On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On [T118932], I proposed a process whereby the RFC
will be reopened
for review if any existing Phabricator user will second the motion. If
you do object, please register your objection on Phabricator.
In the meantime, please do not merge any changes which require PHP 5.4+.
Thanks for your caution here, Tim. A large merge requiring PHP 5.5
might be messy to unravel.
Per our discussion earlier, I filed T120164 [1] proposing to institute
a "last call" period for MediaWiki RfCs. As a result of this, we
might not to use RFC meetings as the final decision on approval.
I filed T120164 with a little hesitancy. I believe that we've made
the RFC process more efficient these past few months, such that it
should be possible to *reverse* an RFC quite simply: write another
RFC. The more process we layer onto each individual RFC, the harder
it is to use them for nimble decision making.
We also discussed having some sort of minimum discussion time on
wikitech-l prior to having the decision-oriented RFC meeting. That
seems sensible, with the caveat that we discussed: we should ask that
those proposing RFCs announce their intention on wikitech-l, directing
the conversation toward the Phab ticket associated with the RFC. The
Phab ticket should be the "discussion of record", whereas wikitech-l
can be "announcement of record" (torturing the "newspaper of record"
metaphor[2])
I think a "last call" period, if done correctly, can be a lightweight
safeguard that can maximize participation and provide for welcome
scrutiny. Done incorrectly, and it's a new way for stubborn defenders
of the status quo to get everyone the hell off of their lawn. ;-)
That's one of the things that worries me about making it too easy to
reopening RFCs. It seems here in the U.S. we were able to repeal the
18th amendment with the 21st amendment. Even with a process as
complicated as amending the U.S. constitution, the results were
reversible. Our process (hopefully) isn't that complicated, but let's
avoid making it more complicated by handwringing over the approval
process.
Rob
[1] <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120164>
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record