Page MenuHomePhabricator

Rename #MediaWiki-RFCs to #ArchCom-RFC
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

We now have two Phab projects: #mediawiki-rfcs and TechCom-RFC. This greatly complicates being able to rename "mediawiki-rfcs". TechCom's scope is broader than MediaWiki. We renamed MediaWiki-Developer-Summit-2015 to be Wikimedia-Developer-Summit-2016 as a scope clarification, and I think a similar renaming is in order for this project/tag.

Conversations like the one we had earlier today (E135) are more difficult because of the scope implied by this naming. I would like to:

I may be bold and just do this in the not too distant future, but I would be happy if someone else took ownership of cleaning this up.

Event Timeline

RobLa-WMF raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
RobLa-WMF updated the task description. (Show Details)
RobLa-WMF added subscribers: RobLa-WMF, Qgil, TechCom and 2 others.
Restricted Application added a subscriber: StudiesWorld. · View Herald TranscriptJan 21 2016, 12:14 AM

@RobLa-WMF: The RfCs that the RfC tag is supposed to track are not the arch-com ones. Those are for example RfCs within my team. So I don't think we want to merge those because the RfCs within my team are not of interest for arch-com.

Thanks for the clarification Lydia_Pintscher! How would you propose we disambiguate this more clearly?

I am fine with renaming it to something less general if that helps. I don't have a good idea for a name at the moment.

It seems we have two problems to sort out:

  1. Do we still want to have a generalized TechCom-RFC tag, or should we only have area specific tags (e.g. TechCom-RFC)?
  2. How should Lydia's team tag their RFCs? Suggestion: #Wikidata-RFC

@RobLa-WMF : Can you please clarify the first sentence "We now MediaWiki-RfCs and RfC, which now greatly complicates being able to rename "mediawiki-rfcs" " ... in this https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124255 ?

RobLa-WMF set Security to None.

@Scott_WUaS: thanks for pointing out the thinko. I've hopefully clarified it. It now reads:

We now have two Phab projects: MediaWiki-RfCs and RfC. This greatly complicates being able to rename "mediawiki-rfcs".

It seems we have two problems to sort out:

  1. Do we still want to have a generalized TechCom-RFC tag, or should we only have area specific tags (e.g. TechCom-RFC)?

Having only specific subteam RFCs is consistent with the Governance (Rust-style governance) RFC.

So, there could be Wikidata-RFC, Frontend-RFC (or whatever), etc., and then ArchCom-RFC (the "ArchCom" team here might be equivalent to the "core" Rust team)

So I suggest deprecating general RFC tag.

CC World University and School, potentially planning to develop with MediaWiki in all of Wikipedia's ~ 300 languages, plus the remaining 7,638 other ones, would consider being part of this Architecture Committee subgroup, or forked group (re the [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom email thread).

RobLa-WMF moved this task from P1: Define to Old on the TechCom-RFC board.Feb 3 2016, 5:05 AM

We agreed to do this in the TechCom meeting 2016-01-27. I just haven't had the chance to do it yet.

We agreed to do this in the TechCom meeting 2016-01-27. I just haven't had the chance to do it yet.

Who's we?

We agreed to do this in the TechCom meeting 2016-01-27. I just haven't had the chance to do it yet.

Who's we?

See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee#Members
Also see https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/engineering/2016-January/000040.html

We agreed to do this in the TechCom meeting 2016-01-27. I just haven't had the chance to do it yet.

Who's we?

See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee#Members

I don't see RobLa listed there. Do you?

I found https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee/Minutes, but I don't see any minutes for 2016-01-27 (or any for 2016, actually).

daniel added a subscriber: daniel.Feb 3 2016, 4:03 PM

@MZMcBride "We" is the Architecture Committee. RobLa is not technically a member of the ArchCom, he's our "facilitator" (or something), and usually chairs the meetings. But yes, that should be clarified on the ArchCom page. The page should probably also clarify how the ArchCom communicates. Lately, we have moved away from publishing minutes, towards communicating decisions, usually via Phabricator or wikitech-l. Updating that page actually on our list, but keeps getting pushed back...

I found https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee/Minutes, but I don't see any minutes for 2016-01-27 (or any for 2016, actually).

Fair enough. There's a long story about why that is, but I'll boil it down to efficiency.

As for this specific rename, the "we" was admittedly me. I cajoled the ArchCom into making a quick, low risk decision. Do you think we should rename this again?

RobLa-WMF closed this task as Resolved.Feb 3 2016, 7:12 PM

@MZMcBride "We" is the Architecture Committee. RobLa is not technically a member of the ArchCom, he's our "facilitator" (or something), and usually chairs the meetings. But yes, that should be clarified on the ArchCom page.

Clarification made.

Also, I renamed the project, so it's done from my perspective.

As for this specific rename, the "we" was admittedly me. I cajoled the ArchCom into making a quick, low risk decision. Do you think we should rename this again?

I don't really care about the names of Phabricator tags/projects.

If you're going to speak on behalf of a group, please make that clear. Ideally these types of discussions wouldn't be private (why would they be?), but if you and S are going to act as meeting secretaries during private sessions, publishing notes somewhere (findable!) is reasonable. There can be important distinctions between "nobody cared" or "two people strongly objected, but three people supported" when an issue or question is raised. It would be very helpful, at least to me, for others to be in the practice of providing that additional context and nuance when decisions are, uhh, handed down from on high.

I think the three of us in this discussion are actually mostly in agreement about all of this. Thank you for the wiki edit and replies here.

TTO updated the task description. (Show Details)Feb 4 2016, 9:35 AM

MZMcBride, RobLa and All, Why not specifically make these ArchCom discussions "open," in the manner of friends, and for scaling purposes, with "minuting" of the Architecture Committee meetings' decisions occurring here in Phabricator, with Rob as current ArchCom facilitator, and with shepherds (to move the decision process along in a timely way, emerging for this and related groups)? I think this "process" will scale well. (And discussions will of course occur in private, but it's the open ArchCom meetings - are these on Wednesdays at 2pm PT - where the Phabricator decisions are minuted for process's sake). Thank you.

daniel added a comment.Feb 4 2016, 6:20 PM

I actually like the idea of using the IRC session to give a brief summary of the ArchCom meeting and decisions. That means the summary is automatically logged, and people can ask questions. Maybe we can allot 5 to 10 minutes of the IRC meeting to that.

@daniel: ooh, yes, thank you! Yeah, I think that would be a good addition to the IRC meetings. That's a relatively easy incremental improvement to implement.