On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Quim Gil <q...@wikimedia.org> 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 additional hierarchical "modules" as needed to fill in the gap between the big three and an individual extension owner. In the process we might also have to decide who owns, (for example), "Special Pages". Should we recruit someone, fold that into the maintainership of "mediawiki as a whole", or is it not really a separate module. The former option encourages more granular maintainer ship, the middle option devolves into the current "big 3 architect" system in the limit case, and the latter option is a technical finding. 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 reviewers. One could imagine that something like that might scale: the last three committers are the defacto owners of a given component, if there aren't other owners given. This would work well with a more hierarchical system. I might end up as the defacto owner of the SpecialRedirect page, but changes could also be reviewed by other owners up the chain: the owner of SpecialPages as a whole (no current owner), ..., the owner(s) of mediawiki as a whole, the owners of mediawiki-as-deployed-by-WMF, ..., the big three. We haven't really thought much about the hierarchy and intermediate owners here; I guess that's where my proposal differs most from the flat list at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers . --scott -- (http://cscott.net) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
