Rob Lanphier wrote:
2. RFC use: right now, RFCs aren't used in many
cases where they
should be. Assuming we get into a good flow with RFCs, we can then
reasonably expect people to actually write them when they're making
significant changes to the MediaWiki architecture.
\o/
It may make sense to have a more standardized structure for RFCs. Or at
least some better guidance on how to create an RFC. Sometimes people will
forget to include background information or a clear statement of the
problem and will instead skip straight into proposing solutions.
The relationship between an RFC and Bugzilla could also use consideration.
For example, I prefer that a mature RFC be attached to a tracking bug in
Bugzilla.
1. RFC review: we agreed that RFCs need more diligent
review. Brion
and Tim are planning to pull together the architects for regular
discussions (weekly? TBD) to at least touch all of the outstanding
RFCs, with the goal of clearing the current backlog of RFCs. If y'all
don't see substantial movement on this in a couple of weeks, please
point this out.
There seems to be a disagreement about the purpose of RFCs. Some people
have suggested that RFCs without a clear execution path and "owner" (i.e.,
someone committed to implementing the idea) should be avoided. As pointed
out in the current architecture guidelines, RFCs encompass ideas that:
* someone is hoping others will bring to fruition; or
* that currently lack concrete implementation details.
I don't see this as an issue. I would simply call these draft RFCs (which
the current RFC setup basically does). My concern is that these draft RFCs
may be damaged or destroyed if more stringent requirements are introduced.
While I can appreciate the desire to have a clear, concise, and actionable
RFC for every grand idea, I think this desire misses the wiki and
consensus-building components of RFCs. They're not simply "I want to and
am willing to implement feature X"; requests for comment are often about
soliciting input and feedback about how to approach a particular problem.
Sometimes the solution isn't clear and/or feedback is needed.
The benefits I see to RFCs are that (a) they are more structured,
organized, reference-able, and permanent than mailing lists discussions;
and (b) they are less e-mail-y and reply conversation-y than Bugzilla
comments. (This isn't to say that a well-formed RFC won't include
discussion, of course.) For cases where a developer wants a discrete
action item, that's the scope (broadly) of a bug report, in my opinion.
MZMcBride