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 the architects?" problem. Finally, Jeroen is right that MW isn't a pristine example of excellent architecture. Still, this is what we have. While we shouldn't enshrine bad practices for perpetuity, it isn't helpful to pull the rug out from under the existing infrastructure. That is like rewriting MW in Java (http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RewriteMediawikiInJava), Python, or Perl. All that said, I'm not too concerned with the titles the WMF gives people. I am interested in the answers to the questions Quim had, though: 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? > > Do they consider their roles to be part of a MediaWiki centric > meritocracy or a Wikimedia centric meritocracy? > > What is their opinion about moving forward their current team of three? > > Because these three long-term contributors have earned their community > reputation and are clearly smart, the chances are that many of us would > agree with any common answer they would agree with themselves. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
