On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:
To clarify - are you saying this ([deploying increasingly excellent software on the Wikimedia production cluster in a consensus-oriented manner]) is the actual current scope of ArchCom, or are you advocating
for
a change in scope?
It's my attempt to clarify the scope, but you could argue it's a change.
Ultimately, WMF TechOps has correctly blocked a lot of software making it to the Wikimedia cluster that hasn't been through the RFC process, even though they themselves weren't entirely clear about the scope. Wikimedia Foundation leadership has an (unfortunately) long history of being unclear about the scope. I share the blame for this. This is my attempt to clarify.
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.
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.
--scott (who isn't opposed to the proposed relabeling in any way, just thinking perhaps this is an opportunity for better classification)