I never said they 'had to be' on a closed forum. I presented the idea a while ago, didn't get much feedback from anyone, and had already started using Slack in the office, so I just created another channel. If you would like to create a different channel for developers and have a separate lot of discussions elsewhere, there's nothing stopping you. I have only offered to try to coordinate the work of developers, and the door's open for those who want to participate.
John On 17 January 2017 at 15:34, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm still trying to understand why UK-based Wikimedia developer > discussions have to be on a closed forum. > > As an example, with global discussions around issues or changes on > Phabricator, a key benefit is that it is easy to link to these > discussions and information on-wiki so that anyone can review them, > not just those that have set up accounts on Phabricator. Encouraging > wiki-project developers to join an invite-only channel to discuss > changes to their open projects behind closed doors, appears to force a > contradiction in values and remain an ethical barrier for potential > contributors. > > At the point where any development might change Wikimedia projects, > whatever was done on a closed forum would have to be presented > publicly. Even abandoned ideas benefit the community by adding to our > store of common knowledge, if the discussions are available for future > reference rather than held in closed archives. > > Fae > > On 17 January 2017 at 14:51, John Lubbock <john.lubb...@wikimedia.org.uk> > wrote: > > The other thing is that we have already started using Slack in the office > > for chat, and I have another slack channel for the Kurdish Wikipedia > > Project, so I've already gone down this path a bit of a way and to back > out > > and start again because something else is open source would be quite > > disruptive for other work I'm doing. I'm trying to organise developers to > > come to one place to discuss this, and I've chosen Slack because it's > easy > > and lots of people use it. I appreciate that it might not be ideal for > some > > people, but I really can't spare the time and effort to start this all > again > > from scratch. > > > > John > > > > On 17 January 2017 at 13:19, Katherine Bavage < > katherine.bav...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm not planning to join because I don't code (though I'm happy to join > a > >> channel if you get to a stage where end user or design process feedback > is > >> useful) but I would note that asking people to adopt new platforms 'just > >> because they are open source', rather than ones that are used by a lot > of > >> people/ a lot of people are already familiar with, is pretty daft when > your > >> ultimate goal is to benefit the open source community through the work > the > >> channel fosters. > >> > >> As far as I know, for this type of work, Slack is the go to for most > devs. > >> The Foundation use it without issue. > >> > >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 at 12:24 Gordon Joly <gordon.j...@pobox.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 17/01/17 00:38, John Lubbock wrote: > >>> > It costs a lot of money, as far as I can see (it says Try for Free > and > >>> > then takes you to a page where it asks you to pay $100 a month). > >>> > >>> **** > >>> We wrote Discourse, and we can host it for you, too. > >>> **** > >>> > >>> Yes, that is a hosting option. You can download and install for free. I > >>> am suggesting WMUK host the code on their own server... > >>> > >>> Gordo > > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
