Talk:Code stewardship reviews/Feedback solicitation

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Is the wiki/Phabricator split useful?

4
Summary by Greg (WMF)

Updated language to point people at the Phabricator task as canonical, but allow people to use talk page if they really wish.

Tgr (WMF) (talkcontribs)

All ongoing reviews include a Phabricator task (e.g. T205482) and a stub wiki page (e.g. Code_stewardship_reviews/Feedback_solicitation/CodeReview) which directs participants to the talk page (but then for obvious reasons most discussion happens on Phabricator anyway). Is this setup useful? It seems to me it mostly just fragments discussion.

Greg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The original idea was to give people who are not familiar/accustomed to Phabricator but instead more familiar with wiki discussions a place to voice their perspectives. In reality it seems it isn't getting much up-take from that category of people.


Do you think we should have a way to included/welcome non-Phabricator-savy people that might be different? Or just leave this and realize it'll be underused?

Tgr (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I would probably at least replace As per the process, please use the talk page to provide any feedback. with something like Please provide feedback on the Phabricator task. If you are unfamiliar with Phabricator you can also use the talk page. although I don't think Phabricator is really any harder to use than Flow which most people also aren't familiar with (the login screen could use improvements but people still figure it out eventually).

Greg (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Liuxinyu970226 (talkcontribs)
  1. Page Curation aka PageTriage, currently is so-called maintained by the Global Collaboration team, but still has 75 unresolved tasks that are unlikely to have possible patches for them (even phab:T95050 which just request GENDER syntax support), since its "users" are only from English Wikipedia (how can we see significant changes on enabling requests e.g. phab:T109820?), it can simply replaced by ORES, rather than implement new features for that;
  2. FlaggedRevs, see Meta-Wiki m:Requests for comment/Flagged revisions deployment and phab:T163197, it's enabled on 52 wikis, follow 3 different styles of deployment, however of however, to enable it, the whole database of a wiki must be added to InitialiseSettings.php for many times, and must assign every single rights properly even 1/2 of them are not important, due to such unfriendly, this extension should kindly have a proper replacement;
  3. Education Program, to the best of my knowledge, is a no-go area for the new wikis to enable, it can lead our e.g. ulsfo cluster face-to-face more and more security problems which can simply avoid by uninstalling per phab:T169676, in theory there's two replacements available for months: Extension:CollaborationKit and Programs & Events Dashboard, so how is this extension having benefits to maintain?
Greg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Thanks @Liuxinyu970226. We won't add those to this grouping being reviewed right now, but don't fear! This will be a quarterly process as we clear our the large backlog. Feel free to file stewardship review project tasks for these.

Liuxinyu970226 (talkcontribs)

Hey Greg, the FlaggedRevs one is submitted by others at phab:T185664.

Reply to "Suggest to add some more:"
There are no older topics