The task seems actionable aside from the question asked in T350201#9441912 related to the term feature box. In some cases it maps to a single feature and in other cases ("GrowthExperiments") it maps to a group of features.

I'm not convinced about the term associated configuration page because it can be confused with the JSON configuration pages that store the data. In GrowthExperiments extension there are currently 2-3 "associated configuration pages" (NewcomerTasks.json, GrowthExperimentsConfig.json and GrowthMentors.json). The first two are mixed in the Special:EditGrowthConfig form and the mentor list has its own. For disambiguation I think we can use "associated form".

@Urbanecm_WMF do you know why it was decided to store Special:EditGrowthConfig data in two separate pages? Is this a feature we want to support for CC?

What would be a nice place for consumers to enter their "feature" description? Since it needs to be localized we could provide a conventional text key, <extensionname>-<providername>-desc, similar to special pages. Thoughts cc @Cyndymediawiksim @Urbanecm_WMF

Change 994760 had a related patch set uploaded (by Sergio Gimeno; author: Sergio Gimeno):

[mediawiki/extensions/CommunityConfiguration@master] [WIP] Create CommunityConfigurationDashboard special page placeholder

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/994760

sgimeno opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/growth/community-configuration-example/-/merge_requests/5

Add translations for provider name and description

urbanecm merged https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/growth/community-configuration-example/-/merge_requests/5

Add translations for provider name and description

Actually, I presume this is meant to go back to Doing, considering the inconsistencies with the Figma spec. @Sgs, please feel free to move elsewhere if you disagree; patch's merged now.

Change 994760 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/CommunityConfiguration@master] Add special CommunityConfigurationDashboard

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/994760

Change 999619 had a related patch set uploaded (by Sergio Gimeno; author: Sergio Gimeno):

[mediawiki/extensions/CommunityConfiguration@master] Add special page entrypoint

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/999619

In T354390#9527394, @Urbanecm_WMF wrote:

Actually, I presume this is meant to go back to Doing, considering the inconsistencies with the Figma spec. @Sgs, please feel free to move elsewhere if you disagree; patch's merged now.

The two I know are around the font-size and the features grid on big screens, I was expecting to get @JFernandez-WMF input on that. Can you elaborate on the inconsistencies you've found?

From meeting with @Urbanecm_WMF I understand the inconsistencies mentioned are around the scope of each provider. It may be challenging to have all of them in a stable phase quickly but something pretty simple would be to create schemas for each of them (even if they are not fully supported by the editor). Would that improve the outcome and QA for this task?

Change 999619 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/CommunityConfiguration@master] Add special page entrypoint

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/999619

In T354390#9528589, @Sgs wrote:

In T354390#9527394, @Urbanecm_WMF wrote:

Actually, I presume this is meant to go back to Doing, considering the inconsistencies with the Figma spec. @Sgs, please feel free to move elsewhere if you disagree; patch's merged now.

The two I know are around the font-size and the features grid on big screens, I was expecting to get @JFernandez-WMF input on that. Can you elaborate on the inconsistencies you've found?

Sorry, inconsistencies perhaps was not the best wording. There are some aspects of the design that are not handled as of patches attached to this task, such as the tags (Mentorship/Established editors/First steps/etc.) There also appears to be a difference in padding between the headline and the corners of the tabs. Neither of those two are meant to be blocking from my side – I commented merely as I wasn't sure whether fixing parts of those differences is meant to be handled within this task, or whether we should close this one and fill follow-ups that'd be smaller in scope. Hopefully this clarifies.

In T354390#9576219, @Urbanecm_WMF wrote:

Sorry, inconsistencies perhaps was not the best wording. There are some aspects of the design that are not handled as of patches attached to this task, such as the tags (Mentorship/Established editors/First steps/etc.) There also appears to be a difference in padding between the headline and the corners of the tabs. Neither of those two are meant to be blocking from my side – I commented merely as I wasn't sure whether fixing parts of those differences is meant to be handled within this task, or whether we should close this one and fill follow-ups that'd be smaller in scope. Hopefully this clarifies.

It does, thank you! Given design review is not possible until we deploy to beta cluster I'd propose to leave small design inconsistencies outside of the scope of the tasks that will go through the T358066 process that we'd like to keep as short as possible. I will open a "design review task" for CC2.0 in general and note down your observations.

Sounds good, thanks @Sgs!

sgimeno opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/growth/community-configuration-example/-/merge_requests/9

Draft: Add GrowthExperiments Newcomers homepage schema

Presently, I have local env where Special:CommunityConfigurationDashboard looks as the following:

The AC on this tasks require that not only Community Configuration header but Features section should be present. The Features are present and the link there is working, so the functionality is present (to some extent). Does the scope of this task include the full UI match to Community? Configuration Figma designs

Thanks for testing, @Etonkovidova!
From my perspective I'm OK considering this task resolved without matching the Figma dashboard designs for the Features section. My understanding is that the Features section should grow as we add to Community Configuration. Since we don't have any of the individual pages / forms complete yet, I think it's OK that they aren't yet represented under Features.

@Sgs Should I create a follow-up task for adding to the Features section?

In T354390#9615999, @KStoller-WMF wrote:

Thanks for testing, @Etonkovidova!
From my perspective I'm OK considering this task resolved without matching the Figma dashboard designs for the Features section. My understanding is that the Features section should grow as we add to Community Configuration. Since we don't have any of the individual pages / forms complete yet, I think it's OK that they aren't yet represented under Features.

@Sgs Should I create a follow-up task for adding to the Features section?

Thx, I agree that this task scope is done. Waiting on @Sgs response on whether the Feature section on Community Configuration dashboard needs follow-up task(s).

sgimeno closed https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/growth/community-configuration-example/-/merge_requests/9

Draft: Add GrowthExperiments Newcomers homepage schema

In T354390#9615999, @KStoller-WMF wrote:

@Sgs Should I create a follow-up task for adding to the Features section?

I don't think so, features will appear when we migrate them (for GrowthExperiments) or when another team starts consuming CC2.0. Maybe we should remove the tag chips from the design if we want to avoid confusion on QA while matching the Figma spec. @JFernandez-WMF @KStoller-WMF?

In T354390#9617029, @Etonkovidova wrote:

Thx, I agree that this task scope is done. Waiting on @Sgs response on whether the Feature section on Community Configuration dashboard needs follow-up task(s).

I filed T359036: Design review for dashboard and editor pages for going through design expectations more scrupulously, additions there are welcome. However if we would find a functional bug in the dashboard (eg: a registered provider not showing up) we would want to immediately file a "regression" task.