...and #REDIRECT the old pages.
e.g. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Core_Platform_Team/Initiatives should be under https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Platform_Engineering_Team/Initiatives
Also, some product owner information is outdated, e.g. on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Core_Platform_Team/Initiatives/Sunsetting_RESTBase
Furthermore, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers has several entries listing "Core Platform Team" as code stewards.
As WMF fails in its change management this is now obsoleted again by https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Platform_Team
Also, there are a few projects and subprojects to clean up and archive, plus their tasks to triage/re-tag/decline/etc:
@larissagaulia: Does "Radar" imply that the Platform Team does not feel responsible to clean up the docs and tickets of the predecessor(s) of the Platform Team?
Thanks for raising this, @Aklapper . The team(s) are still in the process of figuring out our scope and strategies. We will have more information about what we own and how to organize it once more clarity arises and as strategy is made.
@Mooeypoo: Is there a vague timeframe? (I've seen teams literally spending years "figuring out" due to lack of change management in WMF.) If there is no timeframe (and that's ok with me) then I might just mass-decline tasks and archive wiki pages, as quite often nobody is responsible for dealing with fallouts of WMF reorgs.
To hopefully clarify my previous comment: I understand that there is a bigger problem that relates to change management in WMF, and it is totally fine to say that a current team does not have the capacity to look into past stuff at this time as other tasks are more important.
This task is only to document that things are out of date, and to find out together where we are located in the spectrum between a feeling of "ownership" of those older wiki pages and Phabricator project tags and tasks on the one side, and "anyone is welcome to help bring this task closer to resolution" on the other side.
Would the MediaWiki-Platform-Team be open to accept edits to reflect the current state of things?
Three months later I wonder if either nobody knows any answers or if we are too afraid to simply reply "Our current team does not care and does not have capacity"?
In any case, the silence is quite puzzling.
The "MediaWiki Platform Team" is a small new team with no common staff, or roadmap, and largely no overlap in work scope either.
The successor of the Platform Eng group, if there is any, is the MediaWiki Eng Group. Re-tagging this task as such.
I note that this task does not appear to ask the question that some people might assume it is asking. I believe this task does not ask "Who owns these initiatives today?" or "What is the state of these initiatives?". In particular, because this task predates the July 2023 re-org that discontinued the "Platofrm Engineering" group, by 1.5 years.
Rather, this task appears to be asking about an earlier change, a change not generally seen as a re-org, about when the former Core Platform Team, in early 2020, was rebranded and grown into a wider Platform Engineering group (discontinued in July 2023). This task, I believe, asks essentially whether CPT's high-level intiatives now belong to that wider group.
I assume that, the reason Andre is asking this question, is that the "Core Platform Team" page was changed at the time to become a redirect to a new "Platform Engineering" group page. Thus (imho, accurately) reflecting that this is very much a continuation of the same teams and people, but under a different name.
Yet, the various CPT subpages (such as "Initiatives") remained under the CPT umbrella, with no equivalent under the Platform Engineering page. This made it unclear what the state of things was.
Andre's suggestion in the task description was to rename these subpages, as well, with the assumption that the initiatives would continue, remain accurate, and that the PE group wants a single place to document their initiatives (as opposed to per subteam or per value stream).
As I understand it, neither would eventually be true. The CPT initiatives mostly did not continue beyond 2020, and the PE group mostly created its on-wiki docs anew under the new structure. Having said that, to the best of my knowledge, PE documented very little on-wiki and in public (mostly it seems to have existed in ephemeral Google docs and in propietary management apps used internally by some WMF teams). However, to the extent that it documented work on-wiki, it was created anew under the new PE structure from what I can tell.
As such, I've edited the CPT subpage to mark it as archived. To my knowledge, as outside observer, these pages reflect what CPT did when it was called CPT, but not beyond that.
Thank you Krinkle for having taken the time to clarify things. I highly appreciate it.