On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Yuvi Panda yuvipanda@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller erik@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...
Hi Yuvi,
I think that's probably a good observation and comparison, but could you expand on which qualities the RfA process you'd like to avoid?
Everything. Here's a few:
1) Making the standards (even if unwritten) impossibly high 2) Dragging people through the mud 3) Making it a vote and pretending it's not. Either vote, or don't vote. Don't waste everyone's time pretending.
-Chad