User talk:DKinzler (WMF)/TechCom MO

I fail to understand the requirement for last calls needing non-TC input:

> TechCom should make sure any last call gets some kind of feedback from outside TechCom. A last call with no feedback should be considered fails, not approved. The "tech lead forum" would be the primary place to look for feedback if none is forthcoming.

We are usually the ones placing RfC's on last call. We do not do that if we think the RfC is not ready to be approved. So what would be the point in requiring input from others at this stage? What is the motivation for this? Have we made mistakes here in the past?

We have not always ensured that all relevant parties provided input, before or during the last call.

We could change the requirement so that TechCom has to ensure feedback from all stakeholders before placing an RFC on last call. I think that would be sensible. But I find the "silent assent" model problematic. I'd like to get an "aye" from these stakeholders during the last call as well.

Ok, yes, that makes more sense - ensuring input from stakeholders is there. I would make this a blocker for placing an RfC on last call to begin with, because if we ask for that during last call, and they fail to do so, we are in an undefined state (or need to create even more policies to cover that case too), since plain rejection seems like too harsh a consequence.

> Have a guest or two sit in on (nearly) every regular meeting.

Not sure that's the best use of people's time, honestly. It would be better to invite specific people to specific meetings and have conversations with them about specific topics.

Thoughts and opinions

I see office hours being more related to the RfC process itself rather than a discussion about an RfC. So, for office hours, people could come and ask how to start a particular RfC, inquire about the status of their RfC, etc.

From that perspective, I think office hours and IRC meetings are two things that should be evaluated separately.