On 11/5/13, Chad <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
+1 (Although also ok with option (A) as I have an immense amount of respect for the people currently in this role and am totally fine with them having fancy titles to recognize all they've done) To be honest I'm kind of unclear what precisely an "architect" does that a non-architect can't. To date the only thing I've seen is be the final judge on RFCs (and basically push the process forward). What other activities are they doing that they need scaling on? I suppose I'm considering these people's general role in guiding MediaWiki development to not be so much part of their architect role since they have been doing that long before they got the title, and in theory (and probably in practise) other people can share in that responsibility. ---- In particular I really don't like the idea of voting people into a formal leadership position. RfA's, votes for +2's are votes because they are associated with technical abilities. While sometimes these positions are also associated with leadership or authority, that's not their primary function (or shouldn't be imo). If no tools are involved, I feel a vote would be a pure popularity contest, which aren't healthy. Leadership is something that someone does, its not something that someone can be appointed into (Although opinions no doubt differ on that). Cheers, --Bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
