On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:30:22PM -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk <kren...@gmail.com> 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.
This is true, although the word "blocked" is perhaps a bit strong. We generally prefer large architectural changes to be discussed with a wider group across the movement, than just us and the person or team that proposed them. An architecture that grows organically without much coordination or cohesion isn't going to be sane, but a process where TechOps are the gatekeeper for every single architectural change is not a healthy one either. Hence our... recommendation to move those discussions into the RfC forum, for the lack of a better venue. That said, there have been important deployments that have bypassed the RfC process entirely (including proposals that resulted into staffed WMF teams) and others that did go via the RfC process, but the resulting feedback wasn't incorporated into the final design (for various reasons). It's also worth noting that the opposite has happened as well: TechOps has blocked the production deployment of features that the MediaWiki ArchComm has approved. The fact that an optional feature is considered good enough for the MediaWiki architecture does not mean that it's appropriate for Wikimedia's complex and demanding production environment -- or for being worked on by the Wikimedia Foundation, for that matter. This is especially true given that ArchComm really has absolutely no say in resourcing and a given feature may not have secured funding (people, hardware etc.) Faidon _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
