## Problem
The Wikimedia engineering community has traditionally made decisions using a mix of do-ocracy and rough consensus. In the last years, we have augmented this with a formal RFC process driven by the architecture committee. This has helped to broaden discussions, and resulted in a better shared understanding on a range of topics.
However, we are also seeing issues with the current process:
* Lack of clarity on the overall technical direction of MediaWiki and the Wikimedia platform.
* Difficulty of scaling the decision making process.
* Stakeholder involvement & legitimacy.
* Clarity and transparency of decision making process.
## Proposal
//(abstract)//: The Rust community's governance process seems to be especially suitable for our needs and philosophy. In the last year, they faced similar challenges to ours, and managed to scale to 331 RFCs by 127 community members, of which 161 were accepted and merged[1]. While heavily drawing on prior art (Python and IETF in particular), their process seems to be very streamlined for modern online collaboration, and is well [documented in a thoughtful RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md).
## Full RFC
[mw:Requests_for_comment/Governance](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance)
## See also
- {E135} discussion about governance & working groups.
- [Notes from WikiDev16 discussion](https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WorkingGroups)