On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)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.
--
Arthur Richards
Software Engineer, Mobile
[[User:Awjrichards]]
IRC: awjr
+1-415-839-6885 x6687