Hi all, after reviewing I'm going to approve this for restricted. @thcipriani is back tomorrow and can approve for deployment is that is what is needed.

I think this is an excellent addition. As teams attempt to reduce Work in Progress (WIP) it would be great to have a status that allows them to see what is currently being worked on.

@Pchelolo currently we are simply framing the problem, not the solution. In your statement are you saying you don't think there is an issue in not having a standard schema for clients to consume knowledge?

Yes that is right @Aklapper that is accurate.

@daniel I don't see why the Tech Decision process needs to be used for this.

Could I be added to the Project-Admins group? I need to create components for the Architecture Team and the Technical Decision Making Process

tagging Platform Engineering, I believe this also is an issue in Whats App

I approve this :)

In T253357#6177838, @Volker_E wrote:

Just want to expand a bit on my edit on the “MediaWiki-components” proposal:

• We are semantically binding the components to MediaWiki, which will also be understood by folks on the Internet as MediaWiki specific, contrasting to our interface aims to be platform agnostic and universal though.
• With something like Wikimedia Vue UI, we could make clear that there's a technological choice involved, and giving a hint that it's main theme (in case we support themes) be “WikimediaUI” derived.

I don't have a proposed name, but I would suggest not binding this to MW.

TechCom is placing this on Last Call ending on 27th of May.

So the plan to move forward with this is for @JoeWalsh to collect stakeholder needs so the RFC becomes a specific implementation proposal. It is understood that performance and security are two key aspects of this and need to be considered in whatever is proposed.

TechCom is hosting a meeting to discuss this on April 15th at 21:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office IRC channel

TechCom approves this RFC with the understanding that a component library needs to be developed so use of Vue.js happens in a coordinated and reusable way. A migration path from OOUI needs to be included in this planning.

Is there still a current specific product use case for this? That would help us evaluate if something generic vs. a specific implementation makes more sense.

Adding CPT for visibility

@Demian we don't believe this is a RFC so untagging TechCom

@jcrespo do you still want us to do the compression in T106386? Are the storage constraints still relevant?

@egardner are you okay with this going on last call after the TechCom meeting next week?

TechCom approved this RFC on 18 Dec 2019

@daniel how big a project is re-architecting this? I moved to future initiative

@daniel would you be able to look at this at some point?

tagging Performance for @aaron to provide input into the proposal.

Untagging CPT, TechCom feel free to retag.

@Pchelolo this is also something that the FAWG is talking about as well. @santhosh and @daniel this might be of interest to you.

Believe this isn't a CPT thing doesn't belong in MW core should probably be a separate repo. We think this is a RelEng thing but we are happy to provide feedback if needed.

IRC meeting hosted on this on October 23rd:

• Minutes:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2019/wikimedia-office.2019-10-23-21.00.html

• Log:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2019/wikimedia-office.2019-10-23-21.00.log.html

TechCom approved this on October 23rd.

I just wanted to mention this is something that the Platform Engineering is working on as part of our decoupling work. Not sure if that helps in finding a session leader. @daniel would be excellent but I don't think has the time.

@osorio-juan-microsoft you are planning to look into the screenreader issue on your side? Thanks!

@aaron are you requesting code review from Core Platform or do you need something else?

TechCom has approved this RFC.