@CCicalese_WMF - would this be an infobox parameter? And if so, how it would be restricted to just WMF-developed extensions?

@Yaron_Koren The representation remains to be seen. That's one of the things that this task would determine.

What would be really good examples of extensions that receive:

• Good support (bugs fixed, feature requests taken into consideration, at least occasionally installation guidance)
• Some support (bugs are fixed, at the very least, but extensive third-party support is rare or does not happen)
• No support for third parties, but is in use on Wikimedia wikis

also see T173544: High quality extension levels tagging

Is the thinking of using single-value maintenance level or something more nuanced? There are lot of activities related to maintenance that are relevant for the users: version compatibility, test coverage, code maintenance (tech debt), accepting bug reports (or feature requests), triaging bug reports, prioritization of bug reports, product manager support (or vision), design support, code review commitments, releases, manual testing, answering to support requests, and maybe more. See for example MLEB and maintenance responsibilities in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/18/.

Facebook has automated metrics such as "responds usually in the same day". It is probably difficult to create such for all of these aspects because we use a lot of different tools, but in the long run they could provide more useful information.

In practice actively developed, maintained (ie. developer looks at it if someone reports a bug, not really otherwise), abandoned are easy to differentiate. Not sure if there is much value in going beyond that.

(for potentially extending past third-party use of MediaWiki extensions to third-party use of Wikimedia tools)

Are there third party wikis that use tools on Toolforge etc.? I'd be very interested in knowing if that's the case.

Some stats tools are used by people from third-party wikis, e.g. WikiApary and Wikistats (the s23 one). I also wouldn't be surprised if various wikis linked to Wikidata-related tools (Reasonator etc).

@Johan does the lowered priority means the deadline in description is no longer accurate? Thanks.

@Elitre No one is going to work on this for the foreseeable future. I'll write down my notes, in case someone wants them in the future, and close this task.

In T184648#4443516, @Johan wrote:

@Elitre No one is going to work on this for the foreseeable future. I'll write down my notes, in case someone wants them in the future, and close this task.

Thanks for closing.

Since I never seem to find time to do this properly, at least the two main recommendations:

• As others have stated, I don't think more than three tiers would make sense. Basically, we're looking at unsupported, "will fix bugs if poked", and in active development. Any more than that and we're just complicating things.
• This status should always have a date attached to it – when was it last assessed?
• Having a system for marking something as developed by WMF/chapter/volunteer etc is not always clear and a bit weird in the ecosystem. But having something that works as a tag for things where e.g. the WMF is responsible for the maintenance could help.