On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:16 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon Robson wrote: >>This sounds great. I've always felt the RFC process was a bit of a >>black box of no return. I think regular triage of these and >>closing/progressing these is much needed and will be a hugely positive >>thing. > > It's only a "black box of no return" in the sense that creating an RFC on > mediawiki.org won't magically implement a new feature or fix an > outstanding issue. The point of an RFC is to request comments (solicit > feedback) about an idea or brainstorm and draft implementation details of > an idea. Coding an idea is still a separate step, unfortunately.
MZ you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Usually an RFC is made when the way forward is not clear and thus it is impossible (or at least would not be worthwhile spending valuable development time) to implement. It is a black box when there is no outcome due to lack of engagement. I see this new process as bringing much needed guidance from key architects such as but not limited to: * this is clear enough to be implemented * this should never be implemented. * this could be implemented but we need to think about X, Y and Z before doing so. * this is not in our interests * you have not engaged in this RFC for a good 3 months now so I guess you lost interest I hope this makes things clearer to you. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
