On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:58 PM, C. Scott Ananian cananian@wikimedia.org wrote:
Perhaps you could elaborate on the "WMF TechOps" aspect a bit, either here in email or on the Phab ticket. It seems that some of the tasks currently tagged as "RfCs" are actually not ArchCom RfCs (they are WikiData-related?). From your description above, it seems there may also be some not-quite-ArchCom RfCs related to what software gets deployed on our cluster.
My "WMF TechOps" term was a slightly inaccurate way of describing the "Ops" column in this table: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/System_administrators
A relevant part to quote: "The Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation legally controls the servers; ultimately the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees is responsible for determining who has *sysadmin* access, and how that responsibility is exercised. However, this power is delegated to various Wikimedia Foundation managers https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors. On a day-to-day basis, various system administrators with root or shell access manage the server clusters."
Perhaps we should try to come up with more fine-grained labels for RfCs, rather than labelling them all "ArchCom RfCs"? I think there was some discussion at the dev summit about trying to associate proposals with the dev summit "working groups", as a way of communicating a broad agenda for each ArchCom meeting. Finer-grained RfC labeling might be part and parcel of this.
I would like one board to monitor for what is actually about to be approved. Per T123606 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606, I would *love* for working groups to assume a lot of the earlier drafting/workflow aspects of things, and Phab labels for that would be great. I think we need to agree on the working groups we want (see T124504 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124504) before we start on the administrative detail of what tags we want.
Rob