On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To clarify - are you saying this ([deploying increasingly excellent > > software on the Wikimedia production cluster in a consensus-oriented > > manner]) is the actual current scope of ArchCom, or are you advocating > for > > a change in scope? > > > It's my attempt to clarify the scope, but you could argue it's a change. > > Ultimately, WMF TechOps has correctly blocked a lot of software making it > to the Wikimedia cluster that hasn't been through the RFC process, even > though they themselves weren't entirely clear about the scope. Wikimedia > Foundation leadership has an (unfortunately) long history of being unclear > about the scope. I share the blame for this. This is my attempt to > clarify. > Perhaps you could elaborate on the "WMF TechOps" aspect a bit, either here in email or on the Phab ticket. It seems that some of the tasks currently tagged as "RfCs" are actually not ArchCom RfCs (they are WikiData-related?). From your description above, it seems there may also be some not-quite-ArchCom RfCs related to what software gets deployed on our cluster. Perhaps we should try to come up with more fine-grained labels for RfCs, rather than labelling them all "ArchCom RfCs"? I think there was some discussion at the dev summit about trying to associate proposals with the dev summit "working groups", as a way of communicating a broad agenda for each ArchCom meeting. Finer-grained RfC labeling might be part and parcel of this. --scott (who isn't opposed to the proposed relabeling in any way, just thinking perhaps this is an opportunity for better classification) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
