MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> writes:
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 don't disagree.
I think the confusion comes in because when I see an RFC process, I see
a formal process.
Perhaps I'm the only one confused in this way, but it would help to
rename the RFC process to something like "A way to get your ideas
reviewed by the community, but totally not necessary. You can always
just submit patches and see if it is accepted."
But that is probably too unwieldy.
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.
Wouldn't linking them all together serve the same purpose? That way, if
someone finds the RFC and sees links to a specification (regardless of
the pseudo namespace) and, hopefully, an implementation, they could get
all this information.
One anti-pattern that I'm concerned with is that
RFCs often do not have
associated discussion or related pages attached to them.
Agreed. I need to spend time linking this all together.
I've been thinking that a checklist might help the
meetings run more
smoothly.
I'm a big fan of checklists. They provide an easy answer to "I didn't
know I was supposed to do that." And they help keep things organized by
providing a uniform set of expectations for us.
Mark.
--
Mark A. Hershberger
NicheWork LLC
717-271-1084