Talk:Groups/Proposals/MediaWiki Cooperation

About this board

Questions from AffCom email discussion

Varnent (talkcontribs)

I wanted to bring the lingering email discussion on-wiki to document and wrap things up.

1. Name: The application says "MediaWiki Cooperation" - however that does not conform with the naming guidelines for Wikimedia User Groups. Something like "MediaWiki Cooperation User Group" would match the guidelines better. My understand is that this was going to be discussed at your most recent meeting, was there an update on that?

2. Scope: can you please confirm the final wording for the scope of the group? The application says: "We are developers, admins, users, consultants, and hosting providers who cooperate in order to improve the software." - but the wikipage for the group states: "We will advocate the needs of all users of MediaWiki. Our primary focus will be those who use MediaWiki outside the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF)." They are similar, but slightly different, so I just wanted to make sure everything was accurate before paperwork and resolutions were done. :) Both are slightly broad, and that could be intentional, but I just want to make sure the paperwork has a clear representation of the group's planned work. Right now, it is not exactly clear to me who this would not include per se, and again, maybe that is intentional. I just want to make sure we are clear on how broad the group intends to be. As I read the submitted scope, this would essentially cover all WMF volunteer and non-WMF "private" efforts, with a focus on extending MW beyond just WMF wikis. Is that a fair read?

2b. Regarding scope, would this overlap with efforts like MediaWiki Farmers user group, or would that be separate effort with a smaller scope? That exists elsewhere, and is not an issue, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page about other MediaWiki user groups and how they might interact with a user group with a broader scope.

Once we get the language issues sorted out - I do not anticipate any problems with the application. The group meets all the requirements and there are obviously trusted members involved with great plans.

MarkAHershberger (talkcontribs)
We discussed this at the last meeting. There was no resolution. We're preparing for the next meeting right now and plan to have a resolution. In the mean time, what do you think of "MediaWiki Users Group"?
It is intentionally broad. Regarding your reading of the scope
this would essentially cover all WMF volunteer and non-WMF "private" efforts, with a focus on extending MW beyond just WMF wikis
We do not intend to cover WMF volunteer efforts. The Foundation already has a lot of ways to work with them (e.g. Is there a way that we should clarify this?
Thanks for pointing that out. The effort could be considered a sub-group within ours, but the Farmers user group is more targeted to SysAdmins than this one is. I can see a lot of ways that we could work with them, but we want to welcome the user who only has to manage a single wiki as well as those who operate on several.
Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

"WMF volunteer efforts", what's that?

MarkAHershberger (talkcontribs)

I was referring to "WMF volunteer and non-WMF 'private' efforts" that Varnent mentioned. I assume he meant things like stewards and administrators on Wikipedia.

MarkAHershberger (talkcontribs)

(Also sending via email to Varnent.)

We've decided on a name: "MediaWiki Stakeholders".

Varnent (talkcontribs)

I am checking with WMF Legal on "MediaWiki Stakeholders" to get their input on if it falls within the naming guidelines provided. It may require a small tweak like "MediaWiki Stakeholders Group" to help clarify that it is a MediaWiki Group / Wikimedia User Group.

Regarding the scope - I think just merging what was on the application with what was on the Meta-page makes sense. Something like: "We are MediaWiki developers, admins, users, consultants, and hosting providers who cooperate in order to improve the software and advocate the needs of MediaWiki users outside the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and its projects."

I think that would clarify that you are focusing on MediaWiki development itself and its use beyond WMF and its projects. If the group plans on advocating on issues related to MW within the scope and usage of WM projects, then it may need a tweak.

MarkAHershberger (talkcontribs)

I understood that "user group" was automatically added. We'll be fine with "MediaWiki Stakeholder's Group".

We'll merge the pages sometime this weekend.

Varnent (talkcontribs)

I think that works - verifying with WMF Legal. Last item, can you confirm the scope you would like to use on the legal documentation? Thanks!

Reply to "Questions from AffCom email discussion"
Nemo bis (talkcontribs)
Mglaser (talkcontribs)

Thanks for pointing this out, Nemo. I think this is not a big issue, though, as long as we make clear we are "the wiki coop" :)

Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

Ok. They are "wiki" too AFAICS.

Mglaser (talkcontribs)

We changed our proposed name to MediaWiki Cooperation. Not cooperative. Let the shortcuts be made by others ;)

Reply to "Education coop"

Responsibilities over

Qgil-WMF (talkcontribs)

It would be good to clarify whether this group aims to work on anything related to You talk about "Foster the ecosystem around MediaWiki" and "Improve documentation of extensions and MediaWiki visibility". These are noble goals that will need the help of as a promotion tool. Editing pages is fine, but what about more complex developments needing community consensus, such as changes in the homepage or the skin, or a catalog of extensions? I don't have a specific answer, but overall I think it would be good to agree that this group should have a say about the evolution of as well.

Mglaser (talkcontribs)

In our September meeting, we agreed on the formula: "Sometimes mw.o isn't up to the task of achieving goals of MediaWiki Cooperation, so we need to have a say". Essentially, that means we need to work together with the mw.o community to achieve our goals. IMHO, ideally, we are part of the mw.o community :)

Reply to "Responsibilities over"
Qgil-WMF (talkcontribs)

Why not adding "MediaWiki" explicitly in the name of the group? It would make everything clearer. You need trademark approval for that, but this is basically embedded in the group approval by the AffCom.

Also, perhaps it is better to spell out "Cooperation". "Co-op" or "Coop" connects first to Cooperative, which is a formal organization different than what this group would become if approved.

Mglaser (talkcontribs)

As discussed in today's meeting, we will follow your suggestion (as it is good :) ). So I moved all the Wiki Co-op pages accordingly.

Reply to "MediaWiki Cooperation?"

Missed Friday's Google Hangout - what was discussed?

Velochicdunord (talkcontribs)

Saw the announcement of the hangout after the fact. Am interested in the wiki co-op - what was covered? I am one of the wiki maintainers at

Legoktm (talkcontribs)

Hi! Our notes from the meeting are still in an etherpad, I'll copy them over to this wiki right now.

Legoktm (talkcontribs) (talkcontribs)

I too missed the meeting. Is there a way to be notified of upcoming events?

Legoktm (talkcontribs)

You can subscribe to the mediawiki-l mailing list, and watch for emails with "[wiki co-op]" in the subject line.

Mglaser (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Missed Friday's Google Hangout - what was discussed?"
There are no older topics
Return to "Groups/Proposals/MediaWiki Cooperation" page.