On Jan 22, 2015 6:43 PM, "Brian Wolff" <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2015 2:08 PM, "Tyler Romeo" <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that’s kind of insulting to those of us who don’t work at the
WMF. Just because they hire the “best and the brightest” does not mean
there are not people out there who are just as intelligent, if not more,
but do not or cannot work for the WMF for whatever reason. Restricting
Archcom to WMF employees is just about the stupidest thing you could do for
an open source software project. It defeats the entire purpose of MediaWiki
being open-source.
> >
>
I apologize, i didnt mean to imply non wmf employees are any less bright
than wmf employees.
What i more meant to say (which i didnt express very well) is that the arch
comitte (essentially bdfl by comittee in my understanding. Not just about
architecture but also "vision" for mediawiki) should be composed of leaders
of the community who have been in the mediawiki community a long time, and
have fairly universal respect due to demonstrating "wisdom" over the long
term.
I dont think arch comitte should be composed solely of wmf'ers, i think
selection should be made entirely independent of affiliation (so working
for wmf should not disqualify someone). It just happens that the people who
i think are likely candidates all happen to currently work for the
wmf/wm-de.
This assumes of course that wmf wont force its employees to have certain
opinions. I dont think they have any intention of doing so.
After all, look at the current dev summit attendence list. How many people
on that list:
*has been fairly regularly active devs for at least 5 years
*has demonstrated "wisdom" (however you define that)
*does not currently work for wmf
Otoh perhaps other people have a different conception of what the arch
comitte should "be" or what the criteria for membership should be.
--bawolff