Architecture committee/2015-06-10
People present: Daniel, Roan, Gabriel, Mark, Tim, S
Minutes from last week: Architecture committee/2015-06-03
Pending action items
[edit]- Gabriel: schedule sprint to polish the API Priorities / invitation to the content WG, then communicate it
- announcement to do
- Gabriel: forward / respond to James'/Rob's email/document about responsibilities.
- someone: create #ArchCom task to publish area owners from this.
Finalize Architecture focus 2015, decide what to do with it.
RFCs to triage
[edit]- Content adaptability, structured data and caching phab:T99088
- Take off board
IRC meeting scheduling
[edit]This week
[edit]- Create a proper command-line runner for MediaWiki maintenance tasks phab:T99268
Next week
[edit]Other business
[edit]Content representation
[edit]Announcement is to get a working group for content phab:T99088
Tension of wiki page Architecture_focus_2015 vs. Phab priorities phab:T96903 Former summarize priorities, but we manage priorities as Phab tasks.
Content representation needs Working Group with meetings work sessions that produces RFCs for the elements. spage: initial clients of the content change should participate. GWicke: clients include
- graphoid graphs
- Flow's own-managed link tables
- xxx (lost it)
- VisualEditor page metadata, e.g. full set of references, and templatedata versioned separately
- blame maps
- Reading/mobile's lead images
^ TODO need to add these to wiki page or phab:T99088
Tim: very different storage needs. What ties them together? Gabriel: Change propagation, MW / history integration
Governance
[edit]Committee future, comparison with https://github.com/aturon/rfcs/blob/rust-governance/text/0000-rust-governance.md
- Tim: ctee doesn't seem too big to me
- Gabriel: it's not representative, not integrated with the WMF decision-making process, prioritisation discussions. We should be more open, not so insular.
- Daniel: we could invite a different representative of a team each week to comment on their current activities, pain points
- Daniel: resourcing decisions are already made by the team leads
- Gabriel: engagement with the RFC process is still not great. People don't write RFCs.
- Roan: purely administrative discussions don't really need to be open. People expect leadership from cte. Not much value in inviting guests when (hopefully) the RFC process fills that role.
- space between boring ArchCom meeting and detailed RFC IRC discussion... how to fill it?
Maybe just re-announce RFC process Requests for comment/Process publicly.
New action items
[edit]- Tim: enhanced RC RFC: put in phab