@ThurnerRupert@Nealmcb you make very good points about the scope of the forum, which is the root from where the name and the domain are derived.
In this proposal, we are focusing on Movement Strategy because it is in this context where such a tool is clearly needed and we can make a good case for a relatively straightforward solution. Movement Strategy has been discussed mainly on Meta and Telegram in the past years, there is an active community relatively defined, it’s a relatively controlled experiment that we can check whether it is working or not.
If we remove the focus on Movement Strategy, then we fall back to Wikimedia. This can and probably would have bigger implications, the plan and its community review would turn way more complex, the discussion about Meta-Wiki and the wiki projects and the Discords etc would get way more complex…
The good thing about Movement Strategy is that the 10 recommendation already provide a wide scope that allows to bring many interesting topics. Enough to deserve a forum, really. And complex enough for starters.
Adding “2030” to a domain is like planting the seed for a future problem…
w.wiki is conceived as a redirect, right? We can always use it, but the forum still needs to be hosted on a domain-domain.
Thanks @Tgr , another thing that I have learned today.
This domain (and redirect service) is controled by WMF and it should be possible to make this domain easily and use it without much intereference, as current script generates combination of numbers and letters, but never just numbers.
About using a *.w.wiki combination, more opinions are welcome. While it is technically true that the Foundation has the technical means to create i.e. 2030.w.wiki, this doesn’t mean that it is a good idea. I personally think that it is better not to mix the clear function of the Wikimedia URL Shortener with other uses, but if there is a community drive for this option we will consider it, sure.
No, I think a healthy movement should always keep some stream of strategic conversations and collaboration. This is why I don’t think we should tie this forum to 2030 only to create a future problem with redirects etc. I would only user years in domains for olympic games and things like that.
Using forum.strategy.wikimedia.org would require moving away or archiving the current strategy.wikimedia.org and dealing with broken links. Not worth the effort, especially if don’t have much of an idea what to do with the strategy.wikimedia.org (if a subdomain of it is in use, it should have some content).
forum.wikimedia.org is by far the best proposal IMO (although I like discuss.wikimedia.org too) if the technical aspects work out. It’s not as narrow as the current purpose of the site, but if the site works out, it seems obvious that eventually it will assume a wider role; and if it doesn’t work out, who cares? It’s not as if forum.wikimedia.org would be used for something else if not squatted by this site.
If *.wikimedia.org domains can’t be used, either we should set up a catch-all domain for non-wiki Wikimedia things, and then the domain could end up being something like forum.wikimedia-tools.org, or if we get a separate second-level domain just for this site, then wikimedia-forum.org maybe?
I agree seems like some (not quick and easy) work that should be planned mid-term.
I agree discuss.wikimedia.org and/or even shorter just D.Wikimedia.org
(to stand in for Discourse & Discuss without spelling issues)
as best generic name if widely adopted soon enough…
Please no more fake .ORGanization domains…it really deteriorates what .org was supposed to serve and especially as NGO WMF is it should not keep adding to this domain name mess.
For catch all it would be easy to use .link or similar.
I am not convinced over the use of word tool in the domain as it centeres utility aspect, but not interaction of users and content.
That does not seem obvious at all since we tried a wide forum once (at Wikiedia Space), which also was a Discourse instance. I think we should either revive that or keep the focus on this forum as narrow as possible, not allowing for (and be vigilante in moderating) anything else that would have suited in Space.
For what is worth, wikimedia.forum is available, and it would allow for combinations like strategy.wikimedia.forum etc.
Regardless of how good of an idea this would be, “for what is worth” is in my opinion not worth because the price they ask for is exorbitant and the registrar seems to be a business we wouldn’t want to support or be associated with.
I think we could retain the current domain name; however, I think that probably we should create an additional domian, which would simply redicret users to this website. and the additional domain should contain some word such as “wikimedia,” or something that more explicitly relates this back to wikipedia and wikimedia. thanks.
One decision in this process: *.wikimedia.org is not an option.
The Wikimedia Site Reliability Engineering team prefers not to use this domain for any new service (MediaWiki or not) that is not directly under their supervision. For 3rd party services especially, the use of any other domain is usually a better option, or the only one.
There is a new exception or a model for naming on Wikimedia introduced with http://Learn.Wiki
IMHO it is a bit pretentions domain choice for such a tiny learning program,
but maybe useful to inform of adoption of .Wiki beyond just w.Wiki…