Architecture committee/2015-06-03

People present: Brion, Daniel, Gabriel, Roan, S, Tim

Minutes from
 * last week: Architecture committee/2015-05-20
 * next week: Architecture committee/2015-06-17

Pending action items
Everyone please decline the meeting in GCal if you're not attending.

RFCs to triage
tag/mediawiki-rfcs/ (3 in Inbox)


 * the Pywikibot RFC is up to them, removed the tag


 * Create a proper command-line runner for MediaWiki maintenance tasks T99268
 * Schedule
 * pywikipediabot Compat deprecation T99365
 * Remove MW RFC project
 * Gabriel: maybe retry/timeout RFCs the week after: T97204, T97206

This week
- none-

Next week

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

Other business
Priorities T96903, two clusters more ready than others: 1. content 2. modularity, SOA, interfaces,
 * Lyon recap
 * ?is this Daniel's T96903
 * with content split out to T99088
 * also Daniel's http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Architecture_Roadmap_June_2015
 * on wiki: Architecture_Roadmap_June_2015
 * "roadmap" is misleading. "focus" or "topics", perhaps?
 * "we" in the document is supposed to refer to MW developers in general, not the ArchCom
 * Gabriel: should we have a working group? For example we have no representation from Reading here.
 * Brion: yes, makes sense to have a content model working group
 * Daniel: I would like to work on multiple content, that enables a lot of things and is immediately useful
 * Gabriel: challenges: what is revision, what appears on ?action=history page
 * Daniel: action=history is probably a separate RFC
 * Daniel: should we put this all together and publish a priorities document?
 * Gabriel: no, we should make a priority list, but projects don't have to be fully described, leave that up to the working committees, leans toward doing it in Phabricator
 * Brion "this document" produces specific actionable RFCs.
 * Gabriel: shall we set up a sprint next week, to merge the documents and set up communication
 * Daniel: Should content model and service objects be separate working groups? Some overlap...
 * focus on content, announce modularity and services is next up.

Gabriel: Code responsibilities document: James sent around e-mail "Confirming each vertical's responsibilities" in addition to Trevor's Mysterious module owners document, it's not Developers/Maintainers but https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q1BPBy_yEiHibCz2HgYvTwaZejwI_7OlGIl5l-iVcQk/edit?usp=sharing
 * need to identify responsible group as well as a person

Gabriel: re: governance, steal ideas from https://github.com/aturon/rfcs/blob/rust-governance/text/0000-rust-governance.md
 * a core team focusing on driving the over-arching direction, priorities and coordination, and delegating more focused work to sub-teams
 * see T89907

May 20 ArchCom meeting proposed dicsussing this RFC:
 * Automatically tag edits that make a redirect, that converts a redirected page to a  normal page, moves across namespaces and others T73236

New action items

 * Gabriel: schedule sprint to polish the API Priorities / invitation to the content WG, then communicate it
 * Gabriel: forward / respond to James'/Rob's email/document about responsibilities.
 * someone: create #ArchCom task to publish area owners from this.