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

 * 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

 * Content adaptability, structured data and caching T99088
 * Take off board

This week

 * Create a proper command-line runner for MediaWiki maintenance tasks T99268

Next week
T97204, T97206

Content representation
Announcement is to get a working group for content T99088

Tension of wiki page Architecture_focus_2015 vs. Phab priorities 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 ^ TODO need to add these to wiki page or T99088
 * 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

Tim: very different storage needs. What ties them together? Gabriel: Change propagation, MW / history integration

Governance
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

 * Tim: enhanced RC RFC: put in phab