Thanks to the work done for T130095: A plan for the top ten Community Wishlist tasks driven by volunteers, we know that several community requests that were voted in the 2015 survey are actually not feasible, not appropriate, not well scoped...
As of 2016-11-13, many of these tasks are still open / unresolved. It would be useful to clarify their status before the 2016 survey process starts, in order to avoid that they are not proposed and voted again.
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | Johan | T144074 Improve the representation of Wikimedia communities beyond English Wikipedia in the Community Wishlist Survey 2016 | |||
| Resolved | Quiddity | T145486 Resolve / flag Community Wishlist 2015 requests that are not appropriate for the 2016 survey |
Reasons for excluding certain wishlist items feels very related to ignoring guidelines explaining how good feature requests and how good bug reports should be written. :P
So I assume this task is about communicating why a certain task in its form was not the best idea or fit for the 2015 wishlist, and potentially closing that task (
For 2016, we have improved instructions what is expected.
I'd say this task as resolved.
(If not, please reopen and elaborate which other communication in which venues is expected.)
This task is part of the 2015 Community Wishlist. As items on the 2015 wishlist can be reproposed for the 2016 Community Wishlist, I would like to point out that in 2016, "Proposals should be discrete, well-defined tasks" (this is a new requirement which will help everybody to have a clearer and shared understanding of what is exactly requested). So if anybody plans to propose this 2015 wish again for 2016, please strongly consider rewriting this wish by following the 2016 guidelines - essentially, adding more details, links, and examples to the main description, so that editors and developers who are not very familiar with the area can more easily understand it all, and why the feature or bug fix is important, and how they can potentially help. Thank you a lot!
Mmm in order to verify this I would need to go through that spreadsheet that @Quiddity was using while working on T130095: A plan for the top ten Community Wishlist tasks driven by volunteers -- and now I don't have the time for that. That spreadsheet mentioned some tasks that were not feasible / actionable for technical or other reasons. If that analysis has been transferred to Phabricator, either declining tasks or proposing to decline them explaining the reasons, great.
I'll do some followup on a few specific "it's complicated" tasks, over the next 2 weeks.
Niharika and Leon suggested making the four questions into a form that people have to fill out when they make a proposal:
That'll help people to write better proposals, plus people won't be able to just copy old proposals to the new survey without thinking/rewriting.
I changed some of the proposal phase description: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey#What_happens_during_the_proposal_phase.3F
Let me know what you think...
I like this a lot, thanks! Especially when it comes to defining the 'problem statement', https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/describing_problems/ might also be quite 'inspirational'.
Thank you!