This is basically a separate discussion, so I'm forking the thread.
Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> writes:
><https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Version_check_and_opt-in_site_reporting>
Is there a reason you used the main article
namespace instead of the
"Requests for comment/" pseudo-namespace? Your e-mail subject line says
"RFC" and this new page follows a previous RFC ("Opt-in site
registration during installation"), which makes the page title seem a
bit strange.
This is a spec for a feature that was discussed in an RFC. Maybe I'm
missing something about the process, but my impression was that the RFC
was accepted and now all that is remaining is implementation.
I think some people view the RFC process much more formally than others.
By which I mean that I've always viewed RFCs as basically complements to
bug reports. I view them as fairly lightweight scratchpads that can be
used to provide context for, refine, and build ideas. This is in contrast
with a more structured approach that would typically involve an official
submission followed by approval or rejection by a small committee. While
the latter is not an unusual model, I personally don't think a strict
approach is a well-fitting model for Wikimedia development. :-)
I didn't think it was necessary to put the
specification in the RFC
namespace since the RFC was accepted.
It's certainly not uncommon to simply throw pages in the main namespace on
mediawiki.org. We all do it occasionally. However, doing so makes it less
likely for others to find your page. Using the RFC structure (page title
prefix, infobox template, categories) makes it marginally more likely that
others might find and read your page.
One anti-pattern that I'm concerned with is that RFCs often do not have
associated discussion or related pages attached to them. We'll have
meetings about ideas or draft separate pages about ideas (on
mediawiki.org, on
etherpad.wikimedia.org), but the RFC itself and its talk
page won't be updated accordingly with notes from related meetings,
transcripts of discussions, future action items, etc.
The RFC meeting index is in pretty bad shape currently:
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings>. I've been thinking
that a checklist might help the meetings run more smoothly. This checklist
might include items such as announcing the time and topic of the meeting a
week in advance, informing the RFC participants of the upcoming discussion,
updating the relevant wiki indices when a meeting takes place, posting the
minutes to the wiki, and so on.
MZMcBride