Talk:Wikimedia Product Development/Product Development Process/Draft

Reversal

Why are there no arrows ("can be kicked back to an earlier stage") between "introduction" and "discovery"? It should also be possible to kick back an idea before the "introduction" step (full rejection), so that it's easier to propose ideas. --Nemo 14:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that "kicking an idea back to introduction" would be synonymous with "cancelling the whole project" (and maybe starting a new one, or maybe not). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech lead

This term is not defined. --Nemo 14:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 sections that mention this, Mobile web/Team/Roles and responsibilities#Tech lead and Collaboration/Team/Roles and responsibilities#Tech lead (mostly copied from the former), but perhaps these are standardized elsewhere, or could be usefully merged? I'll look/ask around... Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is probably no need among the devs to provide a job description for a fairly common position. There's even a Wikipedia article about it: w:en:Technical lead. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Delayed or defunct?

We are told that work on the Community Engagement (Product)/Collaboration process/Draft

can't be finalized until the newly reorganized Engineering department finalizes (or completely replaces; it's up to them) its product development processes. I doubt that they will make any significant, concrete progress on theirs until after the new fiscal year begins (because some of the re-org changes won't take place until then). Realistically, useful progress on this page will be delayed for months. [1]

This does not seem entirely satisfactory. Is there any time planned at which you may be able to restart the process of developing processes for collaborating with the community? Or implementing them? Or are these indefinitely postponed? Do you plan any activities in this area in the interim? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest that given the comments from a member of WMF staff quoted above that this page is {{Outdated }}. Anyone reading it as it stands might get the impression that this was a live working draft rather than belonging to a page Wikimedia Product Development which is itself {{Historical }} and refers to a WMF department that does not now exist. Its continuation in its present form conveys no useful information and can only serve to mislead the casual reader. Of course it would be good if a member of WMF staff were to update it in a more comprehensive and useful way. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  Stalled doesn't equal outdated and the base page may be poorly chosen but has no effect either. As far as we know this is truly the most up to date draft available, so the current tagging is correct unless retracted by WMF. --Nemo 11:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And outdated does not equal formally withdrawn by WMF mandate. We are still, I hope, allowed to use our ow judgement on these matters. If anybody thinks this page is not outdated but is still current, then who is its current owner, who is currently using it and who is currently working on it? The prima facie answer to all those questions in "nobody" -- the page was previously owned by a now defunct part of the organisation and yet now purports to describe a draft of a current process apparently owned by a live organisation. That is now misleading, being out of date, and hence it makes sense to describe the page as outdated. We have already been told that the owner no longer exists, why would further confirmation from WMF be required? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Merging this page to WMF product development process

There is no reason to keep this page active, as it has been completely superseded by WMF product development process. The new page links to it in the intro, but we could just set the link to a specific version for historical purposes.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)