Talk:Engineering Community Team/Developer Relations team

Jargon
Sorry for commenting on a tangent only for now, but "productized developer documentation" really means nothing. --Nemo 21:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now it says "good quality developer documentation".--Qgil-WMF (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Visitors
"Number of visitors of our new Developer Hub": this is not a measure of success in itself. --Nemo 21:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You might be right. Should we just remove it or find a better way to measure the success of our efforts in Web API documentation?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Let's focus on the contributions we get in the Web APIs hub, bot ask questions / answers and improvements to the documentation. Thank you, Nemo.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Community manager
This term is not proposed for real, right? Also, it would not fit the reorg structure for such a role to be here. --Nemo 21:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not? Any alternative proposals? "Bug wrangler" doesn't describe the scope of this role; it's too limited.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Community Relationship Manager, if the job is to manage relations with the community rather than managing the community. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Community manager" is an established job title, and the word "manager" here is not taken as in managing people. Online_community_manager is not a great article but kind of explains what community managers do. My own role today is "Engineering Community Manager" and I haven't received any complaints or confused feedback after 18 months or so.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were already confident you knew the answer, why bother to ask the question? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked why not, and any alternative proposals. I thought Nemo would have something totally different in mind. If the alternative is a variation of Community Manager, then I think simply "Community Manager" is better for the reasons explained.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Community Tech
The description of Community Tech as a partner seems inconsistent with Community Tech:
 * The Community Tech team is focused on meeting the needs of active Wikimedia editors for improved, expert-focused curation and moderation tools. The creation of the Community Tech team is a direct outcome of requests from core contributors for improved support for moderation tools, bots, and the other features that help the Wikimedia projects succeed. The team will work closely with the community, and the Community Engagement department, to define their roadmap and deliverables.

Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ The idea is that the Community Tech team will maintain a backlog of community requests, and that Developer Relations (through the Wikimedia open source community area) will help bringing feedback to shape that backlog and also bringing potential contributors to work on tasks not taken by that team. However, with Community Tech, the backlog, and Developer Relations being in such an early stage right now, the easiest is to remove that entry and bring it back when it is clearer how things will work.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Check in at Meta
There seems to be no mention of this team at Meta. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What for, and which kind of mention were you thinking? This team doesn't exist yet. The Engineering Community team has existed for several years and it hasn't got any direct mention either (as in an own page or something). I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, only that this doesn't seem to be urgent.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To inform the community and gather wider feedback. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that reaching to a wider audience is good, perhaps after a few days so we are sure to capture the first impressions from wikitech-l and surroundings and integrate them in the plan. However, I don't exactly where in Meta should we post what information to really spread the news. I might send an email to wikimedia-l as a next step, and then perhaps a post in Wikimedia Blog once we are ready for making the change official. If you have specific suggestions about how to check in at Meta, please share them.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as a Community Manager you might have your own ideas for transpacency and interaction. However I would suggest, for starters, a page titled, say, Engineering Community Team/Developer Relations team which briefly describes the long-term aims of the team, its composition, points of contacts and members responsible for relationship to  other elements of the WMF organisation and with the wider community, and stating some of the ways you propose to interact with the rest of that wider community.  It might link to this page and any other resources that volunteers and paid staff might need to effectively coordinate their activities with yours.  Meta is also a good place to coordinate translation efforts if you feel that the non-English-speaking world has something to offer. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added a link to this page from Engineering_Community and I have updated the list of pages to be changed at T104343.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Mozilla's Participation Leadership Framework 0.1
I couldn't find a better place to share this interesting article (with an interesting diagram): [Participation Leadership Framework 0.1 http://tiptoes.ca/participation-leadership-framework-01/] by Emma Irving, Participation Coordinator at Mozilla.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)