[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Information

Wed May 5 18:29:17 UTC 2004

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Anthere-
> 
> first, a note: please use foundation-l for project
> wide discussions.

This is exactly what I said very recently. Till
recently, wikipedia-l was the list to discuss project
wide discussion. Now, we are beginning to cross post,
because we do not see where this discussion is
supposed to take place.

Typically, discussion over list of contributors, is
related to gfdl, so should go to foundation, while
discussion over a message to display during down time
is rather wikitech or wikipedia-l.

In short, Erik, the difference between wikipedia-l and
foundation-l is now difficult to define. Either we
define it much better, or we should just remove a
list.

> > * instead of writing "will be down in a few
> minutes", writing something a
> > bit more specific
> 
> That's of course desirable, but oftentimes specifics
> will not be  
> available, and sometimes shit happens without anyone
> expecting it. We seem  
> to be particularly unlucky when it comes to server
> stability.

Obviously, this is not for urgent situation.

> However, it will be difficult to have both -
> informative *and*  
> internationalized messages. Because I don't think we
> can get someone to  
> translate "There are problems with the Squid proxy
> server on coronelli, a  
> new machine is being set up and will hopefully be
> installed by 20:00 UTC;  
> in the meantime, cached pages will remain available"
> into Maori within 5  
> minutes (just making up an example, don't know what
> the actual problem was  
> today).

Nod. Perhaps between this type of message and short
information, there can be a middle ? Perhaps part of
the message could be language specific and part in
english ? Not everyone speaks english.

> > Recently, I looked at the bug report on fr:, and I
> saw an awful mess, that
> > was going up to october 2002, where we were
> switched to phase III. There was
> > no way to know what was still valid, and what was
> not (it has been cleaned
> > now).
> 
> Not sure what you mean here, bugs are managed using
> the SourceForge bug  
> tracker and closed when fixed.

Simple. Users who report bugs, do it on the pump. Soon
enough the pump is clogged; Only a couple of people do
make the effort to try to clean it up. Now, there is a
bug report page on each wikipedia. So, it would be
nice if users reported bugs on the bug report page,
instead of the pump. So, we sent them to the bug
report page. And there, all they could see is a 70 ko
page, with first messages 18 months old, and
absolutely no idea whether the problems reported has
been fixed or not; And the place was actually so
clogged, that they report bugs that are already
reported. That is a loss of time. I am wondering if
that bug report page is very wise, and if we should
not just redirect it simply to SourceForge.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 