Last modified: 2013-09-29 01:18:38 UTC
Hi. On behalf of the Grantmaking and Programs department at WMF I'm requesting a namespace on Meta called "Programs". I have informed the community on babel about this. Thank you!
Seeing this on irc, I was all worried someone was planning to post computer program source code all over meta wiki :P
How about if I say there isn't enough community consensus for creating this namespace? :-)
Hi I am confused - Wikipedia Zero did not go through a consensus process. And I did not find guidelines on requesting a namespace on meta. I hope people can assume good faith.
I guess that's because Yurik just went ahead and submitted a Gerrit patch without really asking anyone about anything... From a community perspective, it doesn't look good when the WMF just comes in and creates a new namespace on Meta when plenty of similar requests were previously denied. (Just sayin' — I hope people can assume good faith.)
(In reply to comment #0) > I have informed the community on babel about this. [[m:Meta:Babel#Programs namespace]]
Which clearly shows that there isn't enough consensus for setting up a new namespace. [Hence — changing the keyword back to 'shellpolicy'.]
(In reply to comment #6) > Which clearly shows that there isn't enough consensus for setting up a new > namespace. [Hence — changing the keyword back to 'shellpolicy'.] There are some objections on Meta-Wiki, but I don't think they hold weight. Some people think that other organization schemes might be better (categories + subcategories, subpages, etc.). But that seems like a personal preference kind of thing, so the person doing the work on this generally would be the one to decide how best to do it. At least in some ways. Namespaces exist as high-level content separation. For the most part, they're not exposed or even noticeable. In the few places where they are exposed, it would be nice to be able to scale better (drop-down menus and forms with checkboxes can become cumbersome). But the overall impact is low and for the most part they simply exist as folders (directories) on a wiki that can easily be ignored. I don't think this is really a policy issue, but we can leave the keyword for now. Sarah: if you want this namespace, someone will need to submit a changeset to Gerrit and it'll then have to be reviewed, merged, and deployed. The amount of time to actually add the namespace is a few minutes. It's the paperwork that can take a long time. ;-)
Patch: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/67626
This is being done against local opposition. Besides Mz there is no admin or user who agrees to an additional namespace. Ori's tactic here is to go ahead and do it anyway. He left a message on Babel that he will merge it on Tuesday regardless- something about AGf and Sarah being prolific and well-liked - sound reasoning there. This is an asinine way to go about things, you shouldn't dare ask for anything on meta in future, do whatever the hell you want, Mr. dev - we're barely needed in your way of things.
Hi all - for the record myself and Frank did not ask for the Gerrit thing to get filed. Our team of course wants to make sure that consensus is met and Frank and I both agree we learned a lot from this experience. Ori took it upon himself to be bold and I have asked him to step back from processing the namespace until consensus and trust can be Met. I am at a conference this weekend and it might be tough for me to reply. I assure you I was as surprised by this as you are, Theo! Thanks all for your understanding, and I hope we can move beyond this mix up. Sarah
Thanks Sarah. Frank and you know that consensus takes time. This was brought up on a Friday, there were objections and questions about its relevance and importance. This can't go from being brought up to approval and merger in less than 2 days. Frank asked to seek consensus and support for this first, unlike the last few times, which is the proper way to go about this, if the intention is to work together, please give it some time to gestate. This strong-arming and 2 day time-frame are both unreasonable especially when the dev in charge of the patch, is personally getting this involved in the discussion and forcing it.
I think this issue is resolved to a certain extent, barring whatever decision Frank and Sarah make - the bug can be updated to reflect that after that. I do want to take this opportunity to apologize to Ori, I was out-of-line in my reply to him here and on Meta. There is no excuse for it. After a brief explanation, I saw his side to the argument, and hopefully he saw mine. And I could have certainly handled this better. Ori- I'm truly sorry!
What's the state of this? The discussion on Meta seems to have stalled awaiting further involvement from Frank and Sarah, as far as I understand...
(In reply to comment #13) > What's the state of this? The discussion on Meta seems to have stalled [...] I think you mean the murder of crows has calmed down (or gotten distracted by something shiny). :-) There's a subsection about actual objections to the proposed namespace, in which Theo unequivocally states he doesn't object. Nemo seems only to want an assurance that the namespace will be maintained and have a clear scope (both reasonable requests), while Thehelpfulone and I supported it. There were a few other objections, as I recall, but none worthy of note.
Hi everyone, Do you think we can move along now? Or...what? Feel free to inform me on the steps to take (or be bold!). I'm always excited to learn something new, so if this is worth..learning, feel free to guide me on the steps. Thanks everyone.
Related URL: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/68690 (Gerrit Change I95a8785c7868a190dc085a2556df3828e54c84ab)
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/68690 (Gerrit Change I95a8785c7868a190dc085a2556df3828e54c84ab) | change APPROVED and MERGED [by jenkins-bot]
(In reply to comment #14) > Nemo seems only to want an > assurance that the namespace will be maintained and have a clear scope (both > reasonable requests) I'm still waiting.
(In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #14) > > Nemo seems only to want an > > assurance that the namespace will be maintained and have a clear scope (both > > reasonable requests) > > I'm still waiting. Consider me on the hook for any maintenance tasks that require shell.
(In reply to comment #20) > Consider me on the hook for any maintenance tasks that require shell. Thanks! Apart from deletion of the namespace in a few years from now, I don't expect any.
Hi guys, what happens now? I'm hoping in the next week (please keep in mind it's a major holiday in the United States this week so things are moving at half speed) to have a portal space up and running on meta for the Programs namespace, however, I don't see the mythical name space on meta yet. Again, I'm not sure how this process works. Meaning - now that this has been resolved I have no clue where the namespace is (so to say) and how to work on it in its current state. Thank you, Sarah
(In reply to comment #22) > Meaning - now that this has been resolved I have no clue where the namespace > is > (so to say) and how to work on it in its current state. I think you're supposed to know what you asked the namespace for (just as a reminder, also see my message of 12:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC) ). To create a page in a namespace, enter the page title after the namespace name followed by a colon. Example: [[m:Programs:newpagethenamespacewasrequestedfor]].
