Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

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.) > > Awwwyou're mail was so great, and then you ended with

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On 28 January 2016 at 18:53, 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.) > > > > Awwwyou're mail was so great, and then you

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

(I did, of course, mean Ar*ch*Comm there, yes. Thanks to those of you who pointed it out.) On 28 January 2016 at 19:07, Alex Monk wrote: > On 28 January 2016 at 18:53, Rob Lanphier wrote: > >> This is especially true given that ArchComm really has

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

Thanks for articulating this very clearly Faidon! More inline... On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:30:22PM -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote: > > Ultimately, WMF TechOps has correctly blocked a lot of software making it > > to

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

> On 28 January 2016 at 18:53, 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.) > > > > > > > Awwwyou're mail was so

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

> 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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Greg Grossmeier wrote: > > > On 28 January 2016 at 18:53, Rob Lanphier wrote: > > > > > This is especially true given that ArchComm really has absolutely no > say > > > > in resourcing and a given feature may not have

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

> 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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:30:22PM -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk wrote: > > > To clarify - are you saying this ([deploying increasingly excellent > > software on the Wikimedia production cluster in a consensus-oriented > > manner]) is

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On 28 January 2016 at 02:15, Legoktm wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/27/2016 12:46 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > > On 01/25/2016 03:16 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: > >> In the short-term, I believe a non-Wikimedia focused subgroup of ArchCom > >> may make sense. The declining

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

Hi, On 01/27/2016 12:46 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > On 01/25/2016 03:16 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: >> In the short-term, I believe a non-Wikimedia focused subgroup of ArchCom >> may make sense. The declining MediaWiki use outside of Wikimedia has >> been >> a longstanding problem for us, but not

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On 01/25/2016 03:16 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: In the short-term, I believe a non-Wikimedia focused subgroup of ArchCom may make sense. The declining MediaWiki use outside of Wikimedia has been a longstanding problem for us, but not the biggest problem. Are there stats that show a decline? Just

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On 01/25/2016 05:58 PM, Alex Monk wrote: On 25 January 2016 at 20:16, Rob Lanphier wrote: So: forks welcome! Any takers? At this point I'm not sure any non-Wikimedia MediaWiki contributors have the resources to do so. I think WMF employs most of the main MW

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > On 01/22/2016 05:03 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: >> >> The reason I want the rename [in T124255 >> ]: ArchCom is the mechanism >> we hope to ensure > > we build and deploy

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On 01/22/2016 05:03 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: Hi everyone, Those with a keen eye will notice that I filed T124255 , which calls for renaming #MediaWIki-RfCs in Phab to "#ArchCom-RfC". This would be a boring Phab administrivia email if it was simply

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: > So: forks welcome! Any takers? > I would love to fork MediaWiki. Only problem: I'm employed by the WMF. That would make it a "captive fork" and not actually useful from the "MediaWiki Foundation" standpoint. However,

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:06 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: > > > So: forks welcome! Any takers? > > > > I would love to fork MediaWiki. Only problem: I'm employed by the WMF. > That would make it

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

Hi Rob, Matt and All, CC World University and School, potentially planning to develop with MediaWiki in all of Wikipedia's ~ 300 languages, plus the remaining 7,638 other ones, would consider being part of this Architecture Committee subgroup, or forked group. (CC WUaS is like CC

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:06 PM, C. Scott Ananian > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Rob Lanphier > wrote: > > > > > So: forks welcome! Any takers?

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On 25 January 2016 at 20:16, Rob Lanphier wrote: > So: forks welcome! Any takers? At this point I'm not sure any non-Wikimedia MediaWiki contributors have the resources to do so. I think WMF employs most of the main MW developers, and probably does >50% of the

[Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

Hi everyone, Those with a keen eye will notice that I filed T124255 , which calls for renaming #MediaWIki-RfCs in Phab to "#ArchCom-RfC". This would be a boring Phab administrivia email if it was simply that. The reason I want the rename: ArchCom is

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk wrote: > To clarify - are you saying this ([deploying increasingly excellent > software on the Wikimedia production cluster in a consensus-oriented > manner]) is the actual current scope of ArchCom, or are you advocating for > a

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk wrote: > > > To clarify - are you saying this ([deploying increasingly excellent > > software on the Wikimedia production cluster in a consensus-oriented >

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

To clarify - are you saying this is the actual current scope of ArchCom, or are you advocating for a change in scope? On 22 January 2016 at 22:03, Rob Lanphier wrote: > ArchCom is the mechanism we hope to ensure > we build and deploy increasingly excellent software on the

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

Hi Rob, "@Robla-WMF : Can you please clarify the first sentence "We now MediaWiki-RfCs and RfC, which now greatly complicates being able to rename "mediawiki-rfcs" " ... in this https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124255 ? " Cheers, Scott On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Rob Lanphier

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:58 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > Perhaps you could elaborate on the "WMF TechOps" aspect a bit, either here > in email or on the Phab ticket. It seems that some of the tasks currently > tagged as "RfCs" are actually not ArchCom RfCs (they are >