Topic on Talk:Wikimedia Developer Summit/2017/Topic ideas

In order to make the Summit web pages more accessible for more audiences, I think it would be better to have own subpages for each main topic selected. There, the main topic could be described, pointing to big challenges and linking to related resources. Summit activities related to these main topics would be listed there as well.

What do you think?

I think it would be better to have own subpages for each main topic selected.

Agreed. Key word is "selected", though...let's not prematurely create subpages for topics likely to be relegated to the dustbin. Sprawl can be an enemy of quick collaboration, as proposals get lost in everyone's respective watchlists. Let's try this process:

• Each proposed WikiDev17 topic has a Flow topic in Talk:WikiDev17/Topic_ideas
• We build the summary for each topic, which says whether or not the topic is planned to remain a WikiDev17 topic. We also collaborate on improving the prose on the WikiDev17/Topic ideas page
• Once we have consensus about a topic being a planned topic, then we make a subpage for it.

That work for you?

A further thought: it could make sense to use Gerrit-style +2/+1/0/-1/-2 ratings for this, where each level is:

• +2 - Yes, please make room for this topic (potentially eliminating other topics)
• +1 - Seems like a good idea
• 0 - Undecided or "no comment"
• -1 - Has problems that need to be addressed
• -2 - Please don't pursue this topic

I think I'm going to try to structure this page around this scale, and see if I can help formulate a good discussion structure.

Last year's approach also seemed to work, more or less, which was to collect individual items for discussion, collect votes unconference-style on attendance/interest (as you propose above), and *then* trying to collect the highly-voted ideas into "topics". We could attempt a +2/+1/0/-1/-2 vote using last year's fine-grained proposals as a starting point, for instance, which could indicate whether devs think "we addressed this adequately last year", "we've talked enough about this" or "there is still work to do in this area".

This year we seem to be trying a more top-down approach which makes me nervous because it seems like it's basically only Rob and I who have proposed topics. I think we're both smart fellows :) but I don't want this summit to be dragged exclusively in the directions of our own obsessions, with highest ranking for those obsessions we share...

Rob, +1 to your suggestions. ;)

The model of last year works for those who know what is the Summit and know that they want to attend. Less so for all the rest of potential participants that we want to open the Summit for. The idea is to provide a bit of initial framework and then open the call for participation pretty much in the same open terms as last year.

There is more people that have been proposing topics... In any case, this "top down" stage will only last a few days more. The main topics selected will inform our active outreach and our criteria to promote travel sponsorship requests.

The main topics are defined now. I have pointed links to subpages for each topic.