Umm, No. -- Bawolff
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:13 PM Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm glad that this problematic change to communications was reverted. > > I would like to suggest that this is the type of change that, when being > planned, should get a design review from a third party before coding > starts, should go through at least one RFC before coding starts, and be > widely communicated before coding starts and again a week or two before > deployment. Involving TechCom might also be appropriate. It appears that > none of those happened here. In terms of process this situation looks to me > like it's inexcusable. > > In the English Wikipedia community, doing something like this would have a > reasonable likelihood of costing an administrator their tools, and I hope > that a similar degree of accountability is enforced in the engineering > community. In particular, I expect engineering supervisors to follow > established technical processes for changes that impact others' workflows, > and if they decide to skip those processes without a compelling reason > (such as a site stability problem) then I hope that they will be held > accountable. Again, from my perspective, the failure to follow process here > is inexcusable. > > Pine > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > _______________________________________________ > 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
