On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:57:31PM -0800, Erik Moeller wrote:
So how should this role evolve going forward? Some possible paths (you know I like to present options ;-):
The "architect" title, besides the job description that you described, is also a seniority level within the WMF's engineering department. Other organizations do e.g. "sr./staff/sr. staff" and/or numeric levels, we do "associate / (blank) / sr. / (lead) architect". At least that's my understanding of what was presented during the last all-staff and documented on officewiki.
What would happen to this seniority level, if any of the options you presented were to be adopted? You seem to hint that there would be a mapping with option D ("salary increases") but it's not clear to me how direct of a mapping or a prerequisite would that be.
I don't think it'd reasonable to say that we have, as an organization with ~180 FT staff, a peer review process, an HR department, managers, directors & VPs *but* you can't be promoted inside the organization until an open community process says so (or, in case of option A, *at all*). It'd be even more illogical considering that currently no other positions exist where there is such a connection: this hasn't been the case for promotions to Sr. -- and, even in the leadership track, there have been promotions to managers, directors & VPs, with no such open community process.
If that's not the intention, on the other hand, I think it's useful to either hear WMF management's views on that or, if it is up for discussion, have this discussion in parallel with this one.
Whether we like it or not, the existing title has *two* meanings as it is —and my understanding is that the salary aspect came first, too— and I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion for the one without knowing the implications for the other.
Regards, Faidon _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
