|By Wil Sinclair||
|August 25, 2014 06:45 PM EDT||
I’ve been watching the MediaViewer debate unfold with uncharacteristic silence. I figure every point to be made has been made by others far more eloquent than I. Just to get my opinions out of the way:
- I share most of the concerns with MediaViewer.
- I believe that the way the WMF and the broader community collaborate to develop and release software going forward is the bigger issue by far.
- I don’t think that adding another level of privileges to Mediawiki is a good solution to any problem.
- Having had to make go/no go decisions on software releases myself, I reserve rollbacks for releases that break existing use cases with no workarounds. Since users can opt out of MediaViewer, I don’t think that a rollback is called for where it has already been deployed.
- I believe that MediaViewer can and will be a great addition to Mediawiki.
- I know that development cycles are long, that big changes have been made at the WMF since the MediaViewer project was kicked off, and that Lila was appointed specifically for her expertise in managing software releases. Patience may pay off now, even if it hasn’t before.
As far as I can tell, with the possible exception of the necessity of a rollback, my beliefs are consistent with those of most people speaking up on wikimedia-l and elsewhere. If this post were just about these issues, I’d leave it at “+1″.
Where this letter comes up short, however, is in consequences. A fork is mentioned somewhere. That’s one possibility. Or maybe mass retirement? Another option would be that everyone who signs the letter will refuse to donate money to the WMF going forward. Or maybe it makes sense to leave the negotiating table by refusing to discuss further collaboration until these demands are met? There are lots of candidates, but the letter ends on a rather weak “but we need the Wikimedia Foundation to act decisively before it is possible to move forward effectively.” If I’m asking what exactly this means, my guess is that the WMF isn’t sure either.
When I created a petition to allow Greg Kohs to attend all open Wikipedia conferences, I wrote it as a pledge that supporters would refuse to attend any event to which Greg was banned. Of course, it can be harder to get signatures that way; after all, the signees must accept some consequences themselves, as well. For example, since I created that petition, Greg revisited a statement that would have been a showstopper for the petition if not for what seemed to be a very sincere apology. Suffice it to say, I wouldn’t create a petition supporting Greg by name now, but I still believe that Wikipedia conferences should be open to all and I committed to my beliefs by signing the petition, along with around 30 others. Just imagine what could be accomplished with 500 community members committing to the cause like this!
However this plays out, we’re at a turning point for both the WMF and the community. The WMF has new leadership. The community has proven that it can rally significant support around a cause, although more needs to be done to clarify the members’ commitment to that cause, IMO. The question comes down to whether they will be navigating this tricky terrain together or turning their separate ways.
Web Real-Time Communication APIs have quickly revolutionized what browsers are capable of. In addition to video and audio streams, we can now bi-directionally send arbitrary data over WebRTC's PeerConnection Data Channels. With the advent of Progressive Web Apps and new hardware APIs such as WebBluetooh and WebUSB, we can finally enable users to stitch together the Internet of Things directly from their browsers while communicating privately and securely in a decentralized way.
Jan. 17, 2017 04:45 PM EST Reads: 3,027
IoT is at the core or many Digital Transformation initiatives with the goal of re-inventing a company's business model. We all agree that collecting relevant IoT data will result in massive amounts of data needing to be stored. However, with the rapid development of IoT devices and ongoing business model transformation, we are not able to predict the volume and growth of IoT data. And with the lack of IoT history, traditional methods of IT and infrastructure planning based on the past do not app...
Jan. 17, 2017 04:45 PM EST Reads: 541
All organizations that did not originate this moment have a pre-existing culture as well as legacy technology and processes that can be more or less amenable to DevOps implementation. That organizational culture is influenced by the personalities and management styles of Executive Management, the wider culture in which the organization is situated, and the personalities of key team members at all levels of the organization. This culture and entrenched interests usually throw a wrench in the work...
Jan. 17, 2017 04:45 PM EST Reads: 647
Jan. 17, 2017 04:30 PM EST Reads: 9,454
Jan. 17, 2017 04:30 PM EST Reads: 2,883
Jan. 17, 2017 04:15 PM EST Reads: 1,954
Jan. 17, 2017 03:30 PM EST Reads: 5,308
Jan. 17, 2017 03:26 PM EST Reads: 253
Jan. 17, 2017 02:45 PM EST Reads: 4,090
Jan. 17, 2017 02:30 PM EST Reads: 1,731
Jan. 17, 2017 02:15 PM EST Reads: 6,312
Jan. 17, 2017 02:15 PM EST Reads: 3,624
Jan. 17, 2017 02:15 PM EST Reads: 3,347
Jan. 17, 2017 02:00 PM EST Reads: 5,355
Jan. 17, 2017 02:00 PM EST Reads: 1,065