Architecture committee/2015-06-10

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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]

phab:T97204, phab:T97206

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