Approved, thank you @Mstyles and @HCoplin-WMF !

Approved! Thanks for the ping @HCoplin-WMF :-)

@Dzahn Approved, thank you!

Approved - thanks @Dzahn!

@Gehel is there any specific question you have that we can help with?

@daniel thank you for al the prep work! This is good to go :-)

@ssastry, @Catrope, @Mooeypoo, @bd808: I wanted to talk a bit about the focus + projects of WE5+6 at the end; specifically about WE5 and 6.2. I think it would be nice to do this part together in case it works out time-wise + if you're in :-) I'm guessing we'd have something like 2 minutes per KR/speaker; if we don't cover 6.1 and 6.3 in detail. The session is scheduled for Sat morning, so we have a bit of time to decide.

@dcaro I believe it's this one: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/q/project:labs%252Ftools%252Fheritage

Thanks @nskaggs! Just bring this up again once you know more about the timeline for this project, and I'll bring it to the team then!

Closing this ticket as invalid as per chat with @daniel.

Closing this as invalid as per chat with @daniel .

@Andrew @nskaggs - what's the status of this project? - Do you still need this? - if yes, what would be the timeline? Thanks!

Closing this ticket as invalid. This was an idea by the former Platform Engineering team which is not in scope of MediaWiki Engineering. Data Products is working on related questions, but I'd think their initiatives evolved from this early brainstorming and are captured in other tickets. CC'ing @VirginiaPoundstone for awareness :-)

Closing this ticket as invalid. This is an idea by the former Platform Engineering team that is currently not in scope of MW Engineering. The initiative is documented onwiki in case we'd want to revisit this in the future.

Closing this ticket as invalid. This was an idea considered by the former Platform Engineering team, but is currently not in scope of MW Engineering. In case this comes up again in the future, we'll be reopening this.

@daniel could you provide some context on this and the other Ruprecht tasks currently tagged with MW Engineering? - where/how does this work fit in? Are these tickets still valid? What should be the tag for these? - We've scheduled a triage meeting with MW Engineering for tomorrow. Would be great to have your input before that :-) - thanks!

Resolving this request: The MediaWiki Engineering Group takes on stewardship for OAuth, supported by Security-Team (cc @acooper). You can use MediaWiki-Platform-Team as tag if you'd like to get things surfaced to the team. Updates to the developers/maintainers page have been made!

I'm resolving this request: The MediaWiki Engineering Group will take on stewardship for CentralAuth, supported by Security-Team (cc @acooper). @MNadrofsky is going to update the developers/maintainers list. You can use MediaWiki-Platform-Team as tag if you'd like to get things surfaced to the team.

Thanks for taking the time to speak with me! - This is helpful input and was also a good test run to check if these types of questions work well for people. I’m closing this ticket now since it was a Hackathon project. Next step on the research side of things is to create a research plan + related umbrella/epic ticket in July - once the actual work kicks off. The input documented here in the ticket is a starting point and will be enhanced by yet-to-come interviews, review of existing material, and other explorations (which ultimately will end up in a first report).

Talked to 6 people specifically about this set of questions at the Hackathon to gather some initial input. Here are the notes copied over from the Etherpad:

@Aklapper third person should be someone from Dev Advocacy as well, not me. maybe @TBurmeister can help finding a third person - thanks.

My apologies for the delayed update. As a next step, we'd like to document how we use the policy in practice—e.g., looking at stalled cases—to inform potential policy updates before getting this to the CTPO for review and approval. If folks have thoughts on that, input is welcome!

Thanks for your work here! I’m declining this ticket since we’re not proceeding with this specific research approach. A note on Gerrit data as a source: This data gives insights into who contributes via Gerrit in a given timeframe, but unfortunately can’t tell us who is a new developer at Wikimedia or who has stopped contributing to Wikimedia as a developer. The experimental Gerrit newcomer retention dashboard should be viewed with that in mind.

@bd808 and I discussed this a bit. Technical Engagement can offer to help with simplifying the ingestion pipeline of APIFeatureUsage, and work on it likely early in the next quarter.

@Aklapper this is now a task for July-Sept, as discussed during quarterly planning. Apologies for the delay in following up here on the ticket. Melinda will be the assignee of this ticket.

Hey @TJones @Gehel, as you're doing this session as a team, do you have a need for an extra facilitator? If so, we'd try to get you one, or I'd join!

Hey @Legoktm Not all of TechCom’s former responsibilities - or perceived responsibilities - are routed through the new Tech Decision Forum. One of these is the Gerrit Privilege Policy. Those types of decisions are listed in the technical decision type matrix, along side with new responsible parties. “Ownership” means that the team is responsible for ensuring process continuity for Gerrit Privilege requests in the post TechCom world, and to step into TechCom’s former role where required. Handling privilege requests is in most of the cases a self-running system supported by many - Gerrit Privilege policy applies. This ticket explores what needs to be done to make sure the process always works - I.e. in cases where there is not enough input, or not a clear outcome, or when no one acts on a positive decision (which I’d assume, is seldom the case, but we should plan for it regardless). The other aspect that needs discussion is which process we should establish for making changes to the Gerrit Privilege Policy in the future.

approved, thanks!

approved, thanks!

From the sync with @jwang today: