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