Gerrit/Project ownership/Archive

Jump to navigation Jump to search

raymond (Translate)

Please add raymond (Raimond Spekking) as maintainer of the Translate extension. siebrand (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)=== Comments ===[reply]

Yes Done - sorry for the wait! Congrats, Raimond. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising extensions

The Wikimedia Fundraising team would like to request ownership by the fundraising group for the following extensions:

  • CentralNotice
  • ContactPageFundraiser
  • ContributionReporting
  • DebianISOCodes
  • FundraiserLandingPage
  • LandingCheck

All of the above extensions were either written exclusively for fundraising or are part of the core fundraising infrastructure.

For those wondering about the ones we are "missing," we already have:

  • ContributionTracking
  • DonationInterface

--Pgehres (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a list of the fundraising team members? – Nikerabbit (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not asking for access for all team members, just the fundraising group in gerrit which is limited to the team members with deployment access (currently only Katie Horn). --Peter Gehres (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Thanks and sorry for the delay. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari (Front-end)

I'd like to nominate Ryan Kaldari to join the mediawiki group. Ryan's been focused on front-end development, and with +2 rights he'd be able to help us keep up with front-end changes in core and extensions, which is currently an area that's under-resourced. I believe he can be trusted to apply his own judgment to not merge changes outside his areas of expertise.--Eloquence (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Baker (TimedMediaHandler)

Ian Baker should be given merge rights in the TimedMediaHandler extension, which he is intimately familiar with based on his joint code review with NeilK.--Eloquence (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Done Created the Gerrit group extension-TimedMediaHandler, added Ian as a member, and told Gerrit project mediawiki/extensions/TimedMediaHandler to allow that group as an owner. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Parscal

Trevor said that he needed MediaWiki core project ownership, and Antoine gave it to him. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done hashar added Trevor to mediawiki group. Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Tijhof


  • Sounds good to me, but would like to get input from other core reviewers as well --Catrope (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Horn, 27 March 2012



Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I will take the hit on this -- I didn't circulate it per policy but Fundraising really needed the ability to deploy. Today I'll be circulating the rest of these per procedure.[reply]

Tweaked the permissions just slightly. All fundraising people can now be added/removed through the meta-group "fundraising" in gerrit. ^demon (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Vasiliev, 21 March 2012



Yes Done ^demon (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Wicke, April 3 2012


Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari, 27 March 2012



Yes Done ^demon (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen De Dauw, 19 March 2012


  • Jeroen should have project ownership of all extensions he maintains. I recommend against giving him ownership of core --Catrope (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Roan. ^demon (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Since two core contributors have vetoed this, rejecting and archiving. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Vasiliev, 21 March 2012


Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen De Dauw, 19 March 2012

  • Jeroen De Dauw
  • (his extensions)
  • Wikimedia Foundation contractor, Wikidata developer, contributor to several extensions


  • Jeroen should have project ownership of all extensions he maintains. I recommend against giving him ownership of core --Catrope (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Roan. ^demon (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd tend to agree with the above. I'd be a bit worried about code (albeit with lots of cool ideas) getting merged that needs wider discussion first. Aaron (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeroen has wrote and does maintain a ton of very useful extension. So yes we want Jeroen to be the owner of his extensions. We probably need a list :-D Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk)
  • We aren't discussing core but just his extensions, for which I think there's consensus (I support it, too). Platonides (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Done For all extensions Jeroen owns that are in git (or that will be migrated Friday).

Matthias Mullie (Article Feedback Tool v5)

Matthias Mullie needs ownership rights on Article Feedback Tool v5 because he is slated to take over the project from OmniTi in July and replace Roan as primary deployer for this project needs merge rights to do this). This would free up Roan's time for VisualEditor (in the short term) and school (in the long term).

--Tychay (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  •  OK Fabrice Florin (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC) For what it's worth, you have my vote! Matthias has already proven himself to be an excellent developer, highly qualified and very responsive. Plus, he's a really nice guy! Who could ask for more? ;o)[reply]
  • Asking the current Gerrit project owners for their thoughts; will process this request on Tuesday, 29 May. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm OK with this in the understanding that Matthias won't review his own code, someone else will still need to review that. --Catrope (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope not! I reminded Matthias just in case.. ;-) Tychay (talk)
Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki core - MaxSem

Request for Max Semenik (MaxSem) to be part of the "mediawiki" Gerrit group; he's being given deployment cluster access, I believe, so this makes sense. Code samples. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wight - Fundraising

Katie Horn requested today to add new employee Adam Wight (adamw) to the Fundraising Gerrit group so I have done so. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UploadWizard - Jeroen De Dauw

Right now I cannot approve stuff submitted by others, while I'm one of the people most familiar with the code of this extension --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  •  OK Makes sense to me. The more eyes we have on the project the less backlog. Tychay (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK We need more reviewers for this extension. I'll talk to Jeroen a bit more about reviewing standards for it (e.g. how to handle UX issues).--Eloquence (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1. Max Semenik (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke - Jeroen De Dauw

I sort of ended up maintaining nuke somewhere in the last 12 months so I'd be good if I could review and merge changes of others --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikimediaIncubator - SPQRobin

I request to be a project owner of the WikimediaIncubator extension (extension page) of which I am the primary developer. I of course won't review&merge my own commits, unless they're simple typo fixes or such. FYI, I was/am already a coder on this wiki. Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Rights for Daniel Kinzler

Hi all

I would like merge rights for mediawiki/core/master and mediawiki/core/Wikidata. Since I had the right to commit to core in SVN, I supposed you can trust me with this.

Having these rights should help to ease the strain the Wikidata team puts on the core team, and also allows me to help out with the normal core review process for core.

-- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to some of the comments below:

  • I'm pretty reluctant to submit anything to core just yet. I guess once i collected a bit more experience, i'll do it more often.
  • Whether I should be approving Wikidata-related changes - well, most of them are in our extensions, and we are reviewing them internally, as long as they are not deployed. And I am submitting/merging things there.
  • Core changes for wikidata should be rare and small once the WikiData branch has been merged. I'd not want to approve big changes to the core, but may merge the addition of a hook point or some such.
  • As to my rights on the Wikidata branch: apparently, I'm in the owner group and can submit, but I can't +2 changes, for some reason... maybe just an oversight.

-- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  OK I think we can trust him :) ^demon (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Although I'm not sure you should be doing the review of precisely WikiData commits, on whose development you are participating at the same time. Platonides (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Trusting Daniel to do some nice work. Please be careful since a merge in mediawiki/core is roughly equals to a deployment on the live site. Also you usually want to wait a bit to let a chance to other people to see the patches :-] Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ownership for Wikidata is a no-brainer, it seems like he partially has it already but the permissions are messed up somehow. As for ownership of core, I don't think we should give this to someone who, by their own admission, is "reluctant to submit anything to core just yet" and doesn't need to approve anything in core except the occasional hook addition. If core changes for Wikidata are rare and small, I don't think they need a WD person with merge access, they can just go through the normal review process. So I'm gonna say yes to the Wikidata ownership request but no to the master request, unless someone convinces me otherwise. --Catrope (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The core changes for Wikidata are huge and will require maintenance. That's why we're talking about a Wikidata branch, not a Wikidata extension. I think it's best if the person who looks after that code is physically present at WMDE. Daniel has been contributing to the MediaWiki core since 2006, I'm sure we can trust his judgement. -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  OK Alright, that's fine then. I didn't realize the changes were that large. --Catrope (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK [branch/master] From his history, the code he submitted that I reviewed so far, and his cautiousness, I'm not really worried about +2 in master. I also think there is lots of stuff he could review in master, in theory. Once the branch is merged, as Tim said, there will be the maintenance factor. I expect that others might see breakage and make patches, of which it would be nice if he could merge. Aaron (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Ownership request for extensions: DiscussionThreading,NSFileRepo,NewUserNotif,StringFunctionsEscaped

Gerrit Username: Jpond <>
SVN/GIT ID: jdpond

It probably makes sense for me to at least be an authorized member, if not the owner for the following extensions(authored by me or got dumped into my lap). None of them have a current owner or any members. All are very stable, but still get update requests on their Talk pages and have corresponding bugzilla areas.

  • extension-DiscussionThreading: DiscussionThreading - a light weight forum-like extension to structure postings and replies on talk pages. LiquidTheads is better, but this one works all the time and much less overhead. Would like to sunset it, but several admins still have trouble gettin LQT working.
  • extension-NSFileRepo: NSFileRepo - Access protection based on Namespace for uploading and reading files/images
  • extension-NewUserNotif: NewUserNotif - New User Email Notification, Automatic email to admins when a new user registers (or needs approval)
  • extension-StringFunctionsEscaped: StringFunctionsEscaped - Allows String functions to work with escaped characters, e.g., \n, \t . . .

--jdpond (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partially done; NSFileRepo is maintained by Jpond per the extension wiki page and Jpond is the one who requested the move into Git, so I've added Jpond as an owner for that Gerrit project. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Jpond also requested the other 3 moves. Thanks! Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project ownership for extensions PanScroll and SideBarMenu

Gerrit username: MathiasLidal (
Git Gerrit projects:

I am going to take over development of these extensions from user Netbrain ( so could you give me project ownership access?

Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add PeterG to fundraising group

His username is pgehres. I'm just adding it here so this request is logged somewhere.

Yes Done by Katie (group owner)

editor-engagement to own extensions it already owns

The Editor Engagement and Experimentation teams already own a number of extensions through individual members, it makes sense to add (or change ownership to) the group membership (editor-engagement) where it can be managed instead of handling each person independently.

They are:

  • mediawiki/extensions/ArticleCreationWorkflow: [1] add editor-engagement
  • mediawiki/extensions/ArticleFeedbackv5: [2] add editor-engagement
  • mediawiki/extensions/ClickTracking: create clicktracking access group, add editor-engagement
  • mediawiki/extensions/E3Experiments: [3] add editor-engagement
  • mediawiki/extensions/Echo: create echo access group, add editor-engagement and explicitly add werdna (he already has perms through mediawiki)
  • mediawiki/extensions/PageTriage: [4] add editor-engagement

Tychay (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Done Should all be implemented. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] in BookManager

I wanted the be added to this list,members

Because he is the coauthor of the extension.

This will make you able to edit the extension, right?

Raylton P. Sousa (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

add jamesur to extension-CentralNotice

Please add jamesur (wiki username User:Jalexander ) the CentralNotice owner group 'extension-CentralNotice'. Jalexander (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Engagement (meta-group)

This is a request for a new meta-group to be created for the Editor Engagement and the Editor Engagement Experimentation team (as they will be working on the same extensions). Instead of individually assigning extension access (for things like Page Triage) to each member, we can just request the meta-group be given control (like Fundraising does with the DonationInterface).

Group members:

  • Ryan Kaldari (already in the mediawiki group, but can't hurt)
  • Andrew Garret (already in the mediawiki group, but can't hurt)
  • Benny Situ
  • Ori Livneh
  • Matthias Mullie

This is not a request that the meta-group be given ownership of anything (yet).


  •  OK This should be pretty straightforward to do--can't see any reason not to. ^demon (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chad, do you care what we name this, internally? I see we're being a little inconsistent in terms of capitalization, spaces instead of hyphens, etc. Do you care? Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Created as Group "editor-engagement". Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alolita requested via email that we add Dario Taraborelli and Ryan Faulkner to this group. I accidentally removed my ability to add someone to the group; could one of the group members please do it? Thanks. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matthias did it. Thanks, Matthias! Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Forms Inputs

Project ownership for yaron and jeroendedauw. Asked Stephan about this and he's fine with it. --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thanks. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tpt: ProofreadPage

I have been working on ProofreadPage for the past few months in order to clean the code and add new features required by Wikisource contributors. Here is my activity on Gerrit: . Sumanah has told me that it would be a good idea to ask for the ownership in order to save time in the process of merging code. Tpt (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Aaron (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even if my opinion shouldn't have a lot of weight because I'm not active enough in the development of this extension. I just want to say, that I follow carefully Tpt's work on the extension and that I think that giving ownership to him is a good idea. Zaran (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TimedMediaHandler / MwEmbedSupport

I would need +2 rights for TMH and MwEmbedSupport to review and fix code while in SF. My Gerrit username is J

Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Gerrit username: liaveja
Gerrit project: mediawiki/extensions/OfflineImportLexicon

--LiaVeja (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see this listed in . Have you requested an import into Gerrit yet, via Gerrit/New repositories or Git/Conversion/Extensions queue? Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done When I created the repo. ^demon (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add editor-engagement as included group for extension-UploadWizard

Upload Wizard has no love in the WMF. This is temporary until multimedia spins up later this year, at which point we'll probably have a "multimedia" group and I'll assign the reassign privs to that group. Tychay (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Done ^demon (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

iAlex for MediaWiki core ownership

Siebrand suggests iAlex for MediaWiki core ownership.

  •  OK iAlex is one of the core contributors. He has an extensive knowledge about all the MediaWiki codebase and is a defacto a better reviewer than me. So yeah definitely welcome to come in the cabal :-D (just remember to not self merge!) Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK I've floated this idea for a while. Aaron (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK --Nikerabbit (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Done -- added him to the 'mediawiki' group. ^demon (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic MediaWiki group

repo: extensions/SemanticMediaWiki

A new group named SemanticMediaWiki or SMW-trusted or whatever, next to our existing extension owner group. This group should be able to

  • Merge in stuff of others (but not themselves)
  • Push tags
  • Create branches (and if possible be able to merge their own commits to these)

Initial members:

  • Kghbln
  • Nischayn22
  • Mwjames
  • yaron
  • Foxtrott
  • Daniel Werner
  • Denny Vrandecic

Ideally this group would be manageable (both permission and member wise) by either the extension-SemanticMediaWiki group or both Markus and me. --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a similar group for extensions/SemanticResultFormats with same rights and same initial members.


  •  OK SMW isn't a WMF extension so I don't see a problem with this. Tychay (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Yeah more Semantic people :-] Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Why not. Maybe this will reduce the self-merges. --Nikerabbit (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not completely possible right now - We can do the branch creations, review, and tagging. But limiting it to "only people other than yourself" requires some Prolog-writing. There's a commit pending upstream for a "Prolog cookbook" to illustrate how to do this and other things. ^demon (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then please create the stuff without this restriction - if that works in core, it will probably work here as well --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. It'll take me a little bit to sort all this out properly, but I'll get to it this week. ^demon (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Done Ok, I think I've got everything sorted out here. Please let me know if you've got any problems or need the permissions tweaked further. ^demon (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
718smiley.svg Thanks! --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment Branch Access for Ori.livneh

My Gerrit username is Ori.livneh. I intend to only use this to sync the E3Experiments extension to master. I was granted deployment rights in RT: 3325. --Ori.livneh (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Confirmed you already have deploy access, so this group is a no-brainer. ^demon (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
718smiley.svg Thanks! --Ori.livneh (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Group Request: Multimedia

Request that a group "multimedia" be created. Made group owner of the TimedMediaHandler and UploadWizard extensions (also keep "editor-engagement" as owner for UploadWizard). Group owner/member should be RobLa. Tychay (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes Done Group created, and given the requisite permissions. RobLa's the initial member, and he'll be able to manage it via his "Project and Group Creators" role he's already a member of. ^demon (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move branch svg-chart to be new master, get rid of old master (orgcharts)

master has never been used for orgcharts, because A) by the time it was on Gerrit, I had moved to a separate branch for all development and B) the master branch won't merge easily with the svg-chart branch anymore. I've totally abandoned anything in master, so I'd just like svg-chart to be moved over, if possible. MarkTraceur (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT STATUS: User:^demon said he'd fix it this week (before 2012-07-21, presumably).

We fixed the branch, but HEAD is still pointing at the wrong place. Filed ticket in RT for Ryan to fix. ^demon (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done --MarkTraceur (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to become a project owner for mediawiki/extensions/DumpHTML. I'm using it actively at my site ( I just submitted a few changes to unbreak the extension (it has been broken in SVN/Git since several months). My Gerrit username is tbleher. Best regards -- Tbleher (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thanks! Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh for MediaWiki core ownership

Siebrand suggests Santhosh for MediaWiki core ownership.

  • I think this is a bit early because Santhosh hasn't contributed to MW core very much (11 merged commits, 1 pending, and a handful of reviews of others' code AFAICT), but he's on the right track, and with more activity I could see him getting merge rights in the future. --Catrope (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
N Not done Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requsting admin for UploadWizard and TimedMediaHandler projects

I only aim to +2 the areas that I am qualified to review. thanks --Mdale (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+2 for Mark Holmquist on mediawiki/extensions/UploadWizard

I'd like to request +2 rights for Mark Holmquist (MarkTraceur) on mediawiki/extensions/UploadWizard . We're doing a sprint from 8/20 to 8/31 to implement high priority fixes and improvements ahead of Wiki Loves Monuments. Mark has been casually reviewing code across MediaWiki for a couple of months now, and has authored many patches, especially for UW. I think it's time for him to be able to merge code (and live with the consequences :-).--Eloquence (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For selfish reasons, I agree with this idea. I also question whether it's wise for me to want this. Even so, it would be nice to have. Thanks! --MarkTraceur (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --siebrand (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Catrope (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submit right for everyone

Right now one cannot submit a change to core even when it's been verified and +2'd. This happens when someone +2's and hits the wrong button or +2's before the change has been verified and then forgets about it. Rather silly you can't submit then and have to poke someone with the rights :) --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. There are many reasons why you might +2 something but not be ready to press Submit yet. Looking at Gerrit, I only see 10 changes that are +2 but not submitted...and all of them fall into one of the following 3 categories:
  • Needs a rebase/there's conflicts
  • Has unresolved dependencies
  • Someone has explicitly said "please don't submit this just yet"
Submitting a change is a big deal because that's what actually merges the change into the destination branch, so yeah, opening this up to everyone is a bad idea. ^demon (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a conflict or unresolved dependency, you cannot submit anyway. "please don't submit this just yet" should be a -2. So none of these seem like a valid argument against handing out this right. --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've yet to see a reason why it should be granted. The only reason you gave is one that simply isn't happening. This is a solution in search of a problem. ^demon (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Chad, there's no good reason to disconnect submit rights from +2 rights. --Catrope (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bawolff for mediawiki/extensions/intersection

I'd like merge rights for intersection. I've been effectively the maintainer of that extension for the last 3 years (not that I've done very much to it) [obviously I wouldn't merge my own code]. Bawolff (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Catrope (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Can't see any reason why not. ^demon (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am about to implement this -- just checking with Chad as to whether I should name the group "extension-Intersection" or "extension-intersection". Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Watchlist

Ownership for SemanticWatchlist repo:

  • Nischayn22
  • yaron
  • markus
I guess Jeroen will have the final word there. Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I posted this request - maybe I forgot to sing it or something. Either way, I'm definitely fine with it :) --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done So sorry for the wait! I have now done this! Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Moen for mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor

LDAP user name
Gerrit link

The team would like Rob to have +2 too, to speed up code review. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Catrope (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Decided that I'll take the heat if Trevor objects. ;-) Congrats, Rob! Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dsc to integration group

Just so anyone know, I am adding David "dsc" Schoonover to the integration group so he can merge things in integration/jenkins.git. Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


 OK Sounds fine to me. ^demon (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Lidal for extension SmoothGallery

LDAP username: MathiasLidal I would like to take over maintainership of the SmoothGallery extension. As far as I can see this is no longer actively maintained. I have deployed this extension for a client and will continue to develop it (already have some bugfixes I would like to merge in)

Asking the author (Ryan Lane). Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it. I don't have time to maintain it. I'm glad someone else wants to.--Ryan lane (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Congrats, Mathias! Please change the Extension:SmoothGallery page to note that you are now the maintainer. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add Ori to MediaWiki group

It's mostly a formality, but it is highly weird we have a features engineer with +2 in core, but not the extensions. Besides, all the other project teams but E3 have a mediawiki group member (some like Mobile and VisualEditor have multiple)… I suppose this is an artifact of me collecting all the core mediawiki contributors in VE.


Yes Done Added Ori.livneh to the MediaWiki group. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor engagement owns MoodBar

I'd like to assign the developers of MoodBar to be able to +2 the MoodBar backlog. So that's a number of small changes (all related).

  • creation of the extension-MoodBar group
  • group membership of "editor-engagement" to MoodBar extension
  • me added explicitly to extesnion-Moodbar group
  • me added "editor-engagement" extensions groups (me added to the extension-$extension groups below)
    • Article Creation Workflow
    • ArticleFeedbackv5
    • ClickTracking
    • E3Experiments
    • Echo
    • PageTriage
    • UploadWizard
    • TimedMediaHandler

BTW, I already can empower individuals to the extension via "editor-engagement", but I need finer-grained control for some extensions so I can add people outside the WMF to some editor engagement extensions, but not all..


Yes Done Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jan Luca for mediawiki/extensions/CentralAuth

LDAP user name

I would like to join the CentralAuth-project because I think this is a very important extension for the community of Wikimedia and currently there is only one other project owner for this project (beside the MW core-owner). --Jan Luca (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Jan, thanks. Since Victor Vasiliev is the existing Gerrit project owner here (other than the MediaWiki core team of course) I'm pinging him to ask for comment. Owners commenting: see Jan's reviews and Jan's changesets. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I am not much familiar with your MediaWiki work (that's my fault). Could you please link to some of your Gerrit reviews (+1 or -1)? Preferrably in CentralAuth. vvvt 05:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reviews and changesets. Jan Luca (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two changes for CentralAuth as example:
--Jan Luca (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I expect to see more thorough testing for the deployment-level code. vvvt 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jan, from Victor's comment, it sounds as though we are not accepting your request at this time. I infer from Victor's comment that you should submit patchsets that have more thorough tests associated with them, and that you should test others' patchsets more thoroughly before giving them +1 marks, and then request again. Thanks for your contribution and I look forward to seeing your future +2 request! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add Jon Robson and Rob Moen as owners of vector

Two things:

  • Create a extension-Vector group that owns the vector extension
  • Add the following to the group
    • Trevor Parscal
    • Jon Robeson
    • Rob Moen


  •  OK I'm requesting on OK from Trevor, who doubles as the mediawiki ok ;-) -Tychay (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having Jon involved with reviews on Vector is going to facilitate properly cascaded stylesheets that work across platforms without requiring piles of ad-hoc overrides. He is the Kwisatz Haderach. ori (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antoine (hashar) gave a +1 just now over IRC. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen De Dauw for MediaWiki core ownership

And yes, I will only approve stuff of others that I'm qualified to review :) -- Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N Not done Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the reason for not giving me merge rights is because I would supposedly go and merge my own stuff without discussion and break core. I understand that I should not merge my own code very well, and think I am quite responsible enough not to break things by being sloppy. I have merge rights to quite a few extensions, including WMF deployed ones, and AFAIK I have not merged in a single change that needed to be reverted since the git migration. So the argumentation against granting merge rights here seem invalid to me. At the very least, I'd like to ask for giving me a chance and revoking the right as soon as I merge in any of my own commits (which I guarantee you I will not do). --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about merging your own changes, it's about about trust in general. We only give +2 access to people if the other reviewers trust their judgment. Once we actually have a process for revoking +2 access, I guess we could be more liberal about giving people access and taking it away from them if they break certain yet-to-be-determined rules, but right now we don't have such a process and we don't have those rules spelled out very well. So currently we can't really say "here's your access, but don't do X or we'll take it away", we can only say "here's your access, we're confident you'll use it well" or "sorry, you don't get merge access". I think that middle ground option should exist, and if and when it does that's what I'd vote to give you, but since it doesn't exist right now I'm voting conservatively. --Catrope (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm absolutely fine with you not doing a +1 on this, as we don't know each other very well and have never worked together, hence it seems rather hard for you to properly judge my sense of responsibility. However, you are giving a -1, which I'm rather curious to hear what it is based upon. When I joined the community 3 years ago I was very novice, had no clue how stuff worked, and thus messed things up. I'm getting the impression this is being held against me here. --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

suggesting thedj for MediaWiki Core

I suggest that TheDJ (Derk-Jan Hartman) be given Gerrit project ownership for the "mediawiki/core" Gerrit project. He's authored many improvements in MediaWiki, in Git and in Subversion, and reviewed as well. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1, TheDJ is a solid long-time contributor, and we could definitely use another frontend reviewer with approval rights --Catrope (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mind you that "reviewed" is not very accurate. The query result provides "submits to which a user was added as reviewer", which is in no way the same as "has reviewed revision and provided feedback". siebrand (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Krinkle (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Platonides (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I think he would be quite useful to help with core review and approval. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as if more support was needed. ;-) --Eloquence (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Congratulations, Derk-Jan. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. I'll try to contribute when I can, as always. TheDJ (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting SPQRobin for MediaWiki core

I suggest that we give SPQRobin (Robin Pepermans) Gerrit project ownership for the "mediawiki/core" Gerrit project. He is currently the maintainer of the Wikimedia Incubator and was a Google Summer of Code student with Wikimedia in 2012. He's authored many MediaWiki changesets in Git and in Subversion, and has reviewed code as well. There are dozens of Gerrit reviews where he +1'd or merged without comment; he commented in at least the following reviews:

Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He has made significant contributions and lot of his code is deployed at WMF, most prominently the Incubator extension. – Nikerabbit (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Congratulations, Robin. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SPQRobin (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

suggesting Anomie for MediaWiki Core

I suggest that Anomie (Brad Jorsch) be given Gerrit project ownership for the "mediawiki/core" Gerrit project. He has submitted several MediaWiki changesets that were merged in Git. Merged patches by Anomie in Subversion:

Substantive discussion, patches, or review include bugs and patches going back to 2008:

His reviews in Gerrit include:

Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anomie has been around for years, so he's very familiar with a couple of obscure things in MW core like the API and the preprocessor. He also knows a lot about JavaScript internals, which few of our +2ers do. He's been more actively eviewing code lately and the reviews I've seen from him were all good ones, so +1 --Catrope (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
Yes Done Congratulations, Brad. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

proposing bawolff for MediaWiki core

I suggest that Brian Wolff (bawolff) get Gerrit project ownership for the "mediawiki/core" Gerrit project. He was a Google Summer of Code student, and has been contributing to MediaWiki since January of 2010. Brian has submitted several MediaWiki changesets that were merged in Git, and more than 200 commits in Subversion (including core and extensions). About 2/3 of these changesets include substantive reviews from Brian; sorry that I'm not specifically linking to each of them. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ^demon (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't worked with too much of Brian's code, but what I've seen has shown good judgement. CSteipp (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Congratulations, Brian! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting myself (Victor Vasiliev) for MediaWiki core


I do not commit to core much currently (since most code I work on is in extensions), but as far as I understand, that is where the majority of code review backlog is, and thus, I'd like to volunteer, if people find me suitable for this task. vvvt 23:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Catrope (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Platonides (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - Hoo man (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Congrats, Victor. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! vvvt 16:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+2 rights to team members for extension/PostEdit

PostEdit is developed by E3, so team members spage, swalling, massaf should have +2 rights. (And Ori.livneh, but I assume he does already.) -- S Page (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am exercising my powers as a nominal member of the MediaWiki core group to grant this. Yes Done Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+2 rights to Wikia team members for extension/VisualEditor

VisualEditor is developed jointly with Wikia and WMF; right now, all four WMF devs have +2 and none of the Wikia ones do, which we'd like to fix:


 OK Tychay (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 OK Trevor Parscal (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. --Eloquence (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Thanks! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me to mediawiki group

So I am authorized to manage my own engineers (and volunteers) to their extensions. :-) Tychay (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Done - Thanks. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+2 for core and extensions

I am requesting +2 for core and all extensions mainly for l10n/i18n related patches as member of the team.

Gerrit name: Raimond Spekking / username: raymond

Thanks. Raymond (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this request. --siebrand (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear support - Hoo man (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Congratulations and welcome! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wmf-deployment +2 for spage

I'm already doing deployments of E3 Experiments on fenari, but after I "Commit the submodule update", I don't have the ability to +2 it. I have to find someone to approve changes like

 -Subproject commit 58f36f071e0558e74f8601ce822874ee44744fe2
 +Subproject commit a7469d9a355eeae683673b8017f5dced874ab028

If people actually check the change then the review step adds value, otherwise it just lengthens our deployments. -- S Page (WMF) (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done already when I added some missing deployers to the wmf-deployment group. ^demon (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Monk be added to Echo

+2 privs for Alex Monk on Echo --Tychay (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Done Congrats! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tpt: DoubleWiki and Labeled Section Transclusion

I have been working on ProofreadPage for the past few months in order to clean the code and add new features required by Wikisource contributors. DoubleWiki and Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion are two extensions used also by Wikisource that have no maintainer and I would like to give them a few love. A commit access will help me significantly. Tpt (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Support. Tpt is virtually alone to maintain these Wikisource-specific extensions.
No project ownership creates a bottleneck: Gerrit trivial change I0bd75d6a has been submitted in June, reviewed in September and today. Four months and the trivial change is still not merged.
Note: This requires to create the groups extension-DoubleWiki and extension-LabeledSectionTransclusion--Dereckson (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 07:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? You should probably log in. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 11:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheDJ (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Raymond (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Congratulations, Tpt! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me (hoo) for +2 on AbuseFilter and CentralAuth

I would like to get +2 access on the WMF-deployed AbuseFilter and CentralAuth extensions, as I'm quite firm with them and would like to help further improving them. As a long term Wikimedia user, who is doing script works on the live Wikimedia wikis, I think I can be trusted to not abuse these rights and to only merge things I'm sure about. (Me on gerrit) - Hoo man (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on CentralAuth, as long as no non-trivial self-merges are done (which is the default assumption, but I believe I need to reiterate it here). vvvt 00:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't think someone can be really sure about controversial changes he made himself (out of experience)... - Hoo man (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's part of the +2 policy. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 00:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. TheDJ (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Thehelpfulone 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Since hoo has gotten support for his CentralAuth request I'm granting him +2 there, but not on AbuseFilter since he hasn't gotten support there. Congrats on the new privileges, hoo! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From IRC: "[19:00:20 <RoanKattouw> sumanah: I have to run, don't have time to edit the wiki page, but you can give hoo +2 on AF as far as I'm concerned"]
Yes Done Granted +2 on AbuseFilter. Congrats, hoo! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PediaPress developers for Collection extension

I'm going to give the PediaPress developers (Heiko Hees and Ralf Schmitt) +2 on the Collection extension right now -- please speak up on this page if you think I shouldn't have. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given to Ralf. Looks like Heiko does not have a Gerrit account so I will ask Heiko to make one. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heiko says he doesn't need an account, so I'm calling this Yes Done. :) Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add rotsee to extension-SemanticExtraSpecialProperties

It's his extension after all :) --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thanks! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 new members for 2 groups

Please add jeroendedauw and markus to semanticmediawiki-trusted and semanticresultformats-trusted. --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the power to do this; Yaron, DanWe, Denny, Foxtrott, Kghbln, Mwjames, and Nischay are the ones who can. I've asked Yaron to look into it. Thanks. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear like I can do it either. I'm a member but not an administrator, or something like that. Yaron Koren (talk)
I'm told that Jeroen can add them himself. extension-SemanticMediaWiki is the owner of that group (as requested, so he could manage it). Go ahead, Jeroen! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, I can indeed manage these groups. Used to not being able to do this myself since this is the case everywhere else. Anyway, issue closed :) --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPQRobin for translatewiki

I would like to have +2 access for the group. I already have +2 access to MediaWiki core, and I am a staff member on, though I'm not really active, but +2 access can still be useful. Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Raymond (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done & sorry for the wait! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isarra requesting ownership of 5 unmaintained extensions

Something about ownership so I can more easily attempt to maintain these, or some such? I didn't write any of them or nothing, but apparently nobody wants them or something.

In the extensions pile:

Thanks, I think. Although this is probably going to wind up smacking me in the face. Or something. -— Isarra 05:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link to them, but I'm not even sure what I'd link to at this point. I'm sorry, I have no idea what I'm doing, but hopefully I'll figure it out at some point. Yeah. -— Isarra 05:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isarra, is it correct to say that you are requesting ownership of these 5 extensions so you can improve them? The way you are writing makes it sound like you don't actually want that ownership and have no particular plans to improve the extensions. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve, or at least maintain them as needed so they keep working with new versions. The notion of 'owning' the things is a little off-putting, but without anyone else around apt to look after them I don't see much for a better idea at present. -— Isarra 05:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These extensions aren't deployed and no one else seems to have much love for them, so if you want to maintain them, knock yourself out. +1 for ownership rights. --Catrope (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DPLforum is on Wikia and Uncyclopedia, Editcount is on Wikia. Odd that no one is maintaining these, but if you're willing to do so please go ahead. Carlb (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this also goes for Jack Phoenix - as he is also on the project, he should have ownership as well. Whatever the case, however, at very least someone involved should or we're going to have some mighty trouble making changes... -— Isarra 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the request for MediaWikiAuth, raising priority, as this extension has waiting reviewed commits pending a merge. --Dereckson (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done I've created the relevant extension ownership groups and added Isarra & Jack Phoenix for all 5 of these extensions. Please update Developers/Maintainers. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I would have thought I'd have had ownership to be able to commit stuff . . . I'm pretty sure I mentioned the project when I requested a gerrit account. Nevertheless, I don't mind the above two having it, since I am not currently in a position to maintain it. GreenReaper (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request myself as project owner of mediawiki/extensions/SoundManager2Button

--Kroocsiogsi (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Sorry for the wait. I see no one else minded, so I'm approving you. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Please include me in the mwdumper group. I would like to merge some bug fixes, since no one seems to be interested. Thanks, Bean49 (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mwdumper could sure use some love. Ownership request looks good to me, provided the user is willing to stick around for awhile after merging in their own fixes, commenting on or reviewing changes other people might make. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 OK. --ori (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am checking with Bean49 as to whether s/he is okay with ArielGlenn's requirements. :) Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the possibility to use mwdumper to import dumps into the database. Right now, mwdumper can be used to import dumps, even a binary is provided. If any problem occurs, I will be glad to help resolving it. --Bean49 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thanks! I've added you. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Bean49 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krenair for MediaWiki Core

Alex Monk (Krenair) has demonstrated good care with code review and has been a prolific fixer of bugs, in core and other projects. He's a prolific reviewer and bug-fixer (in the last two days, he has patched four bugs in core). Back in March, our then-bugmeister awarded him the MediaWiki Bug Squad Barnstar for his bug fixes. Finally, he is also an active and helpful admin on, and has made significant contributions to the documentation. --ori (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting material


  •  OK As requestor. --ori (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Sounds like a great idea to me. Kaldari (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Krenair has been a great help. CSteipp (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Yes -trusted, helpful and experienced. Thehelpfulone 01:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Tychay (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Aude (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK He's not already? Let's fix that. Anomie (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OK Jdlrobson (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Okay. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Haven't (yet) seen many non-trivial changes by other people that he has reviewed as +1 that were merged as-is (which ought to be an obvious requirement for merge rights as those CR+1 would generally become CR+2 and merge). We no longer require permissions for patch submission access, so assuming this request is for granting merge rights (and thus ability to approve patches that will not be reviewed by others and deployed/released as-is in 2 weeks), I'd rather see a little more reviewing in current status. He is very helpful in bug triaging and documentation maintenance, but that's not quite the same as merge approval on changes for mediawiki core. Opposing as "not yet". I'd expect him to become a core contributor within a few months. His contributions are almost equally valuable without merge rights (having merge rights does not change patch submission as one doesn't merge own code; reviewing other's code with -1 for improvement is very helpful and about as helpful as +2, both reduces review load from mergers). Krinkle (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel our criteria needs to be having a lot of +1's on core that are merged, since we've given +2 to WMF employees. In the past I think we've been minimizing type II error, at the cost of type I error—the fear of "bad committers" has hurt made an unreasonably high bar for community involvement at certain levels (then again, I feel the bar you, Roan, and others cleared was unreasonably high too). Things like +2 to WMF engineering have changed this dynamic and I'd like to see that new order extended to the community. I see this request more along the lines of fixing the imbalance between his responsibility in Echo and those of the WMF vs. the same action/participation on core patches that are Echo related (and others). The main criteria is do we feel he may act to be irresponsibly with +2 or, conversely, is he as responsible as current +2'ers (he's certainly more responsible with +2 than I am ;-))? Having said that, there's no harm in holding off on +2 for a month, since Alex probably represents the first of, what I hope, is a tidal wave of more community +2'ers in core and extensions. Tychay (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Krinkle makes a reasonable point, but I really enjoyed the first sentence of your reply. :-)

      I'd say that discretion is also fairly important to consider in this forming Git model. Some volunteer devs have +2 now, but they only review changes they're comfortable reviewing (as it should be with everyone, really) and it seems to be working very well. Code review is a long tail and you need as many helping hands as possible. In terms of Krenair's ability to distinguish what's appropriate to merge and not merge, I'm not concerned.

      --MZMcBride (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am checking with Krinkle to see whether he would prefer to let his veto stand, so I can close this discussion. Thanks all. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine to close the discussion. I plan on reopening/starting again on January 28th. If Alex hasn't blown up anything by then, then I think Timo's concerns are adequately addressed Tychay (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like to think of my opinion as a veto. When someone asks for my opinion I'm happy to share my view on things. May rational arguments be used. I've already given my view, and have nothing to add. Given the responses though I like to say (about merge rights in general) that I believe we should not confuse our merge rights with the ability to contribute. We solved this problem last year by radically changing our workflow to allow anyone to contribute without needing authorisation (i.e. Git/Gerrit review) and bugzilla has always been open (anyone can mark bugs as resolved etc.). We certainly should not start treating merge rights as the kind of thing we need to hand out to be friendly to volunteers. That would be a solution looking for a problem. With our new workflow comes different expectations and responsibilities. We no longer review master before deployments and releases, merging is the review. Merging a change effectively means nobody will ever look at it again and it will be deployed and released unconditionally. Submission of patches is unrelated to merge rights. And helping others code better, reduce review backlog is related but not restricted to having merge rights. Krinkle (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criteria for a request being approved are 1) the request has been open to comments for a reasonable period of time, 2) at least one existing owner has +1ed and 3) no existing owner has -1ed. So any -1 is a veto, that's how this process is designed. --Catrope (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Moving to archive. Thanks all for the discussion. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yurik for Core +2

I, Yurik would like to get Core +2.

I intend to use it mostly for the API patches (obviously not my own). My contributions include several recent patches to the API, as well as the API framework and action=query itself.

--Yurik (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Eh, why isn't he one already? Support, of course. Max Semenik (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support do we really need to have a vote for this? --Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Welcome back --Catrope (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I haven't worked with the historic Yurik from the mythic age of legends, but I can speak to the quality of his recent work, which is very good and much needed. --Ori.livneh (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Aaron (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cool, nice to see API getting love again Tychay (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Thank you, Yuri, and congratulations. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krenair added to mediawiki group

It's been a month. Has he blown up anything? If not, I'd like him to be given mediawiki access -Tychay (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Yes, please. --ori (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Catrope (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd also like to say thank you to Krenair for being extremely helpful lately in moving bugs forward with his changesets. Wonderful work that I hope continues! --MZMcBride (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mlitn (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Yes Done ^demon (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinaut on Extension:RSS

I already maintain and own

  • EtherpadLite
  • AJAXPoll
  • OpenID
  • Suhosin
  • WikiArticleFeeds

In addition to that, I also volunteer to become owner of this extension, if everyone agrees. I understand, how it works, and kept already and keep the documentation up-to-date, and supplied many bug fixes and improvements.

--Wikinaut (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thank you for your work, Wikinaut! Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

valhallasw (LDAP: Merlijn van Deen) for LabeledSectionTransclusion

LST on gerrit

Sumana suggested I should apply for (co)ownership of the LabeledSectionTransclusion extension. I am the author of the recent patch that added support for section tags in templates, and thus have some knowledge of the code base. As such, I think I could be helpful in reviewing & merging new patches. Valhallasw (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry for the wait on this. I am getting a weird error when I try to add you to the group: "Merlijn van Deen (email) is not a registered user." I'll ask Chad to look at this. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Thanks and sorry for the wait! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parent5446 for mediawiki/core

Not sure whether it's too early, but I'd like to get +2 on MW. I tend to be a tough reviewer so I trust myself, but that doesn't mean much. :P

Some links:

Extensions I Maintain:

Parent5446 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: this is Tyler Anthony Romeo ("tylerromeo"). Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Comment: I am abstaining from supporting or opposing this request out of deference to core committers with more experience in assessing reviewers and code contributors. I do, however, want to express appreciation of Tyler's contributions to MediaWiki code and to the discourse around it. He has been quite valuable and prolific, and I hope he persists. --Ori.livneh (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Catrope (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support TylerRomeo has been very helpful with respect to the API changes in account creation. However, it'll be only the second new community +2 in a few years, so if it doesn't have enough support just yet, let's try this again in a few months when we have a better policy in place Tychay (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Krenair (talkcontribs) 13:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support absolutely. ^demon[omg plz] 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Tyler's patches have been productive and helpful, and he is tough on reviews CSteipp (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Definitely. Max Semenik (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done and congratulations. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Physikerwelt for Extension:Math

Physikerwelt (User:Schubi87) is the author of a comprehensive refactor of Extension:Math to be more modular and extensible, with a view toward replacing the current image-based rendering with LaTeXML, a project of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Among other things, this would make math symbols and formulae searchable.

Physikerwelt has made this work a focus of his graduate studies, and he is the author of a paper on this project, Making Math Searchable in Wikipedia.

A roadmap of his plans is available at Extension:Math/Roadmap. Physikerwelt has exercised considerable diligence in seeing this change through, including setting up a MediaWiki instance with a comprehensive corpus of math content imported from the English Wikipedia, to facilitate testing.

Matthew Flaschen has offered to dedicate some of his time to review Physikerwelt's changes. The first major change, Gerrit change 30177, landed yesterday.

--Ori.livneh (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Physikerwelt has great ideas for the future of the Math extension. He knows how to work with reviewers and other devs, and has the patience and skill to see his changes through. Superm401 - Talk 21:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tychay (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Glad to see new work on math support! brion (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Thank you Physikerwelt! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo (Marius Hoch) for core

As a steadily active core developer and current maintainer of AbuseFilter and CentralAuth I would really like to extend my focus towards more extensions and of course further help with core code review. Due to this it would come in handy to have merge (+2) rights for both core and all deployed extensions. I have yet merged many AbuseFilter and CentralAuth changes, worked together with Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) and did many code reviews so that I consider myself ready for those rights. Of course I'm aware of the current practices and am carefully with merging (especially non trivial) patches. Due to this I keep announcing breaking changes and I keep staying in contact with Wikimedia Foundation staff

Some links:

- Hoo man (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: hoo is terribly helpful. I trust him to know what to merge and when. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Krenair (talkcontribs) 13:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support hoo has been very helpful on CentralAuth and AbuseFilter. He has submitted good patches, and has been helpful working through difficult design issue. CSteipp (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support he's done invaluable work on AbuseFilter, CentralAuth, core patches and is helping out with Wikidata. I trust his judgment with +2. Cheers Aude (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Matma Rex (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bawolff (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thehelpfulone 16:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tim Starling (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Legoktm (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Congratulations, Hoo man, and thank you for your work! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hexmode / Mark Hershberger for MediaWiki core

I hereby nominate Mark Hershberger as a core maintainer.

Mark (contribs) is our MediaWiki Release Manager. He's in my view a trusted community member, and being responsible for the release of MediaWiki for third parties, he should be able to create branches and tags, and he should be able to merge code into maintained release branches. siebrand (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thank you for your work, Mark! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nischayn22 for UploadWizard

Nischay has been submitting patches, and reviewing, for some time now. I'm happy with him as another person to help +2 important changes, and -1 nasty-looking ones.


And of course I Support him, because I'm nominating him.

--MarkTraceur (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thank you for your work, Nischay! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

carlb on extension-SpecialNamespaces

Am attempting initial check-in of extension:SpecialNamespaces (gerrit:39720) and was sent here to request merge access to the repository to import existing code. I doubt that this extension is deployed on any major site outside the foreign-language Uncyclopedia set, where it originated in 2006 as what should have been a short-lived stopgap. Carlb (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support From what I understand, this is a non-wmf deployed extension that you intend to be maintainer of? If so, it seems obvious you should have merge rights. Bawolff (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done and sorry for the delay! Thank you. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matma Rex (Bartosz Dziewoński) for mediawiki/core

I'm a pretty new developer (first gerrit patch merged in August last year), but I'm a (Polish) Wikipedia editor since 2007 and active gadget&template writer and an all-around tech guy since about 2009.

My forte is frontend (CSS and JS), and this is reflected in my commits and reviews. We have a huge backlog in this area, and I hope I'll be able to help.

Changes I was a reviewer ofBugzilla activity

I'm aware I have little experience compared to most of other core maintainers, but I thought, why not? Both positive and negative comments welcome :) Matma Rex (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a note from Sumana here -- I'm notifying our community now and would like to wait a week before checking for consensus, just to give some folks time to look at Matma Rex's commits and reviews. (In my experience it usually takes several days anyway for people to think and put down their thoughts; I just figured I'd actually note it here so people have some kind of expectation regarding timeframe.) Thanks for your work, Bartosz. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Weak because I've had limited opportunities to interact with him, +1 because they've always been very positive. Yuvipanda (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was actually thinking about nominating you. Bawolff (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Useful insights and active in helping other contributors by giving a first review (thus saving work). But in my opinion still too inexperienced to be reviewing with CR+2 for merge. Krinkle (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify what you mean by this? I've found him to be quite experienced and skilful. --Catrope (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Ideally nobody should be merging patches without a second opinion. I trust Matma Rex to know what and what not to merge. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think MatmaRex will know how to use it responsibly. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 16:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: If bunnies are allowed, why not him? --Nikerabbit (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MZMcBride --Waldir (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose The skill and commitment is there, but his manner of expressing criticism is scathing and combative and filled with contempt for anything he doesn't like. Maybe in the future, but not now. --Ori.livneh (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I chatted with Bawolff about this on IRC, and he challenged me to provide examples of bad behavior in contexts other than the changes to the account creation interface. I was not able to find anything especially damning, which surprised me. It's possible that a combination of availability bias and feeling upset about recent interactions led me to believe this behavior was more pervasive than it in fact was.
    I still believe that his behavior in the context of that discussion was sufficiently poor to merit waiting some time before revisiting this request, but as MZMcBride and Jack Phoenix note below, I also lost my cool in the end, and in doing so perhaps I forfeited the right to oppose the request on these particular grounds. So I am rescinding my veto. --Ori.livneh (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, what exactly did he do with ACUX that was such poor behaviour? -— Isarra 05:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying things like "acux team should be slapped" and frantically pinging people on IRC to merge a revert (19:53:28 onwards). --Ori.livneh (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Frantically? He pinged two people, Reedy and chad from what I can see... As for the slapping comment, That is pretty weak, I've pretty sure i've made worse against staff members, Oh and i've pinged more people to get code committed, merged or pushed to the live cluster. Peachey88 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't ping me, the person who first +2'd it even though I was online at the time. (In his defense, he didn't know my handle and only found out after it was merged.) He also didn't ping anyone from the E3 team who wrote it even though they were online also. In fact, he picked two people in Platform who never even reviewed the original patch, and the three of the reasons for the revert were actually lifted from my review comments. I was actually reviewing the revert when Chad +2'd it--it was that fast (in fact, the only thing I had time to confirm was that it was a straight revert before it was already merged). By the way, I specifically waited until __after__ the Platform deploy to do the original +2 to give time for discussion to back out the change. As for whether or not he deserves +2, I don't have a negative opinion on that experience. I'm assume good faith (and given the font issue war (which I was aware of, but Matmarex and others were not aware that I was aware of)), I felt that it was just a miscommunication and Matmarex was unaware that I planned it so there would be two weeks to revise, amend, or revert before any code would have been deployed. I do hope that if he does get +2, he won't deliberately exploit the Features/Platform divide in the future…because if you want to go nuclear on "things that should not have been merged into mediawiki" all sides have a long list that it is helpful not to bring up. -Tychay (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, generally speaking volunteers have to ping people to get things merged, often several people. Doesn't matter what it is. (That said, staff probably do similar, but perhaps in more organised ways about it since they're generally doing more specific things with specific teams and thus specific people would know about it/be following it and such.) -— Isarra 17:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't that he pinged people, it's who he pinged, the speed at which he did, and the way he represented the revert. I think the issue is calling it "a completely failurous patch" when it doesn't break mediawiki at all and never would have. That stings a lot given that I actually spent a lot of time doing the review and making sure it wouldn't break mediawiki and the parts I felt were sketch wouldn't be seen (were buried). I don't think he meant harm by doing so because he was probably panicking thinking I didn't do an adequate review (when I did), but it sure caused an unnecessary (and probably unintended) flair up. I hate to think that this is the only reason he won't get +2, because other than tone, I was ready to +2 his revert when Chad beat me to it. -Tychay (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could say the same of a number of people with +2 access, if you know what I mean. I share your concern, but I don't think it should preclude forward progress in development. If you think the skill and commitment are there and there are reasonable safeguards in place, it seems like it would be awfully difficult to oppose. For me, the benefit outweighs the (potential) cost. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't know what you mean. If you see a current core committer behaving in a combative way, please call it out. --Ori.livneh (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seconding Ori: if there are other people with +2 powers in MediaWiki core who are often expressing themselves in scathing, combative ways, then we should ask these people to please act more collaboratively, and possibly even remove their privileges. I am willing to be the person who conveys complaints to such maintainers and tries to help them improve. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll just leave this, this and this here for you to draw your own conclusions. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 00:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you worry that there is more to my objection than meets the eye, please state your concern explicitly, so that I may address it. --Ori.livneh (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Would you describe adding (and self-merging) a snarky configuration variable as combative?

              I think the broader point here is a double standard (which everyone seems to acknowledge): one standard for Wikimedia Foundation staff/contractors and another (much stricter) standard for volunteers. I'm not sure this double standard is sustainable. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

              • I think you are wrong; can you please back up your assessment that everyone is acknowleding this double standard? I am a counterexample to your allegation, as I believe we should equally call out toxic behavior by staffers and by volunteers. People should not act like jerks. I hereby say: hey Ori, don't lose your cool like that in the future, thanks.

                Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing things with a counterexample is a good example of the sort of thing that turns people off to even try, and yet that's actually one of the better responses - because in many cases volunteers won't get any response at all. Some colour is decided and no response to enquiries as to why, foundation code is reviewed but deployed without considering the review (or deployed before anyone can review it at all), an architecture is decided but never explained, and questions go unanswered. Volunteers fight an uphill battle to be acknowledged before they can make changes, whereas staff have no need to even acknowledge anyone outside their team before deploying. This is just more of the same. Volunteers claim an institutional issue, and you ask for proof in isolated incidents, and the uphill battle continues. -— Isarra 18:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The way I read it, this allows ACUX stuff to be turned off if it is merged into core. -Tychay (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for what it's worth I also support and ask for more civility. OrenB talk contib 04:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per MZMcBride. MatmaRex has also demonstrated an unusual impartiality, looking at the code itself and giving feedback based on what it is there rather than judging based on who submitted it - a valuable trait in a friend if you need someone to review your code, and, I would hope, a valuable trait in general when considering someone for core. -— Isarra 18:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I rarely speak up in these discussions, but I have experience to contribute here. I'd like to see MatmaRex learn to improve how well he negotiates with others. Maintainers ought to be courteous and ought to give negative feedback in clear, but kind ways. His short-tempered comments have decreased others' morale and made it harder to solve problems together, despite the technical knowledge and enthusiasm he brings to MediaWiki. In code review, design discussions, and bug comments, those with +2 power have a special responsibility to see from others' points of view and avoid dismissiveness. I am happy to give more specific criticisms and suggestions upon request; MatmaRex and I have also spoken about these issues in the past. I do thank Bartosz for his work and encourage him to improve his negotiation skills and talk with us again in a few months. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While improved civility is a laudable goal, I have to wonder - is it a realistic one, or even an entirely applicable one in the situation? We have here a diverse community of paid staff and unpaid volunteers, operating on the idea that we can all contribute, but when there are so few volunteers with the ability to review and merge in core, and so few staff willing or even able to take the time to review volunteer submissions, it only makes more poignant the double standard that is apparently being applied to volunteers here. Yes, MatmaRex can be blunt, combative, and at times downright difficult, but the same and worse could be said of many staff members who had to go through no such vetting process for their access (yes, there was a different process, but expecting more of volunteers than of staff here of all places just seems ridiculous when there's a concern about chasing people off). But while some staffers have used their +2 for such when they really oughtn't have, I don't believe MatmaRex would do that - he already displays care with his regular reviews, only giving things a +1 or -1 if he is certain, and how he would use the added rights should be the important thing here, not his temperament, especially as the latter will affect matters regardless of his access. Core ownership, beyond the potential for harm, should not be a big deal - if a developer would be a net benefit to the project with access, he should have it. Do you believe MatmaRex, Bartosz Dziewoński, would not be a net benefit? -— Isarra 17:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please link to some of these comments you refer to? Peachey88 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not forgotten this request; due to some family medical stuff I've had some difficulties in the past week, but I will be giving some links this week. I'm sorry for the delay. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the family medical stuff dragged on a lot longer than I wish it had, and it's not over yet. I strongly regret the delay.

First, when you say "the same and worse could be said of many staff members who had to go through no such vetting process for their access" -- when I hear a complaint about a particular staff member's behavior, I have a word with them; if there's some kind of continuing pattern of toxic or condescending or uncollaborative behavior, I think it's worth bringing it up with me, with a request for revocation (or mentorship, as others have sugggested for MatmaRex).

I believe that yes, an offputting temperament has a bigger effect on the community if his privileges are increased; in my experience, if a person who makes short-tempered comments has more power, then that worsens the effects of their comments on the community, especially regarding newcomers.

I also think we have pretty different perspectives on the proportion of WMF staff who have made the time to review volunteers' contributions. Regardless, yes, it is a positive good to have more volunteers reviewing, and also great to have more volunteers with +2 in core+extensions or in more extensions. This is why I personally have initiated the conversation with several volunteers: "you, yes you, I bet you are ready to get core review power; do you want to self-nominate or shall I nominate you?" (hoo, bawolff, anomie (before he was hired), Tyler Romeo, Krenair, and others). And it's why I encouraged MatmaRex to seek +2 in l10n extensions via LevelUp.

When I notice that Bartosz has said something that hurts others' morale and makes community atmosphere worse, I generally bring it up with him in the moment; sometimes he responds with a fix, sometimes he calls the request for courtesy "political correctness". So my experience regarding his willingness to grow in this particular domain is mixed, and I'd welcome some thoughts from him on that. Ori and Terry already talked about the incident in which MatmaRex went about asking for a revert in a pretty anticollaborative way. I'd add that the way in which MatmaRex asks for review (sometimes pinging person after person to ask for a merge -- not for review, but for merge -- on a matter of no urgency) is difficult because of the context. It is of course not inherently wrong to ask for people to take a look at a backlogged change request sometimes. But, given that MatmaRex is not the only person looking for feedback and merge, and given that in these communications he sometimes conflates his own sense of urgency with what is highest-priority for MediaWiki as a whole, his behavior could be causing difficulty for the project. However this is a tricky matter and I'm very willing to discuss what our community customs ought to be given the current backlog; maybe everyone should be acting more like Bartosz, or maybe we should habitually demand that authors communicate clearly why their changesets require merge urgently, or maybe there is some other social norm we need to nurture.

In February Bartosz said "It's incredible how it takes people more than two weeks to respond to such a simple question." I understand the frustration but there are ways to put that message that don't instantly spike the cortisol of everyone reading it and thus make the problem actually harder to solve. This pattern of dismissive or insulting off-the-cuff remarks -- calling things he doesn't care for "useless" or saying that the ACUX team "should be slapped" for using "fuckin' helvetica", for instance -- is one he has sometimes broken when I've told him to knock it off. (For example, in his "let me rephrase" comment and "re-reading my replies here"). And I have also seen his collaborative, willing-to-be-corrected, helpful side -- a lot! Which is why I have given him lots of advice, encouraged him, and thanked him for his work, and tried to help him improve as an engineer, which includes negotiation skills.

I'm reasonably happy with his collegiality in the last month or so, and Mark Holmquist has offered to mentor him to help improve his behavior; if Bartosz says he's interested in that then I think the only question left to resolve is Krinkle's opposition based on Bartosz's experience level and skill.

Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sumana, thank you for getting back to this. It's awesome to have more information to go on and I'm immensely happy to have had your two cents here. And, it should be said, thank you for helping to herd cats in our community. Everyone has to be reined in at one point or another, and you do a great job of helping us check our egos.
While I agree there are some rough edges around Bartosz's behaviour, I'm overall still impressed with him as a force for good. Some people just have a different way of interacting with the world, and while we'll work to help him be more encouraging, I don't think he's overly abrasive with people he doesn't know, which is good progress.
As a result I've reinstated my support. Thanks again for the thoughtful replies, Sumana, and I hope we can put this to bed soon :) --MarkTraceur (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sumana! Given that you said "the only question left to resolve is ...", did you mean to change your "oppose" (to "neutral" or whatever)? --Catrope (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Roan. No, because that depends on the precondition ("if Bartosz says he's interested"), and I don't take it for granted that the precondition is true. :-) Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose - per Ori and Sumana. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revoking my position per Mark Traceur and Krenair.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you expand on your comment with more detail(s), after all, One the opposes you refer to has been striked. Peachey88 (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Only Wikimedia Foundation staff/contractors have opposed. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But they're not the majority of the WMF staff/contractors who expressed an opinion, anyway, even if such counts happened to be meaningful. --Nemo 17:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I obviously wholeheartedly Support this request. MatmaRex is a very competent developer who's not afraid to get his hands dirty and fix what others never bothered fixing (the Cologne Blue skin comes to mind, for example). It's also a good thing in my view if someone's willing to say how things really are, without the sugar coating. Sure, MatmaRex is capable of sharp and somewhat spiky opinions that some may not like, but...I've seen a lot worse — here and elsewhere. I think anyone who's been around for a bit longer has seen such things. I for one welcome harsh code criticism based on facts, as it's the only way to improve code quality.
    And regarding what MZMcBride wrote above, I'm sure we could use a few more volunteers with core +2 access; naturally such people need to be active and competent, and MatmaRex is both of those. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 00:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have had good and bad interactions with Bartosz, but he's overwhelmingly a force for good, and he's getting much better. More experience interacting with the community, especially if the community supports and welcomes him, will cause him to get even better, even faster. And please, don't read into the fact that WMFers are going one way or another - we speak our minds, and some of us have spoken one way or the other on this one. The fact that volunteers haven't opposed this nomination doesn't necessarily mean anything. --MarkTraceur (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm revoking my support temporarily because I think this procedure is falling apart and I don't want to see any decisions made until everyone has spoken their minds. I'm not opposing because I don't have all the evidence, but I'm no longer supporting because I don't have all the evidence. I am by no means convinced by either side right now, and I want to hear further evidence from both sides. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've seen some further discussion on the topic and I don't think my convictions on the matter have particularly changed. I've reinstated my support, and I'll reply to Sumana's points above as well. --MarkTraceur (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. I've had good experiences iterating on patch review in gerrit with Bartosz, and I think he could be a valuable team member. I would strongly recommend assigning a mentor -- my impression is that he may need more guidance on how to deal with people when reviewing others' code -- but we really should be doing this for all new folks. I can't promise particular response time myself, but will try to help out. Bonus points if someone is interested in volunteering for this! --brion (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He is motivated and seems to be figuring out the ropes of the MW dev community quickly after a bit of a rough start. He's able to hang on despite valid criticism and improve. -- MarkAHershberger(talk) 20:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I agree with Ori and Sumana, but I can see a path for improvement and eventual +2 with Bartosz. I like Brion's idea of mentorship, and I think that could work well. If mentored, and the concerns have been addressed, I don't see any reason we couldn't revisit this and I'd like to support at that time. ^demon[omg plz] 20:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking because I can't really decide. Please consider me Neutral Neutral. ^demon[omg plz] 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Oppose Oppose, I've re-read all the evidence, and I think Timo says it best. Not opposed to mentorship and revisiting in the future. ^demon[omg plz] 17:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From what I can see in his patches; he is mostly a positive force for getting things done. Even if he is a bit brusque in his dealings; I didn't really see egregiousness negativity beyond what is already expressed by other core developers. This is all something we can work on together but not, I feel, something that should stop us from acquiring another seemingly competent reviewer for CSS/JS. Mwalker (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There seem to be some accusations of Matmarex being "scathing". However, no evidence has been provided to support this, to the point where Ori has even rescinded his opposition. Furthermore, from what I've looked through in Gerrit of Matmarex's reviews, he seems to be perfectly fine when participating in discussion and has been assisting a lot with CSS/JS components. Considering the level of support he has received so far and the lack of evidence against him, I'm giving my support for this. If somebody is willing to provide evidence otherwise, I'll change my opinion. Parent5446 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My general feeling with Matmarex has been good. Entering the «discussion skills» topic, which is the only rejecting reason, I should note that the “offending review” was given to +2 people. While it is good to keep polite (and the case given doesn't seem too bad, more so for taking place in irc), it is sometimes more important to provide an accurate review. I wouldn't consider acceptable to tell a new contributor "You should be slapped for writing this code doing X", but it could be appropiate as a quick feedback (instead of not providing it at all) to eg. Tim Starling (of course, such bad code would probably end up being some clever trick outsmarting the reviewer, so you would better be damn sure of being right :). Don't misinterpret me, it is important to be nice and have a good feeling amongst developers, but I don't see the above evidence as a blocker for +2. Platonides (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Brion. I'm also too busy to be a mentor, but if one can be found that would be awesome. --Catrope (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think there is no reason to think that his behavior won't be more civil if he has +2 than currently. I suppose we should have a policy for recinding +2 access if I'm wrong (A good idea in general: I've been accused of deserving such a loss :-D). If he needs a mentor with +2, I can "volunteer" someone chill in Features (MarkTraceur or superm401) or maybe we can convince Krenair to do it. -Tychay (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do have one, at Gerrit/+2#Revocation. Can someone link me to the rules about self-merging though, if I recall there was a discussion at one point whereby someone floated the idea that if you self-merge (unless in an emergency) you should lose your access (there were some exceptions IIRC too). Thehelpfulone 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I didn't notice that that discussion was resolved. I think it was back in February. I don't think rules for self-merging were resolved other than it was frowned on. IIRC the discussion segwayed into a discussion of backporting patches. -Tychay (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terry says it as if it would be problematic, but so long as I can box out some time each week, I'd be happy to mentor Bartosz. --MarkTraceur (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing my support, but only because, I'm leaving this thread. If no action is taken in a month, I'll make the Gerrit request on May 23 with a support with User:MarkTraceur tasked as a mentor. MatmaRex is relatively new to mediawiki development, so an extra month isn't going to hurt, but letting it not get resolved when more CSS/JS reviewers are always needed is wrong. :-) -Tychay (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my request. Thanks for the comments, I'll keep them in mind. Matma Rex (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Brian Wolff/Bawolff and Clancer to mediawiki/extensions/Moodle

Please add Brian_Wolff/Bawolff and Clancer to mediawiki/extensions/Moodle. Clancer wants to work on this extension in context of GSoC, Brian and I are the mentors. Jan Luca (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for making the request. I actually already have +2 on all extension repos, so only Clancer would need to be added. Bawolff (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done - thank you! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Phoenix for mediawiki-skins

I've written, reverse-engineered and maintain(ed) plenty of skins (including, but most certainly not limited to the Nimbus skin (which is in the mediawiki/skins/ git repository) and several currently unreleased skins, such as Eminence, Hope and many more), and I've also contributed bugfixes to core skin stuff (PHP and CSS&JS parts).
In addition to those, I've also tried to document how the scary internals work and I even attempted to rewrite the skin system back in the SVN era. Suffice to say, I believe it's clear that I have a good understanding of how the skin system works and enough experience to have project ownership. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 21:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure this needs a vote, but I Support, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (semi-weak) Support. You've been quite a prolific contributor, not to mention you've been here for quite a long time - certainly much longer than me. My only concern is it appears you haven't committed anything since the git transition (Possible exception of 559c2a48c which doesn't show up in gerrit), and have only done a very minor amount of reviewing/commenting in gerrit (I found about 4 things you commented on). Nonetheless you're still someone I trust, hence the support. Bawolff (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely. ^demon[omg plz] 20:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, what they said; he knows his stuff. -— Isarra 21:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Platonides (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Of course. --Catrope (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Skins is in extensions? Well then, I support if Catrope does. -Tychay (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I totally got confused and thought this was for the skins directory in mediawiki/core. Bawolff (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thanks Jack Phoenix! Sorry, I was waiting to be super-sure about *which repo* this was. Should have asked, sorry. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


As the original creator of the extension, I (GreenReaper) request project ownership for extension-MediaWikiAuth. GreenReaper (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Hopefully you'll have more of an idea what you're doing than I do. *shifty eyes* -— Isarra 20:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'd like to request that the user Basti2342, the original author of the extension, be added to the owner list for mediawiki/extensions/CommunityTwitter. I am currently the only person on the list, and my LDAP username is fastlizard4. Thanks! --FastLizard4 (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, it seems that there was a mistake setting up the repository permissions, so if someone with the proper permissions could merge in, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! --FastLizard4 (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All handled by ^demon and Reedy on IRC. Thanks very much! --FastLizard4 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen for core

I believe it's high time that Jeroen has core access. He's the author of dozens of extensions, tons of core features (including ContentHandler), and is generally a great guy. I think he's grown a lot over the years since coming to us as a GSoC student, and it's shown in both the quality of his code and the review he gives others. He knows how everything works, and he's got a good eye for making sure things are well-tested.

  • Support As nominator. ^demon[omg plz] 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Another one of those "Wait, we...haven't yet?" --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited to add "weak" - Krenair's note is a bit concerning. --MarkTraceur (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MarkTraceur Yuvipanda (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I'm a bit unhappy that he has been merging his own changes, in violation of Gerrit/+2#+2 is for code review, not merging your own stuff: [7] (mouseover the CR column on most of those rows). There were some other concerns raised in a conversation I saw in an IRC channel two days ago. I can share those log extracts in private but I'm not sure how everyone else feels about them being public (it is a public channel though). --Krenair (talkcontribs) 16:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Krenair, if it was a public channel, I think it is okay to link to the log and specify the timestamp. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When looking at Kreanir's link, please note that this Query will list all changes submitted Jeroen where he ever voted in any way, including ones where he has giving himself a -1 when he found an issue, even if the change got later approved by someone else. That being said, there are true self-approvals in there. Most of them are trivial, but some I also find worrisome. But not enough so to oppose him here. -- Duesentrieb 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Per Krenair. Self-+2s in extensions like SemanticMaps, which is undeployed and where there's no one else to review, aren't that bad. Self-+2s in extensions like EducationProgram are bad because it's deployed code, but I suppose it's understandable because there's not really anyone around to review that code (I believe self-review still isn't the answer in that case, but I can see the argument for it). Self-+2s in extensions like Wikibase are really bad, because the code is deployed and there are people around to review those changes. --Catrope (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral I agree with everything ^demon says in his initial nomination. It is time we do this. However, I believe we first need to have a wider discussion about the architectural direction of MediaWiki, since I believe that Jeroen has a very different view of how it should be put together than many of the MediaWiki architects do. Code review is one area that our architects can exert some control over the architecture, and I don't want to take that control away from them by creating a situation where new reviewers can pull the architecture in a different direction than our architects believe we should go in. This isn't exclusively a danger with Jeroen, but because Jeroen is pretty prolific, he will have greater pull than most.
The self review on Wikidata is also troubling, but it may just be that we should have a conversation about that with the Wikidata team rather than specifically using this as a reason for blocking Jeroen's nomination. I doubt this was an explicit snub to our policy, but rather, a misunderstanding about the rules (where "rules" should be in quotes, because I'm betting we can find plenty of examples of self-review in other deployed extensions). This is probably something that we should discuss on-list independent of Jeroen's nomination.
Since many of the key people will be at the Amsterdam Hackathon (including Jeroen, from what I understand), I would prefer to make that something we discuss there (with Jeroen) prior to making a decision about Jeroen's +2. I'm inclined to support Jeroen's nomination once we have that conversation.-- RobLa-WMF (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As somebody not entirely aware of these architecture opinion differences, what exactly do you mean? (I understand the point, I'd just like to know what views you're talking about specifically.) Parent5446 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral I think Jeroen is quite diligent; while he certainly has different views on what the code should look like, his ideas revolve about stricter review policies with respect to testability. That's a good thing. And I don't think he'd go on a unilateral refactoring spree. I also believe he'll stick to policy as stated, whatever it is. What keeps me from supporting him directly is only that I'm not sure that he's careful enough about performance issues (caching, indexing, etc). I fear something with bad consequences on that level could slip by him. -- Duesentrieb 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I went over the last 50 changesets with owner/review overlap, and I think the message has been received. I mostly see selfies on comments likewise cleanup, some testcase config stuff, plain reverts and a few other maintenance related tasks. I have no major concerns and trust that Jeroen is able to distinguish and curtail himself when it comes to differences in merge policies between core and his own extensions. TheDJ (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matma Rex (Bartosz Dziewoński) for mediawiki/core (again)

Okay, we made MatmaRex jump through enough hoops last time. I think we should reconsider him as +2 in core because that time I only heard objections coming out of my teams, he's been nothing but helpful since, and @MarkTraceur has volunteered to assist in mentorship should any issues come up. -Tychay (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given his positive contribution history, the time that's passed, and MarkTraceur's offered mentorship, I'm ready to support. Just for the record, people outside Features did object last time, though. Superm401 - Talk 19:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support per Superm401.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been a fan of Bartosz since he started hacking on UploadWizard and his core work has been even more varied and awesome. He's a clever programmer and a solid reviewer, and most importantly he gets stuff done. --MarkTraceur (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason this hasn't been Yes Done or are we just waiting on someone to actually do it? --MarkTraceur (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Found out why we're waiting, hold. --MarkTraceur (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just wanted to note that I don't want to use "mentorship" to mean anything less than a whole-hearted +2. I feel that a mentor should be available if only if any issues come up and Bartosz needs some assistance/advice, of which I expect there to be none. That's why I worded things the way I did.  :-) -Tychay (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has been very helpful with much of the collation stuff. Bawolff (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ori.livneh (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Parent5446 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @MarkTraceur Yuvipanda (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support productive and diligent. TheDJ (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can MatmaRex comment to talk about his thoughts on the mentorship stuff? Thanks! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I'm okay with it. Matma Rex (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Thank you, MatmaRex, and thanks to the commenters. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Gerber (J) for Score extension

Jan has been the primary developer working on this for the past month or so. -- RobLa (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Thanks, Jan! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Phoenix for Extension:YouTube

Adding this request for him because he was a little bitter about having to request access to what is basically his own extension (my guess would be it simply wasn't migrated to git properly - probably due to how it was requested? - but whatever the case I think we can appreciate how that might be somewhat alienating). He was the one who created the original SVN for it when he took the Wikia version and fixed it up for more general use, and as far as I know he's also been the primary checking that it still works and maintaining it since (not that it's ever needed much). How it got migrated aside, we probably do want to add him back now so he can continue to do that.

Also I'm not sure why extension-NamespacePaths is currently the owner (or an owner at all), since that's a completely different extension that doesn't appear to be at all related, nor has its only member ever been involved with this extension that I can tell, so we may want to remove that as well.

Thanks. -— Isarra 21:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Legoktm (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Done. I have no clue why the ACL was so screwed up here. 'extension-YouTube' is the owner now with Jack in the group (as it all should be. ^demon[omg plz] 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Phoenix for CodeReview extension

Inspired by Chad's comment on bug #55415 (and Andre's on #46636), I'd like to submit a formal request for the maintainership of Extension:CodeReview.

While the extension is installed only on one public wiki (this wiki, and it hasn't really been maintained since Wikimedia moved from SVN to git, I'd like to start maintaining it and hopefully close some of the 60-ish open CodeReview bugs and feature requests. We at ShoutWiki use SVN and CodeReview extensively (although both instances are internal), and things like the ability to "watch" individual revisions would be useful to have.

I've fixed some CodeReview bugs (#46636, the unreported HTML generation bug) and added some new features to the extension, such as support for custom CSS via a MediaWiki: page (#16049) and Renameuser integration support (gerrit:76320), so I know a fair bit about the extension's internals. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 15:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AndyRussG +2 on EducationProject extension

Contractor hired to work on bug fixing on EducationProject as @Jeroen De Dauw: is busy on WikiData. I believe that Jeroen has been reviewing his code, but there will be community contributed changes that he'll need to review. To my knowledge the EducationProject is not in any Features-related groups. Tychay (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aarcos +2 for MultimediaViewer

User:aaron_arcos has been working with the Multimedia team on Extension:MultimediaViewer, specifically on the testing framework and bringing our process to a better place. He's familiar enough with the code and enough embedded in the team that I'd support him getting +2 on the repo. It would be awesome to get this done soonish so he can help respond to merge requests etc. :) --MarkTraceur (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aude for mediawiki/core

Long-time Wikipedia editor, Wikidata developer (with +2 rights there), core developer in her free time. I think we can trust her with +2 in core as well, and it'd make it easier for Wikidata and Flow folks to work on some hairy code in core that they want to reuse and extend (I think DifferenceEngine and things related to changes lists, among others). Matma Rex (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating me! Having sticky -2 rights for my own patches would be quite helpful at times ;) For +2, obviously I'm not merging my own stuff. If others submit patches related to changes list, etc. I can probably review although if the change is too big/complicated then might still +1 and seek second opinion. I can also help review patches related to phpunit tests, for PostgreSQL support and when there are trivial changes (e.g. fix typos). Cheers Aude (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Legoktm (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obviously! - Hoo man (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming Aude wants it --Krenair (talkcontribs) 20:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Krenair. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very helpful, always open for discussion and eager and quick to review other's patches (even in core). I also appreciate helping me with hard and unpopular projects, like bug 384 :)  « Saper // talk »  17:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, aude strikes me as a great contributor and is very helpful in a lot of contexts, including in core. --MarkTraceur (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Yes Done ^demon[omg plz] 18:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zbynek for extension GeoGebra

Hi, I would like to have access to GeoGebra-extension,members I work as GeoGebra developer and I made some commits to that extension already. We agreed to collaborate with the current owner, Rudolf Grossmann, and it would be nice if I could +2 the changes he commits when I review them. --Zbynek (talk)

Support --Rudolf.Grossmann (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done (as per email discussion) QChris (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GDubuc (WMF) for MultimediaViewer and UploadWizard

I've started working as part of the Multimedia team at the beginning of January. I'd like to have +2 for these two extensions, which we are currently working on. There already have been a few instances where my inability to +2 slowed us down. My username on gerrit is Gilles. --GDubuc (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done by User:^demon, kthx

A bunch of new groups

I'd like to have an $extension-trusted group (initially empty and with no rights assigned) for the following extensions: Validator, Maps, SemanticMaps, Push, LiveTranslate, SubPageList, Spark, IncludeWP, Survey, DidYouKnow, Gitweb (once created), DataValues (once created), Diff, SemanticWatchlist, SemanticImageInput and SemanticBundle.

These groups would be owned by their respective $extension-owner group.

This will allow me to manage my extension myself without posting a request here each time someone should get access :) --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support. --siebrand (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since these are non-deployed extensions, I think this is fine. But I'd like to get input from Chad before we start introducing new group structures. --Catrope (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't *like* it as proposed since this is very quickly going to explode the number of groups we have. Ideally all extension-$name groups should be owned by an extension-$name-owner (other than deployed exts, perhaps). The reason it's all currently owned by the "Project & Group Creators" was so people could process this page and add new users to their respective groups. What I'd like is either A) A way to manage all groups without giving out admin privs, or B) Multiple owners of groups. The former is probably easier. This all being said, perhaps we can go ahead with this structure for a few non-deployed extensions anyway and see if we really need this page at all for granting access to those. ^demon (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I suppose we'd be supportive of adding Jeroen as the owner of all those groups? Also, it seems to me that there are a number of them should be in some metagroup fro SMW. Tychay (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chad, sorry for being obtuse, but when you say "perhaps" is that a go-ahead for me to go ahead and create the "extension-Validator-trusted", "extension-Maps-trusted", etc. Gerrit groups, and when necessary, the "extension-[name]" groups to own the "trusted" groups? Thanks. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeroen, I set up the relevant groups for Validator and I think I set them up how you'd like. Is that right? Tried to ping you in IRC, haven't gotten a response -- let me know if that's the right model and I'll do the rest of the groups. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting that group up Sumanah. You made the group owner of itself. If this is an acceptable thing to do, then perhaps there is no point in having such extra groups, as you could just make the extension-name groups own themselves, solving the issue with less work and clutter. Think chad had some reason to not do this though. --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the reason was that it made it impossible for people in the "Project and Group Creators" group to manage any group member. This is being solved in the near future. ^demon[omg plz] 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinaut for extension UserMerge

update: I think my request has been forgotten. I hereby re-apply for becoming UserMerge maintainer. I was that before the extension was moved from SVN to git, but then it was forgotten to set me up again as owner for the git version. --Wikinaut (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

previous discussion

Hereby I apply gerrit project ownership for the extension UserMerge, which I maintain since a while see and Extension:UserMerge. Further projects which I already maintain since a long time are OpenID, AJAXPoll, EtherpadLite, RSS, WikiArticleFeeds.

To support my request: there is a relationship between UserMerge and OpenID for example, when merging/deleting an account. I also added the needed hook some time ago to mw core.

--Wikinaut (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]