Mastodawn

unfinished thought: it would be quite good to have something like the Toolforge Abandoned Tool policy (https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Abandoned_tool_policy) for non-tool Wikimedia code, such as libraries (e.g. #m3api) or applications (e.g. Pattypan?)

this could be a step towards “Off-the-shelf governance models for small FOSS projects” (@pintoch, https://antonin.delpeuch.eu/posts/off-the-shelf-governance-models-for-small-foss-projects/) – if a codebase opts into it (README.md?), there would be an established process for adopting it if the maintainer goes inactive

#Wikimedia #Toolforge

Help:Toolforge/Abandoned tool policy - Wikitech

Show thread

Lucas Werkmeister Mar 4

(the technical side of this would get tricky, because whichever committee is tasked with managing the adoption process would need to be empowered to manage access not just to the code base – ideally Wikimedia GitLab, likely oftentimes GitHub – but also to any of a number of channels where the library/application/whatever may be distributed, i.e. add the new co-maintainer on: npm? PyPI? NuGet? etc.)

Show thread

Jan Ainali

@LucasWerkmeister I like the idea. Tricky or not, it could provide some pathways forward in some cases in the future. Just agreeing on when such tools can be considered abandoned can give clarity.