On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> My concern with this kind of maintainer model is that RFC review would
> tend to be narrower -- a consensus of members of a single WMF team
> rather than a consensus of all relevant experts.
>
I'd also like to point out that we can still impl
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 08/11/13 03:40, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > Basically, every major piece of WP should have a module owner.
>
[...]
> > Certain people 'own' larger collections of modules -- like there are
> > subsystem owners in the linux kernel dev world.
On 11/10/2013 10:51 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 08/11/13 03:40, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> Certain people 'own' larger collections of modules -- like there are
>> subsystem owners in the linux kernel dev world.
>
> My concern with this kind of maintainer model is that RFC review would
> tend to b
On 11/08/2013 12:00 PM, Bryan Davis wrote:
I think the second is more consistent with the tenor of the discussion
here so far, because in the first case, the coupling between job
titles and responsibilities in our community might be too tight to
maintain flexibility and openness. It would also re
On 11/06/2013 06:35 AM, Antoine Musso wrote:
I would have a look at the way IETF is handling its RFC process. I wrote
about it back in July in the thread "proposed RFC process":
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-July/070241.html
The IETF does have a long, successful track
On 11/06/2013 05:50 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
What you are proposing is that we determine who is infallible and
benevolent, so we can style them dictators for life. This kind of
wide-eyed earnestness about the term "architecture" is very dangerous.
It misses the essential irony, and in so doing it ri
On 08/11/13 03:40, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Basically, every major piece of WP should have a module owner. For
> example, gwicke owns Parsoid. Maybe at some point he gets bored and moves
> on to something else, and names someone else the module owner. (That
> shouldn't involve any adjustment to
On 06/11/13 12:57, Erik Moeller wrote:
> However, Brion, Tim and Mark are not infinitely scalable, nor are they
> immortal (except in our hearts). They can’t be in every conversation,
> know every part of Wikimedia’s technical ecosystem, review every RFC,
> etc.
Well, we can't be in every convers
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
...
> in March 2011 and June 2011, Brion Vibber, Mark Bergsma and Tim
> Starling were announced as Lead Software Architect, Lead Operations
> Architect and Lead Platform Architect of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> respectively.
> At WMF, this has i
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Bryan Davis wrote:
> I think that picking the title "Senior Software Engineer II" may be
> underselling the value of this highest tier to the outside world. In
> my recent job search I saw a bit of the tech ladder side of the org
> chart for several companies. Most
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2) We don't award Architect as a job title beyond the original
> triumvirate, but we _do_ introduce a Senior Software Engineer II (same
> band as the Architect band), and would define some criteria for that,
> among which proven architectural
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> What might have some degree of traction, based on the
> discussion, is to have some blessed delegation coming from the
> original triumvirate of architects.
+1
I'd personally like to see this kept flexible, so that it's relatively easy
to b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/07/2013 08:55 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
>
>> Is your proposal different from
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers ?
>>
>
> No, it builds on it. The current wiki page isn
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Faidon,
great questions.
> The "architect" title, besides the job description that you described, is
> also a seniority level within the WMF's engineering department. Other
> organizations do e.g. "sr./staff/sr. staff" and/or numeric lev
Le 07/11/13 17:55, C. Scott Ananian a écrit :
> Note that there are also quasi-technical solutions here: if I want to get a
> patch reviewed for a particular SpecialPage, for instance, usually I will
> do a git log on that piece of the source and assign the last three
> committers to the file as re
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
> Is your proposal different from
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers ?
>
No, it builds on it. The current wiki page isn't official, nor complete.
I'm suggesting that we embrace it officially, and that we further add
addition
On 11/07/2013 08:40 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> I thought it might be useful to have a hierarchy
> of 'architects'. If there are 20 architects, then maybe it doesn't seem
> like such a big deal. (And maybe they shouldn't be called 'architects' but
> rather 'module owners'.)
>
> Basically, ever
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> * However, I would consider avoiding using the term "Architect" for its
> members as it's easily conflated with existing WMF job titles. I think job
> titles are pretty unreliable indicators at the best of times, and of course
> can be wildly
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:57:31PM -0800, Erik Moeller wrote:
So how should this role evolve going forward? Some possible paths (you
know I like to present options ;-):
The "architect" title, besides the job description that you described,
is also a seniority level within the WMF's engineering
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> * It makes sense to have a handful of folks as a core review & planning
> group.
>
> * However, I would consider avoiding using the term "Architect" for its
> members as it's easily conflated with existing WMF job titles. I think job
> titles
On 11/06/2013 12:30 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>>> Do they consider their roles to be part of a MediaWiki centric
>>> meritocracy or a Wikimedia centric meritocracy?
(...)
> I also caution against use of the "meritocracy" term, as I think it's
> pretty loaded and has a history of enabling stagnatio
On 11/06/2013 02:33 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
> > Do the three architects consider themselves assuming this role as WMF
> > employees or as community members?
>
For myself -- I've been a Wikipedia & MediaWiki community contributor since
long before there was a Wikimedia Foundation. I still think of WMF
Thank you, Quim, for trying to focus this discussion on the MediaWiki
community instead of just the WMF. This is a very valuable thing.
That, with Brion's "do-it-ocracy" (which assumes, I think, that we're
encouraging and enabling more people to "do it") are excellent
approaches to this "who are
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> My brief thoughts:
>
> * It makes sense to have a handful of folks as a core review & planning
> group.
>
>
Agreed.
> * However, I would consider avoiding using the term "Architect" for its
> members as it's easily conflated with existing WM
Hey,
> * MediaWiki is not a shining beacon of good architecture. I'd argue it
> > should mostly be considered as a big blob of generally badly designed
> > legacy code
>
> This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
>
It does, as it implies serious mistakes where made in the past, and that
o
My brief thoughts:
* It makes sense to have a handful of folks as a core review & planning
group.
* However, I would consider avoiding using the term "Architect" for its
members as it's easily conflated with existing WMF job titles. I think job
titles are pretty unreliable indicators at the best
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
> * MediaWiki is not a shining beacon of good architecture. I'd argue it
> should mostly be considered as a big blob of generally badly designed
> legacy code
>
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
-Chad
__
Hey,
Some thoughts, in no particular order:
* Titles do not reflect ability, they reflect how titles are assigned in an
organization
* Some people see titles such as "software architect" as a stamp of
superiority
* Some people abuse their titles
* We would indeed be advised to keep the distinctio
Le 06/11/13 02:57, Erik Moeller a écrit :
> tl;dr: I’d appreciate thoughts from the Wikimedia technical community
> at large whether the designation of individual technical contributors
> as "architects" should be meaningful, and if so, how to expand it
> beyond the original triumvirate (Brion, Tim
Thinking about this, I am somewhat afraid that any public voting process
may become more similar to Requests for Bureaucratship (RfB).
For those not familiar with this process, it's an even more brutal thing
than RfA (Requests for Adminship). Bureaucrats are socially the people that
close the RfAs
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> tl;dr: I’d appreciate thoughts from the Wikimedia technical community
> at large whether the designation of individual technical contributors
> as "architects" should be meaningful, and if so, how to expand it
> beyond the original triumvirate
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Nathan Larson wrote:
> > (snip)
> > I actually like the formalism a bit - since it at least makes sure
> > that they don't rot. BDFLs are good.
> >
> >
> Does it keep them from rotting? It looks like of the 60 RFCs in draft or in
> discussion, 24 were last updated b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2013 05:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> tl;dr: I’d appreciate thoughts from the Wikimedia technical community
> at large whether the designation of individual technical contributors
> as "architects" should be meaningful, and if so, how to expand
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Yuvi Panda wrote:
> (snip)
> I actually like the formalism a bit - since it at least makes sure
> that they don't rot. BDFLs are good.
>
>
Does it keep them from rotting? It looks like of the 60 RFCs in draft or in
discussion, 24 were last updated before 2013.
http
On 11/5/13, Chad wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Yuvi Panda wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> > Option D: We come up with some kind of open process for
>> > designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some
>> > well-defined criteria (includi
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Chad wrote:
> I think I can respond to pretty much the whole idea here. I
> think titles are pretty much a WMF-thing and shouldn't have
> any bearing on MediaWiki :\
Just to be clear on how they currently do, in the relatively recently
drafted (and still draft sta
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> I think that's probably a good observation and comparison, but could you
> expand on which qualities the RfA process you'd like to avoid?
The primary things I had in mind were:
- 'Positioning', which I guess is people going 'I am going to be
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Yuvi Panda wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > > Option D: We come up with some kind of open process for
> > > designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some
> >
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Arthur Richards wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Chad wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of option (C), mainly because I think that titles are
> > pointless and
> > lead to hat collecting and hurt feelings.
>
>
> Titles are useful for a few things:
> * Prospects o
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of option (C), mainly because I think that titles are
> pointless and
> lead to hat collecting and hurt feelings.
Titles are useful for a few things:
* Prospects of future employment
* Clarity around who to talk to about what
> I res
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> Option D: We come up with some kind of open process for
> designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some
> well-defined criteria (including minimum participation in the RFC
> process, well-defined domain expertise in certain a
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Chad wrote:
> I'm in favor of option (C), mainly because I think that titles are pointless
> and
> lead to hat collecting and hurt feelings. I respect Brion, Mark and Tim (and
> many others) as architects because they *are* architects, not because we
> call them suc
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Yuvi Panda wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Option D: We come up with some kind of open process for
> > designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some
> > well-defined criteria (including minimum participation in the
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Yuvi Panda wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Option D: We come up with some kind of open process for
> > designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some
> > well-defined criteria (including minimum participation in the
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Option D: We come up with some kind of open process for
> designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some
> well-defined criteria (including minimum participation in the RFC
> process, well-defined domain expertise in certain area
45 matches
Mail list logo
