On 08/11/13 03:40, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Basically, every major piece of WP should have a
module owner. For
example, gwicke owns Parsoid. Maybe at some point he gets bored and moves
on to something else, and names someone else the module owner. (That
shouldn't involve any adjustment to WMF salary!)
Certain people 'own' larger collections of modules -- like there are
subsystem owners in the linux kernel dev world. For example, ideally there
should be someone who owns "the WMF deployed mediawiki" who can weigh in on
changes which affect the configuration and collection of modules which
actually constitute wikipedia. And then there are the big three
("architects") who are really just the top-level module owners (the Linus
Torvalds, if you will).
My concern with this kind of maintainer model is that RFC review would
tend to be narrower -- a consensus of members of a single WMF team
rather than a consensus of all relevant experts.
The module maintainer is not necessarily going to know all of the
potential relevant experts from across the organisation and the
community. Someone who has experience in soliciting comments across a
wide range of RFCs is more likely to choose a wide range of commenters
for any given proposal.
-- Tim Starling