On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Arthur Richards <arichards(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Chad
<innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm in favor of option (C), mainly because I think that titles are
pointless and
lead to hat collecting and hurt feelings.
Titles are useful for a few things:
* Prospects of future employment
* Clarity around who to talk to about what
I respect Brion, Mark and Tim (and
many others) as architects because they *are* architects, not because we
call them such.
We call them such, because they are such - it is a useful designation.
For RFCs, I've been of the opinion we've
made them entirely too formal.
I'm
glad we're trying to move them forward, but
I've always thought they
should
be based on community consensus, not convincing
an architect.
Generally agreed, although I think this is more of a procedural point and
perhaps orthogonal to roles/titles and what they mean.
I think I can respond to pretty much the whole idea here. I
think titles are pretty much a WMF-thing and shouldn't have
any bearing on MediaWiki :\
-Chad