On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Magnus Enger <magnus@enger.priv.no> wrote:

If this sounds like something people would be interested in trying out, I'd be happy to spend some time on setting it up.

I think this sounds great and will cast my vote for it. That said, in the final analysis, no matter how convenient, useful, <your-favorite-adjective-goes-here> will be of any use if we don't *use it!* Kind Regards, Chris

Magnus Enger <magnus@enger.priv.no> wrote:

I don't think the layout of the RFCs is clear enough as it is, all of these pages seem (at first glance) to be doing some of the same things: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:RFCs http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:RFCs:for_3.2 http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:3.2

I agree with this and posted something similar myself about Category:Serials and Category:RFCs compared to the proposed Category:Serials_RFCs.

And how do you find out which RFCs have sponsors, which are under active development etc?

Search bugzilla enh tickets. But, as noted, bugzilla needs some tidying.

*** Editing and "cataloguing" RFCs

For another project I have used the "Semantic Mediawiki" (http://semantic-mediawiki.org/) family of extensions to MediaWiki, and I think it/they might help with making our RFCs easier to interact with.

I'm reluctant to see our wiki become even more stuck in mediawikisms. I remain hopeful that dissatisfaction with mediawiki and a return to something which uses an easier wiki markup will happen one day. So, is this possible another way? [...]

* Provide a "standard" comment form as an alternative to the "Talk" page (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticleComments)

That reminds me: if I'm watching an RFC page, will I be told about activity on the related Talk page? If not, wouldn't it be better if people just edited the RFC and we switched off Talk pages? Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha

Reply inline: On Wed, November 10, 2010 13:52, Magnus Enger wrote: [...] 1. SEMANTIC MEDIAWIKI.

For another project I have used the "Semantic Mediawiki" (http://semantic-mediawiki.org/) family of extensions to MediaWiki, and I think it/they might help with making our RFCs easier to interact with.

Semantic MediaWiki and various associated extensions are great and a significant reason for my recommending that we test MediaWiki as the Koha project wiki. 2. ADOPTION OF MEDIAWIKI. The MediaWiki test became the only Koha wiki after a misunderstanding with PTFS which I hope to rectify in future. Under the circumstances, adoption was rushed at and I had no time to help properly. I had hoped to have time to test everything more carefully but I did not enough time even before MediaWiki was the only Koha wiki running. 3. OTHER HELPFUL EXTENSIONS. Just before and during KohaCon, I modified a couple of extensions so that they work better in the case of Select Category and work better and are at all usable in MediaWiki 1.15, which we have installed, in the case of Category Breadcrumb. 4. IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLE FOR SEMANTIC MEDIAWIKI. The basic Semantic MediaWiki extension had been installed just after MediaWiki was set up for Koha, however, there is a problem. To my knowledge Semantic MediaWiki is partly dependent upon some command line scripts. Before we actually make use of Semantic MediaWiki, we should be certain that MediaWiki is functioning properly beyond the mere evidence that it is running and we are using it. I have not found any MediaWiki script in the installation for Koha to run without aborting with a Segmentation Fault. I do not know what the cause is. I have speculated about initial misconfiguration. The most obvious possibility of misconfiguration missing a schema name should not be possible using a Postgres database when following the basic MediaWiki installation and set up instructions. Maybe some php.ini setting needs to be different. Maybe there is a conflict somewhere between PHP 5.2.6-1+lenny8 with Suhosin-Patch 0.9.6.2 (cli) and MediaWiki 1.15.2. PHP 5.3 may cause a segmentation fault but we are using PHP 5.2.6-1, http://www.mail-archive.com/mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg02277.html . MediaWiki developers have considered the known problem with PHP 5.3 to be a PHP 5.3 problem and not a MediaWiki problem, https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9365 . Again, we are not using PHP 5.3. There should be no problem for MediaWiki 1.15 using Postgres 8.3. I had researched that issue before we set up MediaWiki. Volunteers to investigate the failure of MediaWiki command line scripts would be welcome. I may not have proper time for a while. Information about the installation can be found at http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Special:Version . Meanwhile, I suggest that we wait on using the power of Semantic MediaWiki which I understand would make some significant changes in the database. It may be much easier to correct possible misconfiguration before we start using Semantic MediaWiki. We should probably also first upgrade to the MediaWiki 1.16, the current version, after fixing the command line problem.

It would go something like this:

1. Create a template that collects relevant information about RFCs, building on Template:RFC

2. Create a form (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Forms) that makes filling in the template easy, including lists of allowed values for things like e.g. sponsorship status or development status.

3. Create a number of pages with inline queries (http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Inline_queries), that list RFCs based on given criteria, e.g. - all sponosored RFCs - all RFCs that do not have sponsors - all RFCs that are in active development - etc It is possible to confugure what is shown in these query results, so there could be columns for targeted Koha version etc (Basically all the info that is collected by the template). These pages could also link to the same results as RSS (http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Inline_queries#Exporting_query_resul....), making it relatively easy to monitor e.g. all new, unsponsored RFCs.

We could also create categories for different areas of Koha, e.g. cataloguing, aquisitions etc.

*** Enhance RFC pages

The page for an RFC could perhaps also be enhanced in interesting ways:

* Pull in info from the relevant bug on Bugzilla (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Bugzilla_Reports - I havn't used this, but it looks promising)

* Pull in info (commits) from public git repos when a branch has been published for the RFC (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RSS)

* Provide a "standard" comment form as an alternative to the "Talk" page (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticleComments)

If this sounds like something people would be interested in trying out, I'd be happy to spend some time on setting it up.

[...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783