So, Chad wants to talk about getting rid of actions. Anyone want to discuss any of the other RFCs?
If not, how about we just declare them closed/stalled/abandoned or whatever? -- daniel Am 04.12.2014 22:41, schrieb Daniel Kinzler: > Hi all! > > The Architecture Committee, and especially Tim, has been going through the RFC > backlog over the last moths. Many where discussed at the weekly RFC chat on > Wednesdays, and most of these were resolved. But there are some rather old > RFCs > left, for which it's a bit unclear whether anyone is still interested in > discussing them. > > > So, if you like, go through the list below and tell us whether you would like > to > discuss an RFC, or think it should be abandoned, or amended, or rewritten, or > whatever. > > * > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Refactor_on_File-FileRepo-MediaHandler > > This is a proposal to refactor media handling code. In particular, it proposes > to split backend tasks performed by MediaHandler from UI related tasks. > > * > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages > > This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages. > Perhaps > obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since? > > * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Itemise_protection > > This argues that we should support multiple protections to apply to a page at > once, e.g. indefinite semi-protection and at the same time a short-term full > protection. > > I'd personally like to discuss this as part of a larger refactoring that would > implement protection based on our permission system. Basically, applying > protection would mean overriding which group has which permissions on a given > page. > > * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Regex-based_blacklist > > A proposal to overhaul SpamBlacklist (from 2008). I'd personally be more > interested in integrating this with (a rewrite of) AbuseFilter. We could have > multiple lists, accessible from AbuseFilter rules. > > > There are also some RFCs that relate to organizational issues rather than > MediaWiki features and architecture as such: > > * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Release_notes_automation > > Automatically compose RELEASE-NOTES based on special lines in the git commit > message. I like the idea! > > * > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Distribution_and_deployment > > This looks like a grand design, with very little information about what > exactly > it is supposed to do, and how. It's from 2010 and marked "incomplete". Anyone > interested? > > * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/MediaWiki_Foundation > > This is about creating a governance group for MediaWiki, separate from > Wikimedia. The release management for MediaWiki has since been moved to Mark > Hershberger and Markus Glaser, but I don't know much about their arrangement > with WMF. Is there still demand for a MediaWiki Foundation? > > > Some good ideas here, and some old cruft. I think the most important factor in > deciding what to discuss is to see for which RFCs there are people interested > in > working on them. > > So, please give us some feedback, ideally until Monday, so we can plan the RFC > chat for Wednesday . > > > Cheers, > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
