Yo, MZ, did you miss the very first question, where I asked whether the
current process is good enough? I'm totally cool with the answer "yeah it
is" (except for numbering, I really want to be able to disambiguate RFCs on
similar topics).
Sounds like you'd like more clarification on problems I'm seeing - sure,
happy to talk about that, I'll see what needs adding. Other people who have
interacted more thoroughly with the RFC process could also jump in. And it
seems reasonable to me to ask whether specific ideas make sense for us.
I've found that sometimes seeing what other similar communities do has
given me ideas for how to improve our own processes -- sometimes we don't
see a certain kind of problem until we see someone else solving it!
But whoa, harsh phrasings, dude. :(
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:47 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
On the RFC Process talk page, I'm presenting
some questions about our RFC
process and suggesting *my* answers:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Process
You've begun a discussion about changes to the process seemingly without
making any attempt to discuss or define deficiencies or problems in the
current process. Your talk page questions have every indication of a
classic pattern in bug reporting, where a user shows up having a bit of
knowledge and a proposed solution, but doesn't describe the symptoms or
the problem or try to explain what he or she is trying to accomplish.
Unsurprisingly, this approach often works very poorly.
As a direct example, you ask "Should we add time limits to any part of the
process?" and then proceed to lay out your personal views on what an
appropriate timeline might look like for RFCs. But taking a step back:
what problem, exactly, are you trying to solve? This doesn't appear to be
addressed anywhere on that talk page.
Almost all of the other sections/questions have the same issue.
On the talk page, you also reference an "architecture review committee"
as though that's a real thing that exists. I'm not sure this is the case.
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l