Jump to navigation Jump to search
People present: Gabriel, Brion, Tim, S, Daniel
Minutes from last week: Architecture_committee/2015-07-29
Pending action items
- Gabriel to invite people to front-end ongoing WG meeting on phab:T105845 (content widgets) and/or T102476 (change propagation)
- Tim to try writing up recommendation for T97204 and T97206
RFCs to triage
Inbox: phab:T107595 Daniel's "RFC: Multi-Content Revisions"
- Tim thinks enough there to discuss next week
IRC meeting scheduling
- phab:T105638 RFC: Streamlining Composer usage
- was to be phab:T107595 Daniel's "RFC: Multi-Content Revisions", but he can't attend
Future of the architecture committee:
- Brion: RFC stuff is well-defined and has buy-in. Maybe we should continue that, but prune out the "extra stuff", which is not very well defined. The name sounds quite expansive, maybe we should be the "RFC committee".
- Gabriel: hard to define our role if we are waiting for Rob
- Daniel: it is hard to hold back on that with no timeline. Maybe not how the cte is selected, governance model etc, maybe more practical things.
- Brion: well, we could talk about governance model (T89907), but who would we talk with? Engineering management is somewhat fragmented
- Gabriel: there is some discussion in the org about the role of the verticals, how much work they take on
- Brion: to find a longer-term direction, we may need to find a motivating use case/user-visible feature
- Daniel: we need to know exactly who we are selling this vision to
- Tim: we are not actually proposing to change the governance model are we? The cte will just continue to do what it has been doing.
- Daniel: we are not proposing a vision as yet, are we? That is a change.
- Gabriel: need KPIs, numbers, to sell to mgt
- Daniel: should hire a sociologist then haw haw
- Brion vision needs improvement
- Gabriel: unsure how to move forward with T99088, whether to refine it or get feedback
- Tim: I'm conflicted as to how broad we should be. We have qtrly planning which is very broad, management very narrow (top 5). Maybe we are currently somewhere in between. I'm not sure if heading towards the narrowness of mgt would be a good thing.
- Gabriel: well, we can bring a different perspective than mgt
Interesting project areas:
- Gabriel: service workers, ori's looking into ESI (edge side includes)
- Daniel: discussion with Scott about content translation, variant conversion, and multilingual wikis; multi-content revisions (multiple user-authored content streams per page)
- Tim: future of wikitext, role of parsoid
New action items
- Brion to chat with Terry Gilbey
- Gabriel to meet with Trevor and others about content, then establish front-end ongoing WG to drive T99088