[00:01:59] nm [00:37:30] there are absolutely articles about Assassin's Creed 2 and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. [00:38:26] <^demon|away> Fantastic games, both of them. [00:39:49] Yes. I just finished the DLC for Brotherhood this afternoon. [00:41:49] <^demon|away> I spent a lot of time on brotherhood while psn was down. [00:41:58] <^demon|away> That and replaying gta4. [00:42:10] Good man. [00:43:05] <^demon|away> Have you tried Bulletstorm, by the way? [00:49:47] jorm: One more question about Article Feedback: What wiki page is the primary page for the project? [00:51:57] The mediawiki page, I suppose. [00:52:15] we are tending to do all our work on mediawiki.org [00:52:35] Can I have a link please? (So there is no confusion) [00:53:55] (There are scattered comments on several MW-pages) [00:57:22] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback [00:57:32] Thank you! [01:02:50] wcome [04:26:57] jorm: http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments "Article Feedback 3.0, all en.wp" <- does this mean what I think it means? [04:28:58] ... that every single article on enwp will have a "Rate this page"-box? [04:29:35] ... before the end of this week? [05:09:06] jorm: May 31 to be specific? [05:12:55] I think May 31 is aggressive, but yes, that means what you think it means. [05:15:36] Disheartening... [05:16:12] Does the community know? [05:17:10] Also, more pressing: Who can tell me for sure if the "What is this?"-link will be included in the 3.0 version that will be deployed on. May 31? [05:20:44] I don't know what kind of communication has been handled on this. [05:21:26] As I said, I was only informed that I was being placed back on the project a week ago, and I've had exactly zero meetings about it, with anyone. So anything I know is, at this point, mildly educated speculation. [05:21:56] You mean to say there has been communication at all? :-) [05:22:31] So I wish I could be more solid in my statements but I can't. And I don't know who you can ask for a definitive answer. Trevor, Timo, or Roan might know what is in the deployment queue. [05:23:28] You have to understand that I'm not comfortable talking about this much since, in general, I try to be very open about things. And I just *don't know* the answers, and I don't want to say things that will give incorrect impressions. [05:23:43] Any chance of pushing this back a week to give you a chance to catch up? [05:25:02] I don't drive the schedule. [05:25:07] This could very well backfire... There has been some critique even with only 3% of the articles having the box. 100% is about 33 times more... [05:25:56] I did voice a loud concern on Friday that the link thing was super important, and (in my opinion) more important than a "hide this" control. [05:26:39] It is :-) [05:27:14] I actually think a "hide this" link thinger is of really low value. [05:27:49] most people who want it hidden are a vocal minority. [05:28:02] and a certain percentage of them think that they will be able to remove it from articles. [05:29:02] Pushing this back a week (or month) would be a good thing. [05:29:06] People have questions, and I am not sure that this project has support from the community. (And I'm not saying I know it does not...) [05:31:25] Editors need to know where to talk about it. And how... I wouldn't be surprised if more than 75% of wikipedians have never seen LiquidThreads before. [05:31:35] So, I can tell you that this is Going to Happen. [05:31:49] As a permanent feature, I don't know. I actually doubt it, long-term. [05:32:08] I know that the data supports a full roll out. [05:32:24] I don't necessarily know that it supports a long-term roll-out, or even a roll-out in this form. [05:32:32] But it def. supports a test. [05:32:33] Like I said... I'm not sure the community supports it... [05:32:56] Well, as we've seen, the community supports many, many bad ideas and poo-poos good ones. [05:33:10] hehe [05:33:12] The community tends to naval gaze. [05:33:36] They forget what the "community" actually *is* [05:33:54] it is not "a group of people who do page patrol and fix typos and get into arguments on meta" [05:34:16] But here's my point: It's not for me to prove _absence_ of community support. It's for the roll-outers to prove there _is_ community support. [05:34:23] it is "a seriously small number of people who do the above plus a MASSIVELY HUGE LARGE CRAZYTOWN BIG number of people who could give a fuck about the above." [05:34:32] Actually, no. [05:34:42] well, in my opinion. [05:34:47] proving support will never happen. [05:34:53] in either direction. [05:35:03] Well, you might be right, in a way... [05:35:04] you can always call to the "silent majority" [05:35:18] "no one ever said we wanted this!" "well, no one said we didn't!" [05:35:19] etc. [05:35:34] the only real way of testing that is to Be Bold and Listen to the Bitching. [05:35:47] Rallying support for everything would be just crazy... But here's a situation where people is actually voicing complaints about it. [05:36:08] No, it's a situation where a small number of people are voicing complaints. [05:36:19] I'm not trying to push that down, by the way. [05:36:30] or in any way, shape or form say that the concerns aren't valid. [05:36:38] i mean, hell - i did the first pass at this thing. [05:36:41] ... and an equally small number of people are supporting it. Hence: No consensus... [05:36:45] so it's kind of near and dear to me. [05:36:50] exactly. [05:37:01] and - and i want to make sure we're clear about this - [05:37:12] No consensus in my ears is a no-go... [05:37:16] the number of people who have voice an opinion in either way is probably less than 100 people. [05:37:53] And the supporters number... How many? [05:38:00] so 100 people - even a thousand - is a fraction of the affected userbase. in fact, when you think about that number in statistical terms, it falls into "crank" territory. [05:38:12] oh, i'm saying all people, good and bad, equals about 100. [05:38:16] maybe 150. [05:38:55] if we got 1000 comments, all negative, it would still not necessarily be statistically significant. that's what i'm saying. [05:39:13] I'd say its about 50-50. Maybe a slight overweight to the negative. But I might be biased. [05:39:15] that doesn't mean those comments are ignored; they aren't. [05:39:33] I feel they are. A little bit. [05:39:55] ehrnahannngnnggghh. i can't speak to how the project has been run recently. [05:40:07] i can tell you that i listen. or try. [05:40:41] I feel people (like yourself) listen very politely, and that notes are taken. But I don't really feel heard... :-) [05:40:42] personally, i'm a little lower than 50-odd on letting this thing run. i'm not currently convinced of its value. and i'm its *progenitor* [05:41:35] i feel that there might be value in it *in the long term* but that in the *short term* there's little to gain. [05:41:42] Well I'll tell you this: You make it hard for me to be mad at you when you are so consistently polite :-) [05:41:50] i don't feel that a 5 point scale is useful. i think it needs to be a yes/no. i [05:42:17] heh. good to know. tell my girlfriend that; maybe that attitude will rub off on her. [05:42:33] and i swear, people in the office will get a kick out of hearing someone call me "polite" [05:42:40] That's right! You tell her I sad so! :-D [05:43:22] i think that the ultimate value of the tool will be to serve as an onramp for participation - turning non-editors into editors, and to help create issue lists and to-do lists for existing editors. [05:43:29] the tool has real value. it's just not there yet. [05:43:40] it's like, you ever have short hair and want to grow it long? [05:44:10] there's this point, when your hair is too short to pull back, but too long to fluff up, and it keeps falling into your eyes. [05:44:23] so it's really awkward, and just doesn't feel right, and there's nothing to do but wait. [05:44:28] And I think there is a tangible chance that the tool may do actual harm... Are our editors ready for this kind of feedback of their work? [05:44:29] that's where i think we are with this. [05:44:41] You're asking the wrong question. [05:44:54] You should be asking "Why are they *not* ready for this kind of feedback?" [05:44:59] Does the community answer to it's readers or to itself?produce material for the public or [05:45:17] Ask the LibriVox-community... [05:45:18] In my experience, there's lip service to the readers, but practicality to itself. [05:45:32] Perhaps. [05:45:36] like i said, no one ever accused me of being polite. [05:46:11] and a big part of that problem is "our" problem - "ours" being "the community's" and not "the foundation's" [05:46:29] the system as it exists rewards *being an asshole* and punishes *being patient* [05:47:12] it's impolitic to say "i'm doing this because it's a faster track to me becoming an admin" but it's fine to say "i deleted your article because you know better for the readers." [05:47:27] need to get that 5,000 edits, man. [05:47:40] show that i do the job. [05:47:49] The LibriVox community took a conscious decision _not_ to implement a ratings system. And (I love them to death, but honestly) 70 percent of their recordings suck. [05:47:52] patrol pages, bite newbs, who cares? they won't be back, no one complains. [05:48:04] sure. [05:48:24] listen, i've said that i don't necessarily think that the ratings are of any large-scale value. [05:48:29] but the tool is bigger than ratings. [05:48:34] or will be. [05:48:48] it's *feedback*. about the *article*. [05:48:57] 99.99999% of our users do not want to edit. [05:49:02] but they *do* want to be useful. [05:49:26] and this can take many forms. not the least of which is simply saying "I don't feel this article is well-written." [05:50:17] If they can't bother improving the article then perhaps they shouldn't have a say... [05:50:43] "sofixit" will turn into "socomplainaboutit" [05:50:49] that's a crap response. [05:51:07] consider some very real world points, that i've experienced. [05:51:08] It's also true :-) [05:51:18] my father knows more about baseball than anyone i know. [05:51:29] but he'll NEVER edit an article about baseball. he just won't. [05:51:33] for about a zillion reasons [05:51:48] he will, however, be willing to tell people what is wrong, or what is good, or what is needed. [05:52:22] Just what the world needs. Hordes and hordes of middle managers ;-) [05:52:28] AFT doesn't currently have the mechanisms to make that kind of stuff visible - he can't go "okay, your stats for sandy koufax are wrong and here's where" - but in the future he will be able to. [05:52:41] ... telling others what they think should be done. [05:52:57] i don't think that's the right attitude to have about it. [05:53:09] we're all on the same team. everyone, really, in this instance. [05:53:40] just because you or i or someone else has the time and wherewithal to learn the editor and the process doesn't mean that everyone else HAS TO in order to have an opinion. [05:54:05] that's kind of a "techno priesthood" perspective. [05:54:22] You have a point. [05:54:33] listen. i don't want a billion middle managers. [05:54:37] i really don't. [05:54:54] and a big part of what i've been thinking about is "how to shield the current editor crop from newbies" [05:55:04] because i think that's a HUGE part of "newbie bite" [05:55:26] when i put on my "Batman" hat and I look at the future, it's pretty goddamned grim for the current editor group. [05:55:49] because in two, maybe three years, we're gonna have a *billion* users. [05:55:58] Ehhh... Batman wears a mask, not a hat. Just sayin'.... [05:56:04] and at that scale, policies fall apart. [05:56:20] don't like the policy? well, that's fine, me and my 400 million pals are gonna fix it. [05:56:45] at a billion users, even requiring autoconfirmed to even *edit* a page falls apart. [05:57:16] currently, the community policies seem to be focused, directly or indirectly, at "keeping the gate shut" [05:57:34] but you can ask the romans how well that worked when hannibal came calling. [05:57:48] LOL! [05:58:04] so the policies, the technology, everything - the should be focused on "making the transition through the gates easier and safer." [05:58:19] am i making sense? [05:58:55] this is pretty much what "-1 to 100" is about. [05:58:59] I agree with you that we need more editors, and to better welcome them and make it as easy as possible to contribute. But I'm not convinced this tool is the solution. [05:59:08] and i'm absolutely happy to talk with you at any time about that to any extent. [05:59:16] Yeah.. I don't know what -1 to 100 that is... [05:59:38] ah! but see, that's the thing. i think you're focusing on what the tool *is* and what you feel it *currently represents* and not *what it will become* [05:59:44] so, okay. [05:59:58] -1 to 100 is our internal terminology for "the lifecycle of a new editor" [06:00:09] it's the number of edits. [06:00:34] people with -1 edits are those who either a) are unwilling to contribute or b) do not know they *can* contribute [06:00:47] Who here is "we"? The community or WMF? [06:00:50] people with 0 edits are those who have *made the decision* to contribute but have not yet done so. [06:00:52] the WMF. [06:01:07] and then anyone with 1 or more is on the "editor lifecycle" [06:01:24] most new editors are "killed" inside of their first 10 edits. [06:01:29] just slaughtered. [06:01:52] (i like to use military metaphor when talking about this, btw. lemme know if that makes you uncomfortable) [06:02:30] Don't worry about me in that sense... :-) [06:02:37] there is a widespread belief that we (the wmf/community) should focus on "what makes people turn into wikipedians" (e.g., hit 100 edits). [06:02:41] and try to game to thate. [06:02:44] but i think that's *wrong* [06:03:02] see, people who hit 100 edits? they're not "winners". they're *survivors* [06:03:23] they are the lucky 1% who stormed the beach at Normandy and didn't get mowed down. [06:03:45] we need to look at *why they survived*. what events happened that kept them alive. [06:04:23] right now, editing wikipedia, our new "funnel" of editors - it is very much like the Normandy landing. [06:04:34] and we need it to be more like the assault on Osama's compound [06:04:57] surgical. straightforward. we know what we're doing, we've got it figured out, we spent a month practicing at a dummy compound. [06:05:14] got the tools, got the know-how, and we've got an assault dog. [06:05:40] So. Right now, article feedback would be very good at bringing people to Normandy. [06:05:55] But that's because we don't have the other tools in place to make that a softer landing. [06:05:58] That's right. Let's assault the newbies and execute them without trial. That'll do the trick ;-) [06:06:26] Well. Politics about bin Laden aside, I was thinking more about how the military operation was executed. [06:06:42] I think that the Normandy vs Osama thing is accurate, though. [06:07:05] One of them is throwing thousands of soldiers at a difficult problem and hoping some get through. [06:07:27] the other is throwing a handful of highly trained people at an understood problem and expecting that all succeed. [06:08:06] right now, newbies thrown through two grinders. [06:08:17] I don't see a connection to the AFT... I see the surgical, straightforward thing, I just don't see a consensus for it... [06:08:23] the first is a) even ENTERING the gates. holy shit, that's hard as hell. you have to get that editor? oh man. [06:08:40] and b) once past the gates, not getting blown up in the minefield. [06:08:59] the consensus is really "do you want to see wikipedia exist five years from now?" [06:09:09] How about clearing up the minefield BEFORE the dog enters? [06:09:15] yes, that's my point. [06:09:23] which is why i don't think AFT has a huge value *now* [06:09:27] but in a year? yes. [06:09:48] AFT has the potential to be a MASSIVE tool for bringing people into the gates. [06:09:51] here's why. [06:10:03] "editing" an article requires commitment. [06:10:09] you really have to want to do it. [06:10:25] ... or you can just click "edit" [06:10:28] and the decision point between -1 and 1 there is REALLY steep. [06:10:41] no, you click "edit" and then are assaulted by the hellish editor. [06:10:52] Then fix the editor :-) [06:11:02] you already went through that fire, so it's difficulty isn't apparent anymore. [06:11:03] we are. [06:11:17] that's the *other* major project. [06:11:37] but, as i was saying, to go from -1 to 1 right now is REALLY hard. [06:11:38] One I have little doubt the community supports. [06:11:53] but with AFT, we can move you from -1 to 0 with *no effort*. [06:12:14] clicking "like" or a rating. . . it's a minimal step to contributing. but it's a *first step*. [06:12:17] I bet the general WMF-thought is that it's harder today than it was five years ago... Would you agree? [06:12:18] you're *starting* [06:12:28] it is infinitely harder today. [06:12:43] if only because of the policy cruft. [06:12:44] And that that is the reason the recuritment is down? [06:12:50] it's part of it. [06:13:01] I disagre.. And here's why: [06:13:12] we actually don't have a problem bringing numbers *into* the funnel. we have difficulty *keeping* them. [06:14:19] So, a couple years ago, I wrote this game. And it was pretty popular, especially in its genre. I actually invented a lot of techniques that current games adopted, modified, etc. [06:14:32] Every now and then, someone tries to make an article about the game. [06:14:47] and it hangs out for a while and then gets deleted. [06:15:08] consensus for deletion made by people who really don't know what they're talking about. [06:15:52] It's not harder to join or go -1 to 100 today than it was 5 years ago. The recruitment is down because the recruitment base is so much smaller than it was. Five years ago people started to learn about WP for the first time and everyone was a potential editor. Today almost everyone knows about WP leaving the recruitment base to consist of the younger generation. [06:15:57] And every time that happens, I get mail from people, and they're all so very discouraged by this. By the way they get treated by the community. Nearly always. [06:16:10] Everyone 12+ knows about, and uses, WP. [06:16:24] I might agree with you about that except that the raw numbers don't support that claim. [06:16:39] Our recruitment base continues to grow exponetially. [06:16:49] And yet our "stick" rate drops at the same metrics. [06:17:04] Search up "editor trends" on strategy or meta wiki. [06:17:11] You'll see the depressing numbers. [06:17:23] At the current rate, the projects will be dead by 2015. [06:17:24] It may not be supported by hard numbers, but it's a theory well worth taking into account. [06:17:28] dead. [06:17:53] Trust me, we've looked into it. It's a not unpopular theory; but it just doesn't bear out with evidence. [06:18:00] I wish it were true, man. I really do. [06:18:06] The project is not gonna die. It will reinvent itself first. [06:18:18] Perhaps. Perhaps not. [06:18:26] But right now, my charge is "don't let it die" [06:18:58] It most certainly will! The value of the content on the WM-projects are _enormous_. [06:19:21] Listen. I wouldn't work for the foundation if I didn't believe in the Mission. [06:19:36] you can ask anyone who knows me. they'll tell you i'm *annoyingly* devoted to it. [06:19:58] And the always open opportunity to just fork-away if you don't like it will keep the project on track. [06:20:11] this is my rationale: http://www.gaijin.com/2011/01/for-wikipedias-10th-birthday-a-love-letter/ [06:20:54] You and me both... But my loyalty is to the community and the cause. Not the foundation. [06:21:56] Foundation is a means to an end. [06:22:50] ... and lately it's taking liberties. [06:25:31] Is it? [06:25:44] what's up? [06:25:49] I mean, that's a question, right? [06:26:20] Yes. And this AFT was a bit of an eye opener for me. [06:26:23] Is it taking liberties in the execution of the mission, or is it *appearing* to take these liberties, based on the understanding of the mission from the observer? [06:26:47] (it was not a question, it was a statement) [06:27:11] Right. And I'm phrasing it as a question. [06:27:15] Hey, Niklas. [06:27:21] what is aft? [06:27:29] Article Feedback Tool. [06:27:41] Nikerabbit: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mediawiki/wiki/Article_feedback [06:28:09] If the community says "We want to have better reputation for accuracy", and the board says, "let's do that," how is AFT outside of scope or taking liberties? [06:28:17] that's pretty much right in line. [06:28:41] one of the strategic goals is, literally, "improve the overall quality of articles." [06:28:58] well, we can't do that unless we have a metric by which we can see if we succeed or not. [06:29:10] so that means creating a mechanism for gaining that metric. [06:29:18] hence the rationale for aft. [06:29:44] jorm: I'd say it's taking liberties with what the role of WMF is. It is taking liberties and assuming responsibilities on some issues that better belong in the community. For better or worse. [06:30:06] So I understand the frustration about the communication but I don't see that AFT is outside of the Foundation's remit. [06:30:31] Well, what is your understanding of the role of the WMF? [06:31:03] I mean, a lot of people think the role is "keep the servers running, and then write abomination software like pending changes upon demand" [06:31:48] Pending changes is a great example of trying to have it both ways. [06:32:42] If 10% of the citizens of a nations votes in a national election I'd say the elected government has little mandate for its politics... I recognize the "improve the overall quality of articles." statement from the Quality project-thingie that _very_ few wikipedians were involved in. It therefore lends weak support for WMF politics based on it. [06:33:29] So, by your earlier logic, though (if they can't edit the opinion is of less value) I can argue that, well, screw those who didn't want to be involved. [06:33:38] My understanding of WMF _was_ that it was to support the community. Not _drive_ it. [06:33:57] Sure. But what does "support" mean? [06:34:01] Bensin: AFT is in response to a community initiative [06:34:07] That can also mean "drive" it. [06:34:19] so, I'm not getting your point [06:34:26] Parents support children. They drive them. [06:34:31] Ryan_Lane: Where? [06:34:44] Bensin: "Improve article quality" [06:34:51] go look on strategy wiki [06:35:07] it's in the strategic plan. did you read it? [06:35:17] the strategic plan was community created [06:35:18] Also, let's be clear: we all know aft is controversial. [06:35:39] Man, if you'd seen my original designs, you'd flip a bit. I mean, arterial blood everywhere. [06:35:49] And exactly how many editors do you estimate read that? [06:35:59] wow. [06:36:01] Hehe [06:36:10] None, because the designs weren't published. [06:36:46] It was very yelp-like, and very incorrect, but we didn't understand the problem. [06:36:59] And they were discarded because they were wrong. [06:37:04] hrm. [06:37:09] Bensin: if you are arguing from the point of ignorance, then I'm officially writing you off [06:37:11] I have no problem with the design (save the lack of the link). I take issue with it's rollout. [06:37:12] i wonder if that's not an issue. [06:38:33] i'm okay with people not being involved with strategy wiki. i mean, it's dry, and compartmentalized. i certainly wasn't involved. [06:38:39] and i'm okay answering the questions. [06:38:45] (or trying to) [06:39:05] Bensin, if I may be so forward, where are you physically located? Timezone? [06:39:28] arguing on behalf of the community without actually knowing what the community agreed upon is bothersome [06:39:30] I ask because I want to continue this conversation but it's getting late here and my girlfriend is getting super sleepy. [06:39:56] *jorm has a goal to convert everyone. [06:40:04] *Ryan_Lane likes your goal [06:40:15] It's 8.46 AM here. And I'm gonna go faint of fatigue soon :-) [06:40:15] s/getting super sleepy/has fallen asleep on the couch/ [06:40:32] wow. i was talking to you about 5 hours ago. so you're way late. [06:40:48] australia? [06:41:03] jorm: Please consider pushing the rollout of AFT back a month. To give the community a chance to catch up. [06:41:17] i would like to help you there but i can't. [06:41:33] i've not got a voice with that at this time. [06:41:34] It'll be good for the project too. More bugs will be caught... [06:41:39] Who does? [06:41:45] (Im in Europe) [06:41:55] Howie, maybe. Erik. [06:42:40] Do you agree with me that the AFT-project would benefit from a moths pushback? And can I tell them you do so? [06:42:46] I was only informed in Berlin that AFT was rolling into -1 to 100. [06:43:17] I don't agree with you on that but not because I disagree; more that I don't think there's much difference between now and a month. [06:43:36] There's a value in pushing it *now* because we have the resources, and in a month maybe not so. [06:43:48] we have a possibly far more controversial thing going out then. [06:44:19] You *cannot* tell anyone I am speaking about dates for the Foundation. I do not speak to that. [06:44:24] Are you gonna tell me what? [06:44:31] Oh! Sure. [06:44:33] sec. [06:44:52] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove_1.0/Design [06:45:12] OK. Can I say you have no objections to pushing it a month? [06:45:44] No, you can't. [06:45:44] OK, now THAT I like better. (Will look into it) [06:45:51] Sorry. [06:46:03] Because I don't necessarily think that its overly wise. [06:46:25] (how did i become conservative in my conversation? ryan? when did this happen?) [06:46:57] lol [06:47:07] OK. I'm gonna post a comment about AFT-page about lack of community consensus. Don't take it personal, OK? [06:47:18] Don't worry, I won't. [06:47:20] (Your name won't come up.) [06:47:25] Good. [06:47:36] Thanks for listening. _Again_! :-) [06:47:45] Anytime. Seriously. [06:47:49] jorm: OK. Go snuggle your girlfriend. And tell her about that polite thing I said. That'll get you somthing :-) Go, go, go! [06:47:56] It's what I'm here for. [06:48:03] :-D [06:48:29] And yeah, i'm gonna go to bed. [06:48:38] Sleep tight! [07:48:23] Ryan_Lane: Arguing from the point that there _is_ a consensus when only a small fraction was involved is equally bothersome :-) [07:49:01] Bensin: you can say the same about governments and voting [07:49:10] I did :-) [07:49:17] if you didn't bother to be a part of that process, it's your fault [07:49:33] I did bother, and I was involved. [07:50:51] Not in the particular decision of the AFT though. [07:52:53] I also was under the impression that the strategy document was something that would be proposed and heavily worked on by the community. Yet I'm under the impression that many seeing the AFT wonders what it is. Some likes it, some don't. [07:54:55] AFT probably have advantages. I can think of a few disadvantages. I feel pretty confident the AFT is not mature yet, and that the community hasn't had an opportunity to properly comment on it in its existing form. [10:00:07] ugh [10:00:29] you are gonna launch AFT on all pages ? [10:00:38] prepare for a shitstorm in that case [10:03:22] you'll probably at the very least want an 'off button', otherwise this ain't gonna fly [10:04:14] and communication about it is still at 0 as far as a know [10:04:18] simply not acceptable. [10:06:08] guillom: ^^ [10:06:28] thedj, are we? I don't know. [10:06:47] http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments [10:06:51] And I agree with all you said above. [10:06:55] jorm and Bensin were talking about it. [10:07:17] thedj, I honestly don't know. I wasn't included in this. [10:07:39] i pinged you because the bottom of the page said: "If you need communications support for deployments, please let Guillaume know (and not the day you deploy ;-))" [10:07:44] I heard it was possible, and I basically said the same as you said above. I didn't know if/when it was still planned. [11:37:44] thedj, fyi, I just sent an e-mail asking about this and if it was still planned. [17:42:56] Awesome story: http://i.imgur.com/BcIXY.jpg [17:44:25] hehe [18:58:29] guillom: bonsoir. Do you know where the WMF staff is? [19:04:06] hashar, salut; they're at home; today is a holiday in the US. [19:04:56] thanks guillom!