Many consumer proposals require discussion. It's a pain to have to go track a user down in order to talk to them about their consumer proposal.
So, maybe we can have a flow board (or post) talk page automatically created for each consumer proposal. That way, keeping track of current and past conversations will be easier.
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | None | T103587 Improve OAuth application approval workflow | |||
| Open | None | T154777 Discussion area for each OAuth consumer proposal | |||
| Open | None | T109156 Investigate converting OAuth to use ContentHandler |
Ideally each consumer should be presented as a wiki page, not a bunch of (poorly cross-linked) special pages with separate entries for each version. That presents a number of technical difficulties (and would be a big task even apart of those); the related discussion is in T109156: Investigate converting OAuth to use ContentHandler. Maybe as an incremental step, we could add a "description page" record to each consumer record, which points to some meta page (and maybe add those pages automatically to the consumer owners' watchlists). That seems pretty simple.
As for using Flow specifically, most application owners so far seem to be experienced editors so I am not sure how much it would improve usability. (Of course that could be caused by our application proposal workflow being so hard to use that everyone except experienced editors are deterred...)
Updated to be a bit more generic since tying OAuth to StructuredDiscussions sounds like a pretty bad idea in 2023.
I think this (and T109156: Investigate converting OAuth to use ContentHandler) made more sense when we had a small number of apps, mostly corresponding to community tooling that people actually used. With the current volume of multiple new apps every day, most of which don't have anything to do with the Wikimedia movement, this would be very disruptive and spammy. Also different discussion area for each version of the tool, dev versions, staging version etc. seems confusing.
I'd maybe consider having a discussion are for each tool instead (maybe via ToolHub) and integrating that in the consumer application process in some way.