On the leadership front, let me throw out a
hypothetical: should we
have
MediaWiki 2.0, where we start with an empty repository and build
up? If so, who makes that decision? If not, what is our alternative
vision? Who is going to define it? Is what we have good enough?
Sorry to labour the point, but the way to go about this at present is
pretty straightforward, and it doesn't involve the architecture committee.
You just convince the management (Damon, Erik, etc.) that it is a good
thing to do, get yourself appointed head of the "MediaWiki 2.0" team, hire
a bunch of people who agree with your outlook, get existing engineers
transferred to your team. It's not even hypothetical, we've seen this
pattern in practice.
All it would take is for you to muse out loud on this list "hey, what is up
with 'MediaWiki 2.0'?" (or whatever it is), and we could have a productive
conversation about that. If the argument for its potentially misguided
nature is made with respect and kindness, it will be welcomed.