Yeah I was there and enjoyed it, thanks again Rob and Quim. There were many good discussions that help us align and structure the thinking. It takes a lot of thought, data and discussion to know what to build, before you make the commitment to build it. At the dev summit many of the teams that influence budget allocation (Ideally a participatory process, not management alone) participated and are active in proposals. The review and cross team discussions on efforts like the Community Wishlist, Dev Summit Proposals and ArchCom are considered by teams on a regular basis and then put into the planning of where resources align.
Wes On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Rob Lanphier <ro...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Greg Grossmeier <g...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > <quote name="Alex Monk" date="2016-01-28" time="19:07:09 +0000"> > > > On 28 January 2016 at 18:53, Rob Lanphier <ro...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > > > > > This is especially true given that ArchComm really has absolutely no > > say > > > > > in resourcing and a given feature may not have secured funding > > (people, > > > > > hardware etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awww....you're mail was so great, and then you ended with this! Are > > you > > > > saying that the only real power in this world belongs to people with > > > > control of the money? > > > > > > > > > He wouldn't be the only one who thinks this. I've seen other people > with > > > similar concerns about whether ArbComm is really in control or whether > > WMF > > > management is, because it's WMF management that actually gets to decide > > > what the paid Wikimedia developers (probably the majority of active > > > developers at this point) work on. I'm inclined to agree with them. > > > > This is similar to the concern/line of reasoning that lead to all of the > > questions about whether or not "WMF senior leadership" will be in active > > attendance at the Dev Summit. > > > > Also, Wes Moran gave the keynote, and didn't say anything to contradict > what I said in my email. Is there something I missed there? > > Generally speaking, the position WMF executive management has taken in the > conversations that I've had is that WMF needs to do a better job listening > to the community. Saying that ArchCom has "no say" basically is taking a > needlessly fatalistic stance of a mindless wage slave. I know y'all well > enough to know that everyone on this thread is intensely mission-driven, > and "mindless" is about as far from a truthful description anyone could > give. > > ArchCom strives to define what we should do, based on listening to the > community and using our collective expertise to craft a vision based on > what we learn. What "WMF senior leadership" (pls define) does with that > information is probably not in scope for this mailing list. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
