On 11/10/2013 10:51 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 08/11/13 03:40, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Certain people 'own' larger collections
of modules -- like there are
subsystem owners in the linux kernel dev world.
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.
I am skeptical about such a narrow maintainer model too.
Architecture should have a broader perspective than one module at a
time. An important part of the role of architects is driving a consensus
process both in the foundation and also in the larger MediaWiki
community about how modules should interact and maybe also which modules
we need, especially in the back end. They should also make sure that
longer-term global issues are considered before they become pressing.
Like others, I see WMF job titles fairly separate from roles in the
wider MediaWiki community. The goals of the foundation are also not
always the same as those of each member of the community. Wikia for
example might have priorities that differ from somebody running
MediaWiki in an intranet. Because of this, I think it would help to
separate the issue of MediaWiki governance from that of Wikimedia
Foundation roles and architectural leadership within the Wikimedia
Foundation.
Within the Foundation I can see advantages to holding more people
responsible for looking out for architectural issues, just to make sure
it happens and scales. I don't think that it matters much *internally*
whether those are called 'principal engineer' or 'architect'. Lets use
the title whose common definition fits the actual role most accurately.
Gabriel