This is basically a separate discussion, so I'm forking the thread.
Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com writes:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Version_check_and_opt-in_site_reporting
Is there a reason you used the main article namespace instead of the "Requests for comment/" pseudo-namespace? Your e-mail subject line says "RFC" and this new page follows a previous RFC ("Opt-in site registration during installation"), which makes the page title seem a bit strange.
This is a spec for a feature that was discussed in an RFC. Maybe I'm missing something about the process, but my impression was that the RFC was accepted and now all that is remaining is implementation.
I think some people view the RFC process much more formally than others. By which I mean that I've always viewed RFCs as basically complements to bug reports. I view them as fairly lightweight scratchpads that can be used to provide context for, refine, and build ideas. This is in contrast with a more structured approach that would typically involve an official submission followed by approval or rejection by a small committee. While the latter is not an unusual model, I personally don't think a strict approach is a well-fitting model for Wikimedia development. :-)
I didn't think it was necessary to put the specification in the RFC namespace since the RFC was accepted.
It's certainly not uncommon to simply throw pages in the main namespace on mediawiki.org. We all do it occasionally. However, doing so makes it less likely for others to find your page. Using the RFC structure (page title prefix, infobox template, categories) makes it marginally more likely that others might find and read your page.
One anti-pattern that I'm concerned with is that RFCs often do not have associated discussion or related pages attached to them. We'll have meetings about ideas or draft separate pages about ideas (on mediawiki.org, on etherpad.wikimedia.org), but the RFC itself and its talk page won't be updated accordingly with notes from related meetings, transcripts of discussions, future action items, etc.
The RFC meeting index is in pretty bad shape currently: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings. I've been thinking that a checklist might help the meetings run more smoothly. This checklist might include items such as announcing the time and topic of the meeting a week in advance, informing the RFC participants of the upcoming discussion, updating the relevant wiki indices when a meeting takes place, posting the minutes to the wiki, and so on.
MZMcBride
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com writes:
While the latter is not an unusual model, I personally don't think a strict approach is a well-fitting model for Wikimedia development. :-)
I don't disagree.
I think the confusion comes in because when I see an RFC process, I see a formal process.
Perhaps I'm the only one confused in this way, but it would help to rename the RFC process to something like "A way to get your ideas reviewed by the community, but totally not necessary. You can always just submit patches and see if it is accepted."
But that is probably too unwieldy.
I didn't think it was necessary to put the specification in the RFC namespace since the RFC was accepted.
It's certainly not uncommon to simply throw pages in the main namespace on mediawiki.org. We all do it occasionally. However, doing so makes it less likely for others to find your page. Using the RFC structure (page title prefix, infobox template, categories) makes it marginally more likely that others might find and read your page.
Wouldn't linking them all together serve the same purpose? That way, if someone finds the RFC and sees links to a specification (regardless of the pseudo namespace) and, hopefully, an implementation, they could get all this information.
One anti-pattern that I'm concerned with is that RFCs often do not have associated discussion or related pages attached to them.
Agreed. I need to spend time linking this all together.
I've been thinking that a checklist might help the meetings run more smoothly.
I'm a big fan of checklists. They provide an easy answer to "I didn't know I was supposed to do that." And they help keep things organized by providing a uniform set of expectations for us.
Mark.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org