Wed, May 27
Thanks @Aklapper !
Tue, May 26
This talk is on hold. Will revisit at a later date.
Thu, May 21
I'm thinking we should come up with a small number of big categories. I like what's been done on the Facebook and Github blogs:
Wed, May 20
@RHeigl Now that the Wikimedia Tech blog has been launched I was hoping to loop back around and talk with you a bit more about intersections with the MediaWiki blog. I'd like to hear more about your progress and talk about how we can support one another's efforts. Is this (Phab) a good forum? Or would it make more sense to try and synch up -- either with a meeting or on IRC?
Tue, May 19
@leila Hey hey, following up on this. Let me know if I can help support you!
Mon, May 18
Fri, May 15
@Michael So sorry! I missed the notification for your response when it came through. I think we can go with this as a Technical How-To if you can expand on those questions for the introduction. I'm also happy to review/edit and suggest places in the text where a little more information or context might be needed.
@aborrero Awesome! I will add all of us as co-authors :-) And I will be publishing this on Monday, May 18, 2020. Will let you know when it is up!
Thu, May 14
@Halfak this is published: https://twitter.com/wikimediatech/status/1260986011317760000 :-)
@Halfak Can you confirm the co-authors for this, so I can make sure they are credited on the post?
Tue, May 12
Mon, May 11
These have been created: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Technical_documentation_checklist_and_templates
Resolving this. It has been inactive and does not seem to be a relevant difference for document search right now.
Categories have been added. Resolving.
Resolving this for now. This page has been reviewed and restructured. It will continue to evolve and will be added to over time.
Resolving this for now. This page has been reviewed and restructured. It will need to be revisited and will evolve over time.
This has been recently reviewed and improved.
Resolving this for now, as there is an adequate description available and not a lot of demand for an About Cloud VPS doc.
This page was recently reviewed and improved.
This page has recently been reviewed and improved.
This page has bee restructured and improved. Resolving for now. Page should be revisited on a regular basis to maintain and add new terms.
This page was recently reviewed and updated.
This page was recently evaluated and updated.
@aborrero I like the image, but it doesn't render well as a featured image. :-( I used a photo of a blacksmith at an anvil and will include your image in the body of the post.
@Halfak I think that's a fine title!
Fri, May 8
Oh also, do you have a title for this?
@Halfak Yay! I took a look at it (I'm assuming it's the 1st version in the document), and it looks good and ready for publication. Nice work; I didn't have to suggest any edits at all!
@aborrero I made some suggested edits to this. Can you accept and let me know when they are done, and we can schedule for publication.
Sounds good. This will be better timing for publishing as well! :-)
Awesome. I will take a look at this today!
@leila Checking in on this. Let me know if there is anyway I can help support you with this! :-)
Thu, May 7
Wed, May 6
@srishakatux Yes! It would be awesome to do some more experimentation/development on this -- even if it just means moving the current gadget to a more prominent location and comparing usage.
If there is a way to have it functional on desktop and mobile, that would be ideal.
@aborreo Yes! I can add it today!
@bd808 and @apaskulin My gut tells me that probably one of the reasons we aren't seeing more feedback on this is because of design. My guess is that if we move the gadget on the page, make it more prominent/visible, we might see more engagement. I think it would be useful to talk with some folks in design research and ask them if they concur and what their recommendations for best practices for the design and placement of the gadget.
Tue, May 5
@aborrero I took a quick first pass at this and made some quick grammar/style fixes. It looks good so far -- Will take another look when the "To Do" sections are complete. :-)
@Halfak I did a quick glance, and it looks good! :-) I'm going to move this to resolve since it's been off my radar for a while.
Mon, May 4
Will publish on 5/7/2020.
Published on 5/4/2020
Fri, May 1
Perfect! Looking forward to it!
Hey @leila This looks like a great idea for a post. Can you let me know when you have a draft ready, and I can review it for publication? I prefer Google docs but if there is another tool you want to use, we can work with that.
That sounds good! We have a number of posts in the queue right now, so it will be good to have something coming in later in the month.
@srishakatux Just a quick check-in. I've been trying to space out the publication of posts a bit, which is why I offered to post this later in May, but if you don't mind having it published in the same week as other posts, I'll go ahead and publish it in the next week or two.
@Gilles great! I'm moving this over to the blog. Right now we have a number of posts in the publication queue. If you don't mind having it published in the same week as another post, I can publish it sometime this coming week or the following week. Will that work for you?
@TJones Just checking in to see how you are doing with this one. Let me know if I can help support you!
Thu, Apr 30
@Gilles This was really interesting to read! I suggested some edits to the document. Can you accept or decline them? After I will take one more pass, move this over to the blog and discuss a publication date with you.
Wed, Apr 29
@srishakatux I saw the changes in the doc. Looks good. I'm going to move it over to the blog and prepare it for publication. I have a couple of posts ahead of this. Would the third week in May work for you for publishing?
@Halfak This looks really good! Can you tell me which version you plan on using for the blog post and I'll do a quick review of it?
Apr 28 2020
@srishakatux I made an initial pass at the doc. I made a lot of small changes at the sentence level (but not to the overall piece)-- so please don't be overwhelmed by all the suggested edits. Please take a look and accept the changes, and I'll take another pass after :-)
For now, I removed the bigger/more general categories of Engineering and Technology from the posts and just left them with one category (right now the team or subteam the post is related to). I think we'll want to come to some decisions about categories sooner rather than later because as the number of posts grows it will take a bit of extra time to manually change these.
Yeah, agreed about the topics vs structures -- at the same time, some posts do fit tidily under a structure type category.
Since this has been waiting a little while, I will review it again just to make sure everything is up-to-date, then plan on posting April 30.
Sweet! I will review this week and get back to you with potential dates for posting!
Ah! Thanks! I will review it this week and let share a couple of dates for posting once we feel it is ready!
Sorry I didn't answer this earlier. These would be more like style and formatting guidelines for admins posting to the blog.
@aborrero Awesome! Thanks for sharing this! I will take a deeper look at this today and share feedback if I have any.
@Krinkle The blog allows for categories and nested/subcategories, so in the backend of the blog, the teams are listed as subcategories under departments -- though it may not cover all of the subteams. When I post, I usually add all the categories and subcategories the post belongs to. I can add Parsing and add that as a category to the Parsoid post.
@Aklapper Agreed. That is a good idea. I added initial categories but not descriptions. I like the idea of linking to the team page, so people can find out more. Right now, the categories cover mostly WMF teams, but I really think we need to be more expansive with these -- since there is a lot more to Wikimedia Tech with WMF teams.
Apr 27 2020
@Michael Thanks for sharing this! This is really interesting!
I added @bd808 as a subscriber to this. He has been investigating importing from Phame and the Wikimedia blog archive.
@Gilles This looks good! Let's follow the same process as last time. Feel free to let me know when the post is ready, and I'll review and schedule it for publication!