Topic on Talk:Technical decision making

Is there a stakeholder analysis anywhere that is the basis for picking what constituencies should be represented here?

I'm asking because half a year (judging by the comments below) later, only WMF teams are actually listed.

Meanwhile, based on comments in Phabricator, the Vue.js decision was apparently trialled through this process (although it isn't listed in the on-wiki archives) and that decision has very wide ranging impacts (far beyond WMF-internal groups). In particular, as a semi-technical community member trying to cover the gaps in the core software through Gadgets and user scripts, both the status quo and the now-decided path forward holds significant challenges and opportunities (both the adoption of Vue.js and related dropping of IE11 from Grade A).

Who was to represent my concerns in this decision process? What was my channel for getting my requirements in as part of the decision and the presumably following work?

I spent several hours over the last couple of days trawling through Phabricator and mediawiki.org, and the only mentions I find of Gadgets and user scripts is as an aside when someone wants to really emphasise how important it is that Vue.js not make breaking changes without a rock-solid migration shim. I find a ton of discussion of requirements like being modern (Gadgets and user scripts still can't use ES6 syntax due to T75714 and there is no sign this will ever change), have a compilation step and use templates (both of which are not unproblematic in a Gadget/user script context), "transpilation" (buzz-word alert!) deploy and CI, all of which are at best irrelevant for most Gadgets and user scripts (and assumptions that these are the normal context can lead to choices that make it actively hostile to Gadget/user script use).

The dialog example in T155567 (simple dialog box in OOUI vs. jQuery UI) should have been a no-brainer "Wow, we really need to fix this ASAP!", and the fact that nothing happened tells me the perspective of Gadget/User script developers is not sufficiently represented in these decision processes. How is this new process intended to make sure that when picking Vue.js the requirements and pain-points of Gadget/user script developers are taken into account? How do I make sure those priorities are included in the ongoing and coming trials and migration?

Or put more succinctly: if there is someone looking out for my interests in this process I am failing to find information about it anywhere.

Meanwhile, based on comments in Phabricator, the Vue.js decision was apparently trialled through this process (although it isn't listed in the on-wiki archives) and that decision has very wide ranging impacts (far beyond WMF-internal groups).

It wasn't. The decision to go with Vue was made in March 2020 after over half a year of discussions. The replacement of the old RfC/TechCom processes with TDMP was made in January 2021.

The bespoke mechanisms by which my colleagues researched, explored, and discussed things so as to make the Vue decision fed into the already underway work to reconsider RfCs and how they might be replaced, but they're distinct processes.

Ping.

No community entity or individual is as yet reflected in this process. Technical Decision Forum still lists the community as "TBD". Even the Affiliates (which, I must stress, are not the same as the community) are only represented by three individual WMDE projects.

According to the front page of wikimediafoundation.org, "Collaborative projects are the core of the Wikimedia movement.—Our volunteers build tools, share photos, write articles, and are working to connect all the knowledge that exists.", but from all visible evidence these volunteers are not seen as core stakeholders whom it is critical to have represented when fundamental and far-reaching technical decisions that affect the projects are made.

The Tech Decision Forum workboard in Phabricator currently lists 10 tasks, for all of which a cursory inspection suggests at least one of the communities should be Consulted or Informed in the RACI. These should all technically be blocked on the lack of community representation, but the very lack of such representation means there's nobody in the decision loop whose responsibility it is to raise their hand and flag that issue.