On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Arthur Richards <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Chad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm in favor of option (C), mainly because I think that titles are > > pointless and > > lead to hat collecting and hurt feelings. > > > Titles are useful for a few things: > * Prospects of future employment > * Clarity around who to talk to about what > > > I respect Brion, Mark and Tim (and > > many others) as architects because they *are* architects, not because we > > call them such. > > > > We call them such, because they are such - it is a useful designation. > > > > 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. > > > > Generally agreed, although I think this is more of a procedural point and > perhaps orthogonal to roles/titles and what they mean. > > I think I can respond to pretty much the whole idea here. I think titles are pretty much a WMF-thing and shouldn't have any bearing on MediaWiki :\ -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
