(side note: cross-linking to T404286: Clarify the status of Structured Content / Structured Data team in case anyone in Reader Growth knows what's happened to the Structured Data team - and, in particular, which team/s (if any) are now stewards of the repos that Structured Data previously stewarded :))

Noting that both the Nostalgia skin & Wikimedia-Portals are both still listed on mw:Developers/Maintainers as being stewarded by the (IIUC now-defunct) Web team. In addition, the new Charts extension is currently listed without a code steward. It would be appreciated if these could be updated as necessary as part of Reader Growth/Reader Experience documenting their code stewardship responsibilities :)

In addition, several references to the Web team in the 'Maintainers', 'Consulted' & 'Informed' columns of that page were changed in September to instead refer to the Reader Experience team. It would be great if these replacements could also be verified by the relevant team(s)!

Posting this comment in both T400607 & T401435, as the tasks for the teams that (AIUI) are the successors to the Web team.
See also this thread on the mw:Maintainers talk page.

Change #1204722 had a related patch set uploaded (by Kimberly Sarabia; author: Kimberly Sarabia):

[mediawiki/extensions/ReaderExperiments@master] Adds contributing.md file

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1204722

Done

• We have a team subpage describing our maintenance levels and responsibilities https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/Reader_Growth/Maintenance_Levels_and_Responsibilities
• The repos we maintain have been updated with a contributors.md file ReaderExperiments patch
• The Mediawiki Maintainers page has been updated to reflect the teams code stewardship and maintenance levels. (Done)
• Various plans to deprecate legacy repos have been developed and are tracked on Phabricator. ?

FYI - We spoke and the other ones are still pending, so I only focused on ReaderExperiments extension updates.

I reviewed the two Mediawiki pages, published edits to Reader Growth's maintenance levels and responsibilities page, and left a comment in ReaderExperiments contributors patch.

Noting that I made a bold change here, in order to use the term 'stewardship' over 'ownership'. Please feel free to revert my edit if desired!

As some feedback re https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/Reader_Growth/Maintenance_Levels_and_Responsibilities#Maintenance_Responsibilities -- looking at that page alone, it seems unclear to me whether the components that don't have an entry in the table's "Current Maintainers" column are stewarded by the Reader Growth Team or not.
(i.e.) On the one hand, they don't have the Reader Growth Team listed in their "Current Maintainers" field; but on the other hand, they're listed on the Reader Growth-specific 'Maintenance Levels and Responsibilities' page (which I guess might imply/indicate that the Reader Growth Team has some level of responsibility/stewardship over them).

In addition, the table lists some (but not all) components that were stewarded by the former Structured Data team. While I appreciate that not all of the SD team's components may now be stewarded by Reader Growth, I wonder if any Reader Growth folks might know the current stewardship status for any of the former SD team's components that don't currently have up-to-date stewardship information? (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers; Ctrl/Cmd+F for T404286)

Also, Codex is considered mananged by Codex Steering Committee and we should clarify how much power Reader Growth is taken to manage Codex. It is not ideal that different pages have conflicting message about maintainers.

Hey @A_smart_kitten and @Bugreporter, thanks for your interest here. I'll answer your questions as best I can below.

In T401435#11377323, @A_smart_kitten wrote:

Noting that I made a bold change here, in order to use the term 'stewardship' over 'ownership'. Please feel free to revert my edit if desired!

I prefer this term as well, thanks!

As some feedback re https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/Reader_Growth/Maintenance_Levels_and_Responsibilities#Maintenance_Responsibilities -- looking at that page alone, it seems unclear to me whether the components that don't have an entry in the table's "Current Maintainers" column are stewarded by the Reader Growth Team or not.
(i.e.) On the one hand, they don't have the Reader Growth Team listed in their "Current Maintainers" field; but on the other hand, they're listed on the Reader Growth-specific 'Maintenance Levels and Responsibilities' page (which I guess might imply/indicate that the Reader Growth Team has some level of responsibility/stewardship over them).

We are still working this out as a team. I guess you could say that everything on that table is on our radar and we're going to try to determine if we have the capacity to maintain it – if not, we will look at other options. Currently we are prioritizing MobileFrontend (it's pretty mission-critical and it's also relevant for some prototypes the team is currently testing).

In addition, the table lists some (but not all) components that were stewarded by the former Structured Data team. While I appreciate that not all of the SD team's components may now be stewarded by Reader Growth, I wonder if any Reader Growth folks might know the current stewardship status for any of the former SD team's components that don't currently have up-to-date stewardship information? (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers; Ctrl/Cmd+F for T404286)

I don't have a great answer here beyond "we're still trying to figure this out ourselves". Some of the former Structured Data projects (MultmediaViewer, MediaSearch) should be pretty straightforward to maintain. Depending on how our Image Browsing prototype is received, we may do more feature work in this area and might even overhaul or consolidate some of these features. The SearchVue extension will likely be de-commissioned and removed at some point in the next few months. UploadWizard (which the SD team maintained) is not on this list – that's probably a better fit for a contributor-focused team. The same is probably true for WikibaseMediaInfo (which is pretty complex under the hood). Finally, the image suggestions pipeline might also better belong with a more contributor-facing team; we're trying to stay focused on work that will improve the reader experience specifically.

In regards to the https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers page specifically, I just added a bullet point to update that page to the task description. I think that maybe the table at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/Reader_Growth/Maintenance_Levels_and_Responsibilities#Maintenance_Responsibilities can be replaced by an auto-generated Category page containing all extension pages that we've added this template to (still a bit of a work in progress, I'm not super fluent in wikitext templates).

Most of the extensions here are going to be marked as "status:pending" for the time being while we figure out what level of commitment is realistic for us (or if someone else is a better fit for maintaining). Until then we will act as maintainers of last resort (high-priority bug fixes and security issues only).

In T401435#11387085, @Bugreporter wrote:

Also, Codex is considered mananged by Codex Steering Committee and we should clarify how much power Reader Growth is taken to manage Codex. It is not ideal that different pages have conflicting message about maintainers.

Codex is a special case. Codex used to be developed by the Design System Team at the foundation (my former team). That team no longer exists, and most of its members are now part of the new Reader Growth or Reader Experience teams. Maintenance of Codex will be a shared effort by both of these teams, guided by the steering committee. I would say that Codex is also a great place for community developers to contribute if they are interested. We also welcome input on Codex phab tasks from the community (it's good to know if a particular bug or feature is especially important to folks, etc).

I can see about updating some of the language on the Codex MW page to that effect.

Change #1204722 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/ReaderExperiments@master] Adds contributing.md file

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1204722

Thank you for your detailed reply @egardner, I appreciate you taking the time! (And it's always nice to see edits like this that add code stewards to a bunch of previously-unstewarded components :])

On a Structured Data team-related note: given what you've said, do you have thoughts about whether it's worth keeping T404286: Clarify the status of Structured Content / Structured Data team open or not?
In theory I feel like that task could potentially be kept open until the stewardship status for all components formerly stewarded by the SD team has been clarified. However, given that you mentioned that you're still trying to figure it out yourselves internally, I wonder if it would actually serve a purpose to keep it open until that happens; or if it might just be worth closing that task, declaring the currently 'unclaimed' former-SD-components as being unstewarded, and leaving any stewardship updates to the usual processes.