I don't personally have much insight into the "board" functionality, because I've never used boards in any setup other then as a simple table, and none of the workflows that involve moving small pieces of paper around make sense to me.

I think a tooltip would clear up some of the confusion around the numbers and what they mean. However, I think the issue described here is less about how confusing it is, and more about how the UX expectation is typically centered around count rather than points. For example, which has the denominator, turns the UI red, etc. So, a good idea! I just think it's separate. :)

By "tooltip" do you mean something that activates when hovering with a mouse?

In T15100#5480, @avivey wrote:

@MBinder_WMF - how much of this will be solved if we just add a tooltip to the [ X | Y / Z ] header?

@MBinder_WMF - how much of this will be solved if we just add a tooltip to the [ X | Y / Z ] header?

FYI, for now I'm still not clear about the use-cases - what this feature will be used for.

I think we can remove the Discussion Needed Tag since at the moment we just need to clarify a bit the feature, before being able to discuss it with more people

Ihihih OK my friend

There is still more creative space to propose a more-useful tags= prefiller for Milestones, but not here.

In T15131#5251, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

As I already stated above, and as stated avivey, I think it could be nice if you share an answer to this question:

Are you sure you're not just trying to pretend Revisions are Tasks?

I don't want to bother you with questions because I like to do so. I'm just asking if you can share more about how you would like to use it, since I'm curious and I don't understand that and you are the only one who can clarify that. For example, maybe I cannot undertand that, since - as I already said - I don't set any Tag to a Diff, but I just set the Tags to the Tasks. This can be useful to maybe understand my point of view and share yours. Feel free to do so in the Task description.

As I already stated above, and as stated avivey, I think it could be nice if you share an answer to this question:

In T15131#5245, @avivey wrote:

This is the kind of features that need a lot of feature-planning before it can be implemented.

• What use-cases would this be designed for?
• Would this be separate from the Tasks workboards or mixed in the same board?
• what would the columns in such a workboard even be?
• are you sure you're not just trying to pretend Revisions are Tasks?

Apart from the analysis paralysis, I think this could be a good candidate for an Extension:

• make the boards code in Core more generic and re-usable
• create an Extension to allow workboards-for-revisions, and quickly iterate on that.

This is the kind of features that need a lot of feature-planning before it can be implemented.

I partially understand this and I see a potential, having said that I probably prefer to just create a Task before a Diff. So, practically, I will never use this feature. Since I never set Tags to Diffs.

In T15178#4880, @avivey wrote:

We need to check: Do we need to list these audio files in some source-listing/contribution list?

We need to check: Do we need to list these audio files in some source-listing/contribution list?

In T15178#4404, @dcog wrote:

@avivey

What is the criteria for determining the intentions of various accounts and banning?

Are there any accounts that hinder notifications and general progress intentionally or is it hard to tell?

In T15178#4406, @dcog wrote:

$1.25USD bet says @valerio.bozzolan or @Cigaryno has some weird connection to Salesforce or Jira or Mantis

What is the criteria for determining the intentions of various accounts and banning?

@MBinder_WMF: Also, under the hood you're saying that, since Wikimedia have multiple teams (multiple Tags) it would be nice to allow to change Task Points without interfering each other,

I've shared two proposals, that are actually requests for comments. I would be glad if some people could give a look and share a comment.

Thanks for the suggestion. Default-to-1 has been mentioned before, and it's not feasible because of teams that need to cross-tag, where some teams use Story Points and some don't (thus, 1 point means something to one team but another thing to another). It's also common for 2 teams to use story points but have different meanings, where 1 point is a totally different scale depending on context.

Having said that, in the meanwhile, as workaround, probably you could just - in few clicks - add "1" as Point in each Task. Then, use the Point Limit just as a "Count Limit" logically. If you would go for this approach, it would be great for you, because then you could ask the Wikimedia Foundation to, simply, assume 1 Task = 1 point by default, and I think that would not be a problem for anyone there. I say this since I want to suggest something quickly feasible for you, without waiting to reach consensus for a breaking change on everyone else in the Phorge world (which in any case maybe deserves a discussion).

I honestly think that adding a new feature called "Count Limit" on Columns would be useful for you, so that you can use Points Limit on Milestones; and Count Limit on Columns (and ignore Point Limit on Columns).

I like your assumption of good faith! I'm a little more cynical about the thoughtfulness of Phab development, and the thoroughness of features deployed. I'll try to follow your example. :)

I don't think the hundreds of installations that use Phorge would want to abandon the way they do their thing so drastically. That is why I suggest to think about something that helps both them and you.

Thanks for your help! Much appreciated that the attention on this is being raised. :)

So, if I have understood correctly,

Hi! Thanks for following up on this. :)

It's been suggested that simply defaulting all tasks to 1 point solves this issue. However, that raises other issues (for instance, some teams may already be using the Story Points field for actual story-pointing).

By the way I have not understood if you are aware of this situation (I was not):

@MBinder_WMF Does it still describes your goals, or have I distorted it too much?