On 04/05/2011 10:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> We really do underspend horribly in the tech area, compared to what we
> need. That $14-16m from the fundraiser could be gobbled up in a
> moment. In my day job, I work for a tiny, tiny publisher with an
> approximately negligible web presence; two sysa
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:22 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> Another example might be an UploadWizard that is focused on
>>> ensuring that Wikimedia fulfills its Multimedia grant requirements rather
>>> than actually being fully developed a
On 4/5/2011 2:37 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Classic is largely unmaintained, since no-one seems to want to bother
> to maintain it.
To coin a phrase, Monobook is the new Classic. Maybe we should rename
Classic to Legacy? That might communicate the implications a bit better
to anyone considering it
On 5 April 2011 22:20, geni wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 09:40, David Gerard wrote:
>> Article rating has been a wanted feature for *years*.
>> What I'd like to see is article rating being more widespread. But
>> having a grant push it through is *just fine*, because it gets it done
>> at all.
> ex
On 5 April 2011 09:40, David Gerard wrote:
> *cough* From 2005:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0
>
> Magnus put together a quick version, but Brion didn't like the code
> and it never happened. However, mine is just one such proposal.
> Article rating has been a wanted featur
2011/4/5 David Gerard :
> What I see is grants supplying money to get initiatives that have been
> long-wanted happening. The near-impossibility of getting even quite
> simple things through a bureaucratic kudzu-choked community process
> has been noted on this list *many* times.
To clarify, the A
David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 09:48, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>> 2011/4/5 David Gerard
>
>>> Article rating has been a wanted feature for *years*.
>
>> ... And in the Hungarian Wikipedia it was even implemented quite a
>> long time ago. If i recall correctly, at some point i saw it in the
David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Another example might be an UploadWizard that is focused on
>> ensuring that Wikimedia fulfills its Multimedia grant requirements rather
>> than actually being fully developed and ready for use by Wikimedia Commons.
>> These examples
On 5 April 2011 09:48, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> 2011/4/5 David Gerard
>> Article rating has been a wanted feature for *years*.
> ... And in the Hungarian Wikipedia it was even implemented quite a
> long time ago. If i recall correctly, at some point i saw it in the
> Polish, too.
I didn't kno
On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride wrote:
> Another example might be an UploadWizard that is focused on
> ensuring that Wikimedia fulfills its Multimedia grant requirements rather
> than actually being fully developed and ready for use by Wikimedia Commons.
> These examples are off the top of my he
2011/4/5 David Gerard
>
> On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> > A lot of the projects that Wikimedia is investing in today are small and
> > focused on particular needs of the Wikimedia Foundation, not the Wikimedia
> > community. One example might be an article feedback tool that's large
On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride wrote:
> A lot of the projects that Wikimedia is investing in today are small and
> focused on particular needs of the Wikimedia Foundation, not the Wikimedia
> community. One example might be an article feedback tool that's largely
> focused on ensuring that Wiki
Jan Kucera (Kozuch) wrote:
> why is the Foundation so passive??? I have been since almost 5 years with
> various Wikimedia projects and I can really see NO PROGRESS from the side of
> the Foundation but more employees, 2 new blogs, new Vector skin and maybe
> MediaWiki performance tweaks. My partic
On 18/03/11 23:28, Jan Kucera (Kozuch) wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> why is the Foundation so passive??? I have been since almost 5 years
> with various Wikimedia projects and I can really see NO PROGRESS from
> the side of the Foundation but more employees, 2 new blogs, new
> Vector skin and maybe MediaW
Yes, you're right.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jan Kucera (Kozuch) wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> why is the Foundation so passive??? I have been since almost 5 years with
> various Wikimedia projects and I can really see NO PROGRESS from the side of
> the Foundation but more employees, 2 new blogs
Hi there,
why is the Foundation so passive??? I have been since almost 5 years with
various Wikimedia projects and I can really see NO PROGRESS from the side of
the Foundation but more employees, 2 new blogs, new Vector skin and maybe
MediaWiki performance tweaks. My participation declined radi
16 matches
Mail list logo
