On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Yuvi Panda <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Option D: We come up with some kind of open process for > > designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some > > well-defined criteria (including minimum participation in the RFC > > process, well-defined domain expertise in certain areas, a track > > record of constructive engagement, etc.). Organizations like WMF can > > choose to recognize this role as they see fit (likely according salary > > increases to individuals who demonstrate successful architectural > > leadership), but it’s a technical leadership role that’s awarded by > > Wikimedia’s larger technical community, similar to +2 status. > > I like this in theory, though I fear that this will somehow lead to a > state in some ways similar to the enwiki RfA process... > Yeah. I'm in favor of option (C), mainly because I think that titles are pointless and lead to hat collecting and hurt feelings. I respect Brion, Mark and Tim (and many others) as architects because they *are* architects, not because we call them such. For RFCs, I've been of the opinion we've made them entirely too formal. I'm glad we're trying to move them forward, but I've always thought they should be based on community consensus, not convincing an architect. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
