Aye, these are valid points, and there are very real issues with what we have (and don't have) currently. But why do we need a separate organisation to address them? Why can they not be addressed at home, on mw.org? Why hasn't any of this consolidation happened already, before adding another level of complexity? Some comments inline, too, but they're less relevant to my main point/question. On 04/08/14 16:27, Derric Atzrott wrote: I thought that was what the release managers were supposed to be doing. I could be wrong. But is there any reason these would need to be off mw.org etc and out of the existing communities? Why they would need an entirely new community? How would that help? In open source, that's how it works - unless you get lucky or it's fairly generic, you need to code specific pieces you need yourself, or explicitly pay someone else to do it. Developer time isn't free, even if they are donating it. A new organisation would not change that. If you have custom extensions, large scale, and/or like to keep up to date, wikitech-l is pretty much a requirement too, since architectural changes and whatnot are discussed there, and they will affect how you do things even if you don't have a particular stake in the outcome. If you do, however, the only way to ensure your voice is heard is to speak up for yourself, or hire someone directly to do so. This is unfortunate because some discussions (such as the Architecture Summit) can be particularly time-consuming and potentially costly, but my experience there and on various lists (with the WMF, with the Marks, and others) has been that nobody else will speak for you unless they have an explicit reason to do so. Someone else paying them to do so is not such a reason, because people answer to the people who pay them, not random people out on the sidelines. These things can easily be done without a new organisation and community. They just take time and resources regardless of where they wind up. The new organisation and community would also take time and resources. On top of that. Aye, we need better. But it's been a year already with a much more contained scope, and even that has proven far more difficult than those involved expected, with subsequently little progress. In light of this, extending the scope seems highly premature. Hence worrying. I want the better to actually happen. -I