On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Rob Lanphier <ro...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Yuvi Panda <yuvipa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> 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 areas, a track > > > record of constructive engagement, etc.). Organizations like WMF can > > > choose to recognize this role as they see fit (likely according salary > > > increases to individuals who demonstrate successful architectural > > > leadership), but it’s a technical leadership role that’s awarded by > > > Wikimedia’s larger technical community, similar to +2 status. > > > > I like this in theory, though I fear that this will somehow lead to a > > state in some ways similar to the enwiki RfA process... > > > > Hi Yuvi, > > 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? > > Everything. Here's a few: 1) Making the standards (even if unwritten) impossibly high 2) Dragging people through the mud 3) Making it a vote and pretending it's not. Either vote, or don't vote. Don't waste everyone's time pretending. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
