On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> 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 are pretty unreliable indicators at the best of times, and of course > can be wildly inconsistent across companies. Yeah, that makes sense to me. How do you propose that core review & planning group be comprised? You say "a handful of folks", do you mean that literally, or are you talking about a comprehensive maintainers list like the one at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers ? If it's a significantly smaller subset, perhaps the current architects should appoint some folks as lieutenants, either Linux-style or on an as-needed basis? > As such, I'd recommend a slightly more formal role for additional "lead > reviewers" or "module owners" in the code review & RFC processes Would that be the same as the "core review & planning group" you refer to above? -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
