On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk
<krenair(a)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.
Perhaps you could elaborate on the "WMF TechOps" aspect a bit, either here
in email or on the Phab ticket. It seems that some of the tasks currently
tagged as "RfCs" are actually not ArchCom RfCs (they are
WikiData-related?). From your description above, it seems there may also
be some not-quite-ArchCom RfCs related to what software gets deployed on
our cluster.
Perhaps we should try to come up with more fine-grained labels for RfCs,
rather than labelling them all "ArchCom RfCs"? I think there was some
discussion at the dev summit about trying to associate proposals with the
dev summit "working groups", as a way of communicating a broad agenda for
each ArchCom meeting. Finer-grained RfC labeling might be part and parcel
of this.
--scott (who isn't opposed to the proposed relabeling in any way, just
thinking perhaps this is an opportunity for better classification)