Let's improve the [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee | Architecture Committee ]] and the [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Process | 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/Architects (Architecture_process redirects here) vs https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee
* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RFC_meetings (redirect to Architecture meetings)
* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_guidelines ?
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. However, @ksmith will join the next Architecture Committee meeting, and then we'll see.
* 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...