Should be called "Wikimedia-Blog-Content" I'd say if you want that only for blog.wikimedia.org (as for example some chapters might also have blogs and start using Phabricator to manage their work).

It's unclear to me how such a Phabricator project will be integrated with the current workflows of the Communications team. And whether such a Phabricator project should be linked from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog (or not).

I'm still learning the ropes of Phabricator, but that suggested name seems to make sense for this.

This Project is suggested because blog posts from engineering teams have already fallen through the cracks in the past, e.g. T85176, and encorporating Phabricator (now that the Communications team has been trained on the platform) should prevent this from happening in future.

I'm also happy to widen the scope of the existing Diff-blog project to include blog content, which seems to be the case on some older tasks anyway.

@jrbs: Makes a lot of sense. :)

If the Communications team agrees (I guess you've talked with them :) and would like to have a Phabricator project for WM blog content, I (or anybody else in Project-Admins) is happy to set that up and help you use it!
I was just asking to avoid introducing an additional process beside a potentially existing one documented on metawiki.

And seeing some SRE folks sometimes fixing bugs in the technical Diff-blog setup/configuration, I think that a separate content project is better when it comes to finding work in everybody's "baskets" (projects).

I should clarify that I'm mostly seeking this as a way to "catch" blog posts being organised through Phabricator by more technical teams since as I say, we've missed them in the past. This is unlikely to replace workflows on the Communications team outright, at least for the time being, but I don't see it being a distraction from the existing workflows developed on Meta.

Thanks for the advice!

@Aklapper operations won't be involved in Blog setup/config anymore since it's now running externally on wordpress.com. I don't know how much technical work is left here since this switch.

So this task needs a description to make clear the project is not the "main workflow" for Communications. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Creating_and_renaming_projects . Plus buy-in from Communications to periodically look into this Phabricator project.
If I get it all right.

@Aklapper: I have clarified the task description, thanks. Let me know if that works.

Sorry for joining this party a bit late. What about "Wikimedia-Blog" for content and "Wikimedia-Blog-Tech" for tech tasks related to the blog? Moving forward it is likely that you will have more tasks about content than about tech, and most of the content tasks will be probably created by people external to the Comms team. The likeliness that these tasks are created under "Wikimedia-Blog" instead of "Wikimedia-Blog-Something" is high.

PS: and yes, I can tell that @jrbs is fully in sync with the rest of the Comms team on this one. :)

@Qgil: That sounds like a very good idea given the (predicted) rarity of tasks focused on the technical side of the blog. I'm open to creating Wikimedia-Blog-Tech instead here.

I've now accidentally become "the Phabricator guy" on the Communications team ;) so will be ensuring this doesn't get neglected.