Support - First choice. This is what the rest of the world calls it. (My 100th edit to meta! It only took five and a half years...) Levivich (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I object to and boycott this voting because giving each voter only one ballot to cast with no runoff means the most favored candidate can end up in second place and the result will not be reflective of the participants' opinion. Nardog (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The three options are all bad (the Feature/Suggestions ones a little less but those aren't only features or mere suggestions) and the problem is not the name of the things but the long grave neglect of technical development / implementation of these wishes by the WMF as pointed out here, here and elsewhere. Technical needs survey is the term used on Commons and "Technical requests" may also be good. Instead of thinking long about which name may or may not be better just implement or facilitate implementation of the supported wishes. --Prototyperspective (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing this, @Prototyperspective. We're working hard to put a better system in place for WMF to respond to and address needs addressed by the communities. This new system should better align technical needs to our annual planning process and thus implement more wishes. Ultimately, CommTech and the Foundation will be measured by the impact of our work. As we began implementing this new system, we believed it was (and is) time for a new name. Once we launch the new system, I hope you'll start seeing the impact you've longed for. JWheeler-WMF (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. (Nevertheless, I don't think the three suggested names are fitting and would suggest "Technical requests" (features, bugfixes, tools, meta, config-/code-changes).) Prototyperspective (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer something along the lines of Community Feature Priorities. As an aside, it's hard to look at this and wonder if we could've gotten one more wishlist item instead of a rebranding initiative... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input @Rhododendrites. The process to rebrand the Wishlist has no impact on WMF's ability to address Wishlist items, as stakeholders in Movement Comms, Product, and Brand have engaged here, and not engineers.
As far as progress on Wishlist items, CommTech is building out a new form to accept wishes. This is a tradeoff against progress on individual wishes. We made this tradeoff because the previous process was built on a series of patches, and with the Foundation's focus on making the Wishlist even more successful (ie, achieve more), we need a more resilient and inclusive wish intake process. JWheeler-WMF (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I like "Community Wish List." That's my choice. But, of course, that's overly descriptive and not nearly bureaucractic-sounding enough to ever suffice. Carrite (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd like to see the phrase "community priorities", since this is a prioritization process, not just a list of feature requests. "Community Ideas Exchange" and "Community Suggestions Portal" are too vague and don't give a sense of the scope of topics relevant for the wishlist. Recommendations for WMF grants? Proposals for new projects like WikiTravel? Based on the scope evident in the survey's current selected projects, I would suggest something more descriptive like "Community Priorities for Technical Improvements". Daask (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the current name a lot. It's an institution. For me, the first and third suggestions are no-gos, as they are overly vague and don't give a sense of priority. The second one may miss wishes which are not a new feature, such as improving current features and possibly fixing bugs. I like the suggestions above in the direction of "technical community priorities", which captures the process well. Femke (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If you want to rename it, by all means rename it, but I object to using voting as a way to legitimize a rename that didn't really come from the community. More generally I am concerned that the direction this rebrand process is going in effectively strips the community of its voice and power. Bawolff (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
Is this meant to be a literal vote, as in counting the number of supporters of each choice? Or is it going to be consensus driven, as we expect for most dicussions? RudolfRed (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is very confusing that trying to edit the Voting section does not take you to the page with the votes. Why do we need a separate page with a button to get there? RudolfRed (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – STei (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) (sample vote)
