Where should we put the goal of "review all Bugzilla patches within a week" or similar? Sumanah 16:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the activities that will drive that goal, and when will they take place?--Eloquence 01:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have ~40 in the past six weeks. I'm emailing the patch submitters today. to let them know we're haven't forgotten them.

Epub Export[edit]

When will be this bug fixed, so Extension:EPubExport can be deployed on Wikisource? --Micru 17:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response, Micru! I'm asking Tomasz Finc to take the lead on judging whether the replacement extension makes sense from a technical perspective (as mentioned in a recent bug comment). I hope to get a response from him later this month; he's currently traveling. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets 2.0[edit]

From Roan & Timo just now in IRC: "Gadgets 2.0", which is related to the Gadgets-extension -- this will only affect gadgets developers when we deploy the new Gadgets extension, which will be a while yet. Gadgets 2.0 won't be ready before 1.19 is branched, but probably ready before 1.20 and can be updated on wmf any random time after 1.19 is deployed.

Is there any estimated month for Gadgets 2.0? Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 21:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possibly related.
Talked to Alolita, added to "July 2012 and later, or unscheduled". -Sumana

Request: more details on Labs[edit]

Volunteers have been asking for more details on the Labs timeline. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't plan just do[edit]

especially looking on LQT there should be done something and not just talked about. Since month there is noting happening around LQT. And then I read something about renaming. Create something that can be named and don't talk and discuss about things and are really unimportant like the name. DO SOMETHING! --DaSch (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly roadmaps?[edit]

Those links to monthly roadmaps are confusing and distracting... for what reason? Why not just having THE roadmap, and update on a monthly basis, or whenever it's needed. If anybody wants to check (for some weird reason) 7 months ago they can just check the history of the page.--Qgil (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's confusing? It's just the standard way of archiving wiki pages, permalinks are used by a minority and are not searchable so they're definitely bad in this case. I've moved the links to an Archive section, is this enough? --Nemo 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is confusing is the very concept of monthly roadmaps. A roadmap is a document that evolves continuously over time. Knowing what was the snapshot at a certain point of the past has little value, but if someone really needs to know they can look back at the history - just like with any regular wiki page. Those links so prominently featured at the top of the page are confusing, and they just grow every month.--Qgil (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not called monthly roadmaps anywhere as far as I can see. Did you look at the page? They're no longer at the top. --Nemo 07:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The page header says it is automatically generated, but the last update was in August. Could we has another sync? Or, is the automation software online? John Vandenberg (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're shifting to a new format, a combination between the reworked Deployments page and the fiscal year goals. Pinging Greg to make sure we refactor pages on consistent with that approach.--Eloquence (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]