Talk:Wikimedia Engineering/2015-16 Q1 Goals

Splitting by quarters?
Since we're shifting the focus from yearly to quarterly rhythm (with quarterly team goals, quarterly reviews, quarterly individual goals), do we really need to group all the quarterly engineering goals into one giant page? We could have one page per quarter; the pages would be shorter, easier to read, and we could take that that opportunity to get rid of one level of tables.

If it makes any difference, I'm volunteering to do the spit if needed :) Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging DGarry, Trevor Parscal, Greg, GWicke, Mark Bergsma, Ori Livneh, Dario, ARipstra, CSteipp. Any objections to the above? Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly either way (and the format may change again in the future) but I personally like seeing the entire set of goals for an entire year for each team.--Dario (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as we can get to the current quarters goals from one consistent place, I think breaking them out by quarter will make them easier to read. CSteipp (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅; the only department with anything beyond Q1 was RelEng, who are now lonely over on Wikimedia Engineering/2015-16 Q2 Goals. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * #foreveralone Greg (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Community Tech
Is it really that case that this team has no goals and no-one setting goals? Does it not already have an incubator and two staff -- what are they doing? Exactly what does In progress mean here? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume that the lack of an answer means that it is indeed the case that the team has no goals and no-one to set them. How very strange for a key part of the Call to Action. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Top priorities
Will there be top priorities in this quarter? --Nemo 12:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Roadmap
Are the "goals" pages affected by [Wikitech-l] The end of the Roadmap Phabricator project? --Nemo 12:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Documentation does not drive reality. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but what is documentation and what is reality here? No idea what you're talking about. --Nemo 16:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The email quoted states
 * To successfully do this (deprecate #roadmap) I expect all WMF Engineering teams (as the group of developers I have more influence over versus the Wikimedia engineering community) to pro-actively communicate out their plans, in public, with the appropriate use of the Deployments Calendar and the #user-notice Phabricator project. This means engaging with the Community Engagement/Liaison team when appropriate.'
 * If this does not affect the use of the goals pages, as we are have just been told it will not, then perhaps we could be told (in more comprehensible terms) what new steps User:Jdforrester (WMF) -- and the other teams -- propose to take to deliver this expectation. In short, what are their new communication plans, or, if they are not yet ready, when may we expect them and where will they be published? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The quoted line speaks of "appropriate use of the Deployments Calendar and the #user-notice Phabricator project"; it does not mention this page, because it is too high-level and long-term to be helpful to most users concerned about what the impact will be on them in any given week/month. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that wasn't too hard, was it? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)