@Ckoerner OK, so how should we go about creating and advertising that page? I'm guessing it should be a Flow page. It could probably use some preamble text. It should probably be a subpage of . . . something. Would it be "owned" (whatever that means in this context) by MediaWiki-Stakeholders-Group? It sounds like it has a broader mission past just this group: "anyone from the tech community". So, I guess this means that MediaWiki-Stakeholders-Group is offering to set up and manage this page for the broader MediaWiki community. The next question is, once we have set the page up, do we need to have a plan to curate, initiate discussions, and advertise the page?
Re: moving away from mwstake.org, we initially set it up as a showplace for some of our "enterprise" approaches. I'm not sure that it has really done that effectively, since I set it up quickly and haven't had any time to really give it any TLC. The fact that it requires login is problematic; although it showcases in a limited way the enterprise approach to attributed contribution, it drastically limits community contribution. So, I am definitely in favor of hosting pages such as the one discussed above on mediawiki.org. And, maybe our calendar could be more easily managed on mediawiki.org. I'd still like to think about having some sort of showcase that hosts and demonstrates the utility of extensions that are not on mediawiki.org (yet).
@cicalese Yeah, I'm not sure how to create the page in question, but SGrabarczuk would know! Heck, even if we start something as a subpage under a User: page we can always move the content. I think if we start it we can help promote through our channels we already use. That and the strategy pages are all interlinked and we'll have many folks stopping by that we don't reach out to purposefully.
Semi-related good news: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2017-April/046462.html
I agree that mwstake.org can have some value, but it appears that at the moment we don't have the capacity to do that. It also hurts visibility with folks who aren't currently involved in having our stuff off of mediawiki.org. Maybe we can talk about this on friday at the monthly meeting?
@Ckoerner already pointed us to this thread on mediawiki-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2017-April/046462.html. They are currently discussing external funding of features wished by third parties. I already replied, but the thread could easily do with some more contributions from the stakeholders.
btw, the deadline for the "Fantastic MediaWiki" hackathon track is on Wednesday. We already have on contribution ;) Please consider adding a session or promoting the Call for Participation: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2017-April/046462.html
I've added an #mwstake discussion page for the Wikimedia Strategy 2017: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Wikimedia_Strategy_2017_Discussion. The idea is to allow folks with an interest in MediaWiki to have a place to discuss and have input into the Strategy. The next step would be to advertise the page. Ultimately, discussion from the page would be summarized on meta. I won't be able to attend the meeting tomorrow, but please discuss advertising the page. Thanks!
The Wikimedia Foundation Technology and Product Q&A Session #2 by Victoria Coleman (CTO) and Toby Negrin (Interim VP of Product) is Tuesday May 9, 2017, at 17:00 UTC via YouTube live.
Link to live YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4kfgU9SZcg
IRC channel for questions/discussion: #wikimedia-office
We agreed, that extensive logo discussions wouldn't help us. We should decide in the near future, which one fits more, so that we can go ahead, with more important issues.
But I have first two questions for @Qgil: Can you help us to find out, if this logo has to be approved by someone in the foundation? And if there are any restrictions, the stakeholders have to consider using such a logo?
Yes, it is. We must refresh two or three portals in the next tthree weeks with a new template, that fits to MediaWiki.org. For that we need an icon for MediaWiki Stakeholders stuff.
But: we're only talking about a few styleguides. And we're not redesigning MediaWiki! But of course those templates can and should be customized and by any other Mediawiki.org user. :-)
Of course aligning our icon with beef products may offend vegetarians. We could use an icon of a stake (as opposed to a steak), but this may offend witches and vampires. Perhaps if we took two stakes in an X over a steak it would indicate that we are neither supporting beef products nor threatening witches or vampires, and by using both steaks and stakes it would symbolize our support for all (steak|stake)holders. </sarcasm-but-also-sort-of-serious> :-)
The intern here is in favor of the steak. (I told her to leave her own comment, but she said that it was too much work, so here I am...)
I'm afraid that if we made this a stake-holding logo (hand included, natch) that possible vampire members would *really* not want to participate.
Now that I've thought some more, and given we have to abide by the friendly space policy, I think we should dump the steaks and stakes and go back to @Tgr's original sunflower logo.
As requested, yesterday Cindy, Mark and I came to a decision on the logo: We will use the simple sunflower with blue and orange circle: https://phab.wmfusercontent.org/file/data/bowwqjy3eqia6kaxky4i/PHID-FILE-qbvv2atzrjskbzolzi5r/MediaWiki-usergroups-logo01.png.
This is why:
• Soundness: Any logo suggestions involving a steak are definitely funny, but probably will not help us to be taken serious
• Simplicity: The sunflower is already very detail rich, adding hands or globes would make the logo more complicated and twitchy (<- not sure this is the correct word)
• Association: Using the WMF circle and general layout of user group logos associates us with the WMF
• Differentiation: Using the orange instead of red is more pleasing in combination with the sunflower; it is used on mw.o; we indicate we are a bit different from the WMF (red)