On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Yuvi Panda <yuvipanda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller
<erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Option D: We come up with some kind of open
process for
designating/confirming folks as architects, according to some
well-defined criteria (including minimum participation in the RFC
process, well-defined domain expertise in certain areas, a track
record of constructive engagement, etc.). Organizations like WMF can
choose to recognize this role as they see fit (likely according salary
increases to individuals who demonstrate successful architectural
leadership), but it’s a technical leadership role that’s awarded by
Wikimedia’s larger technical community, similar to +2 status.
I like this in theory, though I fear that this will somehow lead to a
state in some ways similar to the enwiki RfA process...
Yeah.
I'm in favor of option (C), mainly because I think that titles are
pointless and
lead to hat collecting and hurt feelings. I respect Brion, Mark and Tim (and
many others) as architects because they *are* architects, not because we
call them such.
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.
-Chad