@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 #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 ?

@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".

In T124255#1953892, @RobLa-WMF wrote:

It seems we have two problems to sort out:

1. Do we still want to have a generalized #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).

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

In T124255#1992841, @RobLa-WMF wrote:

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?

In T124255#1992983, @MZMcBride wrote:

In T124255#1992841, @RobLa-WMF wrote:

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

In T124255#1993896, @Aklapper wrote:

In T124255#1992983, @MZMcBride wrote:

In T124255#1992841, @RobLa-WMF wrote:

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).

@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...

In T124255#1993921, @MZMcBride wrote:

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?

In T124255#1994250, @RobLa-WMF wrote:

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.

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.

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.