On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:53:27AM -0800, Rob Lanphier 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?
That's kinda stretching what I said, doesn't it :) What I'm saying is that there is a (probably unavoidable) disconnect between the ArchComm's and WMF's (or WMDE's, or other orgs' for that matter) decision processes and cadences. The ArchComm isn't in the path of resourcing and generally does not vet RfCs based on whether e.g. they are backed by fully-staffed teams (or even whether the required infrastructure for implementing them exists or can be procured, under our constraints). My understanding is also that as a purely technical body, it doesn't do much of a cost/benefit analysis either. The ArchComm thus tends to judge ideas on their merits and their merits alone -- and not unreasonably so. This effectively means that some of the ArchComm-"approved" ideas may be unimplementable -- at least until some organization or department decides to foot the bill, possibly going via their budgeting process (which can even be on an annual basis), etc. So -- yes, I think there is a particular amount of "power" that the ArchComm doesn't have and cannot really have; I don't think that's a problem per se, but I do think it needs to be recognized and planned for. This could example be to generally limit the scope of the committee (e.g. to architecture direction and not feature planning; or to MediaWiki/software architecture and not infrastructure planning, etc.) and/or by ensuring budget owners are attending and influencing the decision-making process. Faidon _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
