ArchCom open discussion

RobLa-WMF joined the room.
RobLa-WMF created this room.

This is a place to discuss items tagged with TechCom-RFC.

RobLa-WMF added a participant: brion.
RobLa-WMF added a participant: daniel.
RobLa-WMF added a participant: ksmith.
May 25th, 2016

FYI: This room is publicly logged/readable via the same url - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/conpherence/425/.

Danny_B joined the room.

@Krinkle - thanks for posting that disclaimer. Yup, that's by design. I announced this Conpherence on wikitech-l. We're likely to have many people outside of TechCom reading here. Also, today's meeting E187 meeting will still be on the Freenode #wikimedia-office channel; we'll just use this for overflow.

I'm afraid that realtime chat won't work here, this is rather like talk page on wikis...

Scott_WUaS joined the room.

Thanks, RobLa!

May 27th, 2016

What I just posted on E198: RFC Meeting: Security is all of our jobs (2016-06-01, #wikimedia-office) in recapping what we discussed earlier this week:

Candidates discussed: T91137, T351, T96384, T382, T75953, T135963
The plan was to continue the conversation on Z425, and attempt to decide something there.

Jun 1st, 2016
RobLa-WMF updated the room image.

We didn't get the level of discussion here that I was hoping for, but that's ok. I think the theme this week will be security, with a couple of RFCs being lead candidates for discussion:

Jun 8th, 2016

Here's the tail end of the discussion E187 that I had hoped to continue here:

21:46:04 <TimStarling> with 15 minutes left, should we soon talk about scheduling for next week?
21:46:05 <cscott> at the time in the flush of early excitement about the rfc process i may have abused it to try to settle impasses ;)
21:46:19 <cscott> i think my rfcs are done, right?
21:46:38 <robla> cscott: yup
21:46:38 <TimStarling> cscott: yes
21:47:17 <cscott> recapping from my perspective only, i think prototyping {{#lang}} (or whatever) was the only thing that rose to 'high' priority?
21:47:24 <robla> TimStarling: good point. So....we didn't hit paydirt on anything we talked about yet as a candidate for next week
21:47:56 <robla> anyone have a nomination for next week?
21:48:05 <cscott> T91137?
21:48:12 <cscott> although i'd like to be there for that one as well, i guess.
21:48:37 <cscott> T351 is mine too, i think, don't know why Qgil's name is associated.
21:48:56 <cscott> what about T96384? that seems like it should be straightforward perhaps?
21:49:03 <TimStarling> the low-numbered RFCs were copied from the wiki by qgil
21:49:06 <cscott> that's a @daniel rfc
21:49:08 <robla> T382 looks like an interesting choice
21:49:31 <robla> cscott: we probably shouldn't choose one of yours if you're out next week
21:50:43 <cscott> robla: yeah, that's why i nominated a T96384, a @daniel RFC. dunno his availability.
21:51:48 <cscott> hm, there's a @csteipp RFC as well, maybe that's worth getting to before he transitions out of the WMF headspace? T75953
21:52:11 <cscott> it will probably be harder to get his participation if that if deferred for a few months
21:53:41 <robla> ok....maybe in general I can take it as an action to figure out a security related RFC for next week. We also have T135963 as a recent one that has big implications worth discussing
21:54:05 <TimStarling> sounds good
21:54:25 <robla> Krinkle basically advised that we hold off a little bit on that one, though. He's going to be shepherding it. Still I'll be happy to own figuring this out
21:54:41 <TimStarling> maybe csteipp will have an idea for a task which is not even tagged as an RFC yet
21:54:51 <dapatrick> robla, why did Krinkle advise holding off?
21:55:26 <TimStarling> he has 53 tasks assigned to him
21:55:28 <robla> dapatrick - I think just because he had only just volunteered to shepherd, and I had just put him on the spot with "how about next week?"
21:55:35 <Krinkle> dapatrick: I'm not advising to hold off on the project in general. Merely holding off on scheduling the IRC meeting as I familiarise myself with the task.
21:55:40 <Krinkle> 1 week :)
21:55:48 <TimStarling> authored 100
21:56:07 <TimStarling> csteipp authored 100 open tasks
21:56:21 <dapatrick> robla, Krinkle I see.
21:56:24 <cscott> +1 to robla's plan to triage csteipp
21:56:55 <cscott> and maybe T135963 for the week after that, it can be a security fest ;)
21:57:11 <robla> ok....so....I think we're done with the realtime portion of the meeting. However, we also have Z425 as a place to continue this conversation in a less synchronous fashion

Jun 29th, 2016

I think I'm going to start using this Conph room as a "bump ArchCom" channel. T95471: Write down key points for code governance seems like a good first topic (thanks @Awjrichards for flagging this at T95471#2415222)

Jul 1st, 2016
Azbarcea joined the room.

I think it might make sense for us to consider T40010 under the TechCom-RFC umbrella. TBD...

Jul 5th, 2016

Our inbox as of this writing:

  • T139012 Use index on rc_this_oldid
  • T16950 Support global preferences
  • T589 RfC: image and oldimage tables
Jul 7th, 2016

@daniel: in T109836#2433074 you asserted that there was strong consensus when we discussed [internal use of FauxRequests] in Lyon: don't use the Web API interface and FauxRequests for internal requests" How can someone who wasn't in Lyon learn more about the conclusions drawn in that conversation? My brief scan of mw:Wikimedia_Hackathon_2015 and the list of Phab tasks associated with that Hackathon came up empty.

Jul 8th, 2016

@JanZerebecki dropped the priority of T105638: RFC: Streamlining Composer usage to "Lowest" priority, which inspired me to put it back into our inbox. I also took the priority off and removed Jan as the assignee (since ArchCom is using assignee as shepherd).

Jul 12th, 2016
Jul 20th, 2016

I'm hoping to talk a bit about T128602 (key value store) in tomorrow's ArchCom planning meeting (E234), prompted by @Anomie's email to wikitech-l: "Key-value store API for MediaWiki"

Jul 21st, 2016
RobLa-WMF renamed this room from ArchCom-RFC triage to ArchCom open discussion.

Renamed to "ArchCom open discussion" as reflection of more generalized intent of this room. This is a good place to divert discussions intended for ArchCom participation that might be a distraction Phab tasks. ArchCom-RFC triage is obviously a good example, but timing of ArchCom IRC meetings is another good topic for this room. For example, I think a discussion about Jaime's comment T126641#2483215 (and my response T126641#2483774) is good to discuss here.

The 2016W30 meeting is scheduled: E237: ArchCom RFC Meeting W30: authenticated key-value store (2016-07-27, #wikimedia-office)

@Tgr noted in T128602#2481854 that T126641 and T128602 have a lot to do with one another. The time of our regularly scheduled meeting is bad for @jcrespo.

Seems to me that our best bet is to keep E237 at it's usual time (so that we can involve @tstarling, and to keep with our usual weekly meeting rhythm which many people schedule around), but potentially have a followup meeting at a time that works better for @jcrespo. @Dbrant , would you be willing to schedule the followup meeting at a time that works well for @jcrespo?

Jul 22nd, 2016
Jay8g joined the room.
Aug 7th, 2016

I left a long comment at T39902#2531643 , moving T39902 into our inbox and suggesting that it may be a good topic for E66/48 or E66/49

Aug 10th, 2016

FYI, in the Scrum-of-scrums earlier, @Yurik mentioned that he's made quite a bit of progress with WMDE regarding centralized CSV (T137929).

Inbox on the TechCom-RFC board:

I'm still trying to figure out how to use the TechCom-Has-shepherd tag and board to build an agenda a little more cleanly (and how we should use Phab to express "shepherd" assignees). @ksmith, I'd appreciate your thoughts on if/how we should use "assignee" for shepherd versus using the column on the TechCom-Has-shepherd board.

Aug 11th, 2016

@RobLa-WMF: At a glance, it looks like each of the person columns in TechCom-Has-shepherd could become "milestones" within it. That way, each task would have a tag like "Archcom-has-shepherd (Brion)" instead of just "Archcom-has-shepherd". Which means that you could look at any individual task in isolation, and see who the shepherd is, and not have to have the shepherd be the assignee.

The has-shepherd project would exist merely to be able to have a view of all of the shepherded tasks in one place. Plus by having it be a parent of milestones, those milestone names would have local scope.

We should discuss further before taking action, but at the moment I don't see any downsides to that approach.

Thanks @ksmith! Next week's Phab events: Planning meeting: E260 and IRC: E261. Our leading candidate for a topic is T105652: RfC: Content model storage, but that depends on if @Legoktm is up for it (@daniel is checking)

T69223 now has the TechCom-RFC tag for TechCom consideration. I missed this when putting together the agenda yesterday. Should we more actively discourage people from editing TechCom-RFC columns, or is setting "needs triage" an acceptable way for people to bring items to TechCom's timely attention?

Aug 18th, 2016

Current leading candidate for our August 24 office hour is T69223: Schema change for page content language

Aug 31st, 2016
Sep 9th, 2016

@ksmith and I had a conversation earlier about creating a "Needs work" column on the TechCom-RFC board. We had discussed it previously, but confirmed with each other that we still think it's a good idea, and had a quick naming discussion today. I'll put it as a discussion point for our 2016W38 planning meeting (E272)

RobLa-WMF mentioned this in Unknown Object (Event).

I posted a detailed summary of the conversation leading up to our E263 conversation about the schema change for page content language. The comment: T69223#2624590. During E263, @brion noted "we may wish to promulgate an RfC that just says 'thou shalt not have optional schema updates'". Is that something TechCom should do, or should that come from elsewhere (e.g. from the DBA team, from a helpful community member, from Release-Engineering-Team )? Are the changes that @Legoktm and @jcrespo made to mw.org and wikitech-wiki sufficient?

Sep 27th, 2016

@Legoktm - thanks for the writeup on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Deprecation_policy . Could you file a matching Phab task? I'd do it, but I don't have permissions to set the "author" field to be you.

Sep 29th, 2016

I forgot to bring up the FR-tech problems I heard about this morning (T145719) in our ArchCom Planning meeting today (E286), but I meant to. I learned about it in our Scrum-of-Scrums meeting this morning.

Apr 13th, 2017

Thanks, RobLa-WMF!

Jun 29th, 2017
MarcoAurelio joined the room.
Jul 28th, 2017