Hey @Legoktm Not all of TechCom’s former responsibilities - or perceived responsibilities - are routed through the new Tech Decision Forum. One of these is the Gerrit Privilege Policy. Those types of decisions are listed in the technical decision type matrix, along side with new responsible parties. “Ownership” means that the team is responsible for ensuring process continuity for Gerrit Privilege requests in the post TechCom world, and to step into TechCom’s former role where required. Handling privilege requests is in most of the cases a self-running system supported by many - Gerrit Privilege policy applies. This ticket explores what needs to be done to make sure the process always works - I.e. in cases where there is not enough input, or not a clear outcome, or when no one acts on a positive decision (which I’d assume, is seldom the case, but we should plan for it regardless). The other aspect that needs discussion is which process we should establish for making changes to the Gerrit Privilege Policy in the future.

approved, thanks!

approved, thanks!

From the sync with @jwang today:

OK from my side!

For the record, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Communication#Blog is updated.

In T243401#6010189, @Aklapper wrote:

@Bmueller: I apologize that contacting me via Phab or email works quite well, unfortunately. ;)

ähm -- I meant "after the email to Wikitech etc. is out" ;) - but should be ok - Sarah planned to send the announcements out in PST morning (= in 3-4 hours).

@Aklapper: "Update sidebar link on mw.org to point to new tech blog at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blog-url" &
"Add an item to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_News" requires admin rights. Could you take over those 2 items? Will work on the rest today.

Hi @CCicalese_WMF, no, @eprodromou has not discussed this with Technical Engagement yet. My understanding was that the plan was not to duplicate documentation or replacing wikitech or MediaWiki.org, but providing a static/simple dynamic site that directs people into existing documentation, and also focuses on APIs only. Could you provide more context?

Hey @faidon yes, you're right and that's the plan :-) @srodlund will create a task, probably today/tomorrow.

Notes from the session:

In T234661#5588306, @Tgr wrote:

In T234661#5584790, @Bmueller wrote:

@Tgr, would you be interested in helping to run the breakout group?

Sure!

@Amire80, yes. Ideally, we'd use a part of the first 20 min ("Intro") to provide an overview on known issues to get everyone on the same page. We should also add links to the outcome of sessions that cover aspects of this topic to the pre-reading list, so that we can build upon previous discussions in the breakout groups. Let's talk about this in more detail next week, when the session plan is finalised and session leaders can start to work on their sessions :-)

@hashar, looks like Fisch will be back in time, will add both of you as session leaders to the task description. :-)

Thanks @Tgr! @Amire80, the goal of this session here would be to discuss a variety of questions, and come up with a list of recommendations and concrete ideas to improve developer productivity in the area of templates, modules, and gadgets. (See also Tgr’s list) Brainstorming technical solutions for global modules and gadgets only/specifically would make an awesome follow up session in the unconference part of the conference though, if you are mainly interested in that. Also - @Tgr, would you be interested in helping to run the breakout group?

Hey all, thanks for all the comments and support! @Jrbranaa, @Aklapper please go ahead and re-assign the task to one of you :-)

In T234662#5578739, @hashar wrote:

Yes I am willing to co-lead.

Maybe we can have the session driven by some examples to raise awareness of what is successfull/bad for various teams/people. Then eventually break out in small groups and come up with a set of good/bad and recommendations.
I can definitely present tip and tricks to ease integration of contributions, specially on the code review side/Gerrit. For features/code and how different people synchronize outside of a team scope, I can not tell, the way I work is probably not an example to follow since it is barely formalized and I have lot to improve myself :-D
This session could focus on the people behavior and incentives to help folks to work together.

P.S. Just remembered that there is also T234633, that's probably more related.

Hey @CDanis, sorry that I missed your question! (thanks for the ping, @Aklapper :-)

Hey @TheDJ, yeah, you're right - current focus is mostly on fulltime-teams .. - the sessions are designed based on the input from the survey + relevance for developer productivity, and having a session around this topic got brought up (eventually from staff members ... :-)

Hey @TheDJ, there is: T234087 - but it probably only covers parts of that? Do you have a concrete proposal in mind?

Ah, closed too early ;) - one last comment:

Hey all, please have a look at T234661#5567256 - a proposal how this session here could become a part of Developer Productivity and onwiki tooling (T234661).

In T234661#5564212, @WDoranWMF wrote:

I'm marked as a note taker for Tech Conf, I'm not positive what the schedule is for note takers yet but if it's at all possible I'd like to attend this session either in that capacity or generally.

Hey @hashar would you be interested in leading this session? - you could also co-lead it with @WMDE-Fisch, who has some experience in this area too (he might be still out of office, I guess @WMDE-leszek knows more) - I think you would be great as a session-(co-)leader for this :-)

Oh - I confused "@Tgr" and "@Tpt", really sorry ;) - @Tpt what do you think? :-)

In T234661#5552190, @hashar wrote:

I would guess the main issue is to make a "business case" for it, have it funded and commit to implement the product.

Hey @hashar yes, that's the idea behind the session. This is mainly the reason why templates, modules, gadgets, scripts are covered in the same session proposal. As we are probably tight with the schedule, one idea how we could do it (to pick up @Amire80's and @Tgr's and @WMDE-leszek's comments):

Hey @darthmon_wmde - so it depends a bit on how much content can go into one session to not overload it, but I would think that different team structures could be covered under this topic, but team dynamics might need its own session. Also pinging in @WDoranWMF who just confirmed to be the session leader for this session :-)