On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Option D: We come up with some kind of open process for designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some well-defined criteria (including minimum participation in the RFC process, well-defined domain expertise in certain areas, a track record of constructive engagement, etc.). Organizations like WMF can choose to recognize this role as they see fit (likely according salary increases to individuals who demonstrate successful architectural leadership), but it’s a technical leadership role that’s awarded by Wikimedia’s larger technical community, similar to +2 status.
I think there's room for this to be hybridized with the existing 'Lead %s Architect' titles/roles, whereby the architects architect and the 'leads' steward that process. This seems to me like a sensible way forward. Right now, the architecting/RFC cabal is 'Senior Software Engineers' and others; but not every Senior Software Engineer may want responsibilities of being an 'architect' and the technical distinctions for what makes someone a 'Senior Software Engineer' rather than a 'Software Engineer' are not totally clear.
One thing that we touched on during Tech Days was the notion that titles are independent of roles - perhaps the 'architect' designation is more of a role that can be occupied by Sr Software Engineers, people not on staff, etc, with some clearly defined responsibilities as well as criteria for occupying the role.