Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: >On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Daniel Kinzler < >[email protected]> wrote: >> ** Related discussion about whether new features can require services >> serparate from MediaWiki core. > >That seems like it would be a decent RFC at some point.
Agreed. There are often questions of debug and maintenance support and service level for production services, from the Wikimedia (Foundation) operations team and others. Clarifying the current situation and how it can be modified in the future would be useful and alleviate some of the tensions we've had, in my opinion. The trickiness here is that some of this falls outside of the Architecture committee's purview, particularly as no member of the operations team is on the committee currently (Mark, Faidon, Alexandros, Giuseppe, et al.). In my mind, there's what MediaWiki core and its extensions can do and can require, but the relationship between MediaWiki and Wikimedia cannot be completely sidestepped. With MediaWiki as the platform, there are also questions about what wikimedia.org, mediawiki.org, wikipedia.org, and the various other Wikimedia projects are willing to host and support. RESTBase seems like a decent example of this interplay. Daniel Kinzler wrote: > We have to decide on a MO. I'm sharing this summary here to keep you >posted, and give an opportunity for input. But in the end, the committee >has to decide how it wants to operate. "You know what they call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk." >In the past, the IRC dicussion was the only way to get an RFC discussed >or approved. It depends how strictly you view requests for comments. A decent-size Gerrit changeset that gets accepted and merged in is, in some ways, an RFC, usually with one or more associated Phabricator Maniphest tasks. Sometimes with associated mailing list or on-wiki discussion. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
