement in ideation phase? Again, thank you very much for putting together this document. Thanks.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Update: Can we change the Request for Comments, into a Request for Features? Might be a new approach towards digging deep into how to make the best use of what seems to have potential for both readers and editors? A new kind of engagement for product decisions. Before boldly moving with renaming, what do you think  Alsee. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on your edits I have a better idea what you have in mind. The most common and easiest RFC's are a basic Support/Oppose on a proposal. The first reaction of most editors is going to be to !vote on whether they want it deployed or not. I'm going to put some thought into a significant restructuring. Alsee (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Phew, I am glad we don't have a misunderstanding Alsee :), this experiment will be very helpful in shaping the way how we discuss and decide on products in a more collaborative and progressive manner. Thanks again! --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Question. As I noted, the first thought of a lot of people will be whether they want it or not. Lets assume for the moment that the reception is very positive. If people think "looks great, we formally approve deployment now".... do you want to invite or exclude that? Alsee (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Alsee, so, we did announcements around the work on this specific feature since October. We got different community members from different Wikipedias engaged in the conversation on the talk page of the extension, whether by highlighting issues (fair use images, for example), asking questions (how the algorithm works), discussing the logic of the feature (see also, and related pages), and asking for specific tweaks. Why do we want to get back to square zero, if the conversation is already way ahead of this? Community rejection doesn't need an rfc to express itself. It clarifies itself since day one.  In our case here, imo, we are not in a situation of asking whether this feature is wanted or not, but we are at a stage where after initial engagement and tackling specific issues, we need to move forward, in a way that makes the product well tailored for our editing community, and educational enough for our readers.  Makes sense?   :) --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Melamrawy, please please please stop doing that. During the Gather discussions you said an RFC "wasn't needed", then made a second comment that we shouldn't have one. I don't know if you realize it, but that was a big reason people got upset and started the RFC without waiting for the WMF response. Due to past tensions, particularly Superprotect, a lot of people are hypersensitive to anything that sounds like the WMF doesn't want to hear Consensus.
 * People are also hypersensitive to anything that sounds like the only option is to "move a project forward" like an unstoppable train. In your edit here you effectively said the Reading team DOESN'T want to know whether we consider this a valuable addition to enable (by your deletion of that text). You instead inserted the phrase "roll out" and TWICE said the only thing you wanted to hear was how to "move forward" with the project. I deliberately removed those phrases to avoid anyone interpreting them in the worst possible way, to prevent triggering unnecessary hostility.
 * If we are "already way ahead of this" and "Community rejection doesn't need an rfc to express itself", then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by an RFC. The community feels respected, anyone who doesn't like the feature will know it was deployed by Consensus rather than "imposed" by the WMF, it will build trust in the WMF, and it will help heal old wounds.
 * If an RFC does reject it, Jkatz said "I see no reason why we should push on these wikis if they don't want it". You'll also be able to see why people opposed it, and if appropriate there can be further WMF-Community discussions. WP:CCC: Consensus Can Change. Alsee (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Alsee, I want to thank you for your edits on restructuring the page, and despite of your above reply that sounds like we have a disagreement, on the contrary I see that the edits you made to the document, show that you clearly understand my concern. My point as I elaborated, and as I see that you captured, is even after "consensus" on an rfc written in English, how do we move forward, making sure our decisions are collaborative, and that we listen to details of how each community needs to best tailor the feature?   In the feedback page, we got 29 persons interacting, by suggesting fixes, tweaks, etc. The majority of the conversation was progressive, however, the team can not claim that they now got a green light to do whatever they want to do with the feature moving next. Similar to the voting nature of an rfc, which is tricky, ending up with many "yes" votes on something written in one language, would  still leave us with a question on how to best plan and tailor a feature that many people approved? Something which I was hoping this document can help us answer, and which I think your restructuring did help.  I will make a few more edits, and please, please wish me luck that nothing will be misinterpreted :). Thank you again Alsee.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I hope my last comment didn't come out harsh, and if it did I apologize. I'm happy with the the WMF's steps for community engagement. In recent discussions several community members were very hostile when it was inappropriate and unfair. It was wrong. The WMF didn't deserve that. I'm trying to avoid anything that may be interpreted badly. It's going to take time for people to believe positively.
 * (reading your new reply) Thank you for the positive comment. The multi language/community issue makes things really hard for you guys. To be honest, my first goal here is EnWiki-WMF proceess. EnWiki is by far the biggest and most developed community. By most measures it comes close to half the global community. EnWiki also shares a language with the WMF. I sincerely don't want EnWiki to "rule" over the other communities. EnWiki is a member of a community-of-communities. However EnWiki is defacto in the best and most weighty position to address these issues. I believe that building the WMF-EnWiki process is the foundation-stone for handling the multi-community challenge. The WMF is building new cross-wiki technologies, as well as the translation extension, that I hope may enable the Communities to help solve some of the multi-community challenges for you. Back to the current case, it's really hard to get the sort of feedback you need by posting links to WMF-wikis. If you want to hear from the other languages, the EnWiki post could be revised and translated/posted to the next largest wikis (however many you feel is sufficient and manageable), and there could be an open invitation for anyone to translate and post it to their own wikis.
 * Regarding "how to best plan and tailor a feature that many people approved", if we first establish a consensus that it's wanted then people will eagerly build you a document of what we want. What I'm struggling with on this RFC is that it's a awkward trying to tell people *not* to sort out whether we want it, but to still go to work on how to improve it if we hypothetically wanted it. Alsee (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ping Melamrawy (WMF), Jkatz (WMF). I think the current version is looking good. Most RFC's are expected to reach some sort of decision on something, but I made it This RFC has no outcome other than to generate feedback for the WMF. I think this is what you were looking for. I also want to specifically check with you on this sentence The WMF is not looking to deploy it at this time, and does not want to push it on Wikis that do not want it. It reinforces that people should give features-feedback rather than trying to !vote on whether they want it enabled now. I could easily put in a question to see if people were interested in enabling it now, but it seems you're not looking for that here? The not "push" part came from here and it will help ensure a good community reception, if that language is good with you. Alsee (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alsee, it is getting late my time here, and I would like to review and made comments in a much better state of mind.  So just acknowdging the fact that I read this, and will get back to you on a better timing of the day :). As mentioned above, I would still like to apply some changes.  Thanks--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. I removed two things, I had intended to comment on them here but I got sidetracked. Sorry for dropping them without explanation.
 * Can we use related pages to explore different editing modes on mobile?
 * I didn't understand the idea here, and I'm assuming others wouldn't either. I don't see how related pages could connect to editing and I don't know what you mean by "different editing modes".
 * How could Related Pages help with orphan articles?
 * I thought it would be beneficial to keep things shorter and more focused, and my impression is that this question isn't likely to go anywhere useful. If you guys feel this is significant then I guess we could add another section on the end. Alsee (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alsee. I reworded the question and the testing proposal--let me know if you are okay with it.  One thing that I struggle with is that we want feedback and we want to know what needs to change, but at this stage, we are not looking for "wouldn't it be cool if..." feedback.  It doesn't hurt, but I don't want to give the impression that this is a feature we are doubling down on and are going to spend the next year perfecting--we think it is a net positive for readers, but I am not sure I can justify spending more time for a 20%-50% improvement of the feature given our responsibilities and strategy.  I wrote under feedback "More specifically, is there anything that would need to change before you would want it on your wiki?", but let me know if you think of anyway to be clearer about that.  Again, my main concern is that I don't want people to feel that this is a wishlist of things we are going to do.