Rob Lanphier wrote: >In the ArchCom meeting earlier today, Daniel, Timo, Tim and I discussed >the way we handle RFC assignments in Phabricator. Previously, the RFC >would frequently be assigned to person writing the RFC. As we try out >the Rust model (per T123606 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606>), >and as we try to increase the speed by which RFCs move though the >process, we thought it would make sense to also assign RFCs to shepherds >on the ArchCom. > >We didn't discuss all of the implications of this in the meeting today, >but we think this might help us scale our RFC triage process. What do >you all think?
I guess <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance> tries to answer the question "what's a shepherd?" --- * Nominate a shepherd from a (sub)team to guide an RFC through the process. ** Makes sure that stakeholders are informed. ** Guides the discussion. ** Once the discussion plateaus or stalls & in coordination with the RFC author(s), announces and widely publicizes a "Final Comment Period", which is one week. --- I'm still not really sure what any of this means. The biggest focus seems to be on speed and throughput for the RFC process itself, when the focus should actually be code quality, sustainability, and overall architecture. I found the recent RFC discussion about adding an expiration field to the watchlist table to be very disappointing. My impression was that people were more concerned with quickly pushing through a new feature (with unknown user interface implications) than with solving the deeper underlying problems we have with page lists. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
