Architecture committee/2016-03-30

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Meeting on 2016-03-30 (private minutes)

Agenda timeline[edit]

  • Agenda bashing and action item check 21:00 (5 minutes)
  • Last week+this week’s RfC office hour 21:05 (5 minutes)
  • RfC inbox triage 21:10 (10 minutes)
  • Shepherd assignments 21:20 (5 minutes)
  • Queue for future RfC office hours 21:25 (5 minutes)
  • Other business 21:30 (10 minutes)
  • Next week’s ArchCom agenda 21:40 (10 minutes)

Agenda details/Meeting summary[edit]

This section equates to the "meeting summary" section in the meeting note template. It's collaboratively edited during the meeting and serves as the official public notes of the meeting. Attendees: Fill in the important details in this section, but try to keep this concise and NPOV (easy way: use questions).  Put any prep information in this section if appropriate

RFC status update[edit]

RFC inbox:[edit]

Today's IRC session:[edit]

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/E152

Open discussion about the following RFCs

  • T124504 Transition WikiDev '16 working areas into working groups
  • T123753 Establish retrospective reports for Security and Performance incidents
  • T119908 [RfC]: Migrate code review / management to Phabricator from Gerrit
  • T120164 RfC: Institute "last call" period for MediaWiki RfCs (WIP)

Much of the discussion was on T119908: [RfC]: Migrate code review / management to Phabricator from Gerrit, and some on T123753 (retrospectives). RobLa has posted a full summary of the discussion on phabricator.

Entering Final Comment Period:[edit]

Every week the team announces the 'final comment period' for RFCs which are reaching a decision. After the week-long period, the ArchCom makes a final decision based on the discussion.  Express your opinions now. This week's FCPs are:

  • T129435 RFC: Drop support for running without mbstring (Gabriel): The PHP mbstring module enables multi-lingual string handling. Given good distribution support and significant performance benefits, most participants have expressed support for requiring the module. If you think that we should continue to provide fall-backs despite relatively poor performance, then please comment now.

Under discussion:[edit]

No activity since March 16:[edit]