Bryan Davis <bd808(a)wikimedia.org> writes:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Jeroen De Dauw
<jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> What exactly justifies such an authoritarian "need to go though some
> permission process" setup? Exactly what problems are we currently
> seeing?
I would certainly welcome an RfC discussion of the
current policy and
a potential replacement. From my point of view, use of the MediaWiki
brand implies endorsement by the MediaWiki community and thus should
only be easily available to projects that are able to be contributed
to and managed by that community. If for example a serious security
flaw was found in a mediawiki/foo package on Packagist the community
should be empowered to fix it.
This discussion is at least tangentially related to the IdeaLab project
that Chris Koerner and I formulated at Wikimania:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Making_Gerrit_access_easier_…
There are benefits to using the Gerrit.w.o -- the git repository that
most MW-experienced developers are using, and where they have rights to
upgrade code (e.g. the i18n conversion to json) -- instead of Github,
Assembla, Kiln, or Bitbucket.
We've done a poor job of explaining the benefits, though, and, more than
that, providing an infrastructure that developers not deeply involved
with the WMF can use, though.
I invite your comments on the IdeaLab proposal page. Maybe it means
improving MediaWiki support for developers on GitHub, but if that is the
route we go, then we need to figure out a way to do that.
Mark.
--
Mark A. Hershberger
NicheWork LLC
717-271-1084