Let's improve the Architecture Committee and the architecture RfC process up to a level that we consider good.

Definition of the problem

According to https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/ArchCom , the purpose of the ArchCom is

• Act as advisors: Answer questions / react to RFCs related to the software and system architecture of MediaWiki.
• Act as gate keepers: Veto bad code / other architecture decisions (in code review as well as higher level planning)
• Act as inspectors: identify and document architectural problems
• Act as leaders: define guidelines, goals and activities to improve MediaWiki architecture

Although there has been a lot of progress since the creation of the ArchCom, we still need to ensure that this aim becomes a consolidated reality.

Goals

• Set this group with the best chances of success.
  • The first three are process issues
  • About the fourth, current c'tee tends to be reactive, not setting priorities or driving RfCs to implementation.
• Document the process describing how these happen
  • (This needs to be synced with https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee )
• We need to define the actions that need doing.
• We need real owners of actions.

Docs that need revision

There is a bunch of pages, and we need to assure that we have a setup that makes sense. The following docs might be good, or they might need updating, cleaning, purge...

• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Process
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architects (Architecture_process redirects here) vs https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:MediaWiki_architecture
• https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/52/
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RFC_meetings (redirect to Architecture meetings)
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_guidelines ?
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RFC_metadata

See also http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/550043 (is there something to be extracted?)

In an ideal situation...

• Team Practices Group would help with the process. But they are currently swamped.
• Engineering Community Team would help with documentation, and also in the definition of community processes in the short term.
• Improving private architecture meeting might help the public IRC meetings as a side effect
• New members will change committee behavior, strong people on the inside.

Here and now

• The ownership of this task should be @brion's
  • @Spage will propose the switch for tomorrow's meeting
  • SPage will bring up this task and its subtasks at next Architecture Committee meeting, encourage discussion, and record the agreed approach on the ^wiki pages above.

Success: what is says, "Fix the architecture RfC process"

How ECT can help during April-June 2015:

• @Spage to help with documentation and a bit of scrummaster-ish support.
• @Qgil to help Brion and c'tee agree on governance model by Lyon

ECT can try to help cleaning the current situation, but we need a definition of done for this quarter, Then, it should be more Team Practices Group's job.

@RobLa notes that currently there is no budget ask for this. Should we get one by Monday, 30 March? Kevin feels like this is 1/4 TPG...