Architecture committee/2015-06-10

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

Minutes from last week: Architecture committee/2015-06-03

Pending action items

• 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

• Content adaptability, structured data and caching phab:T99088
  • Take off board

IRC meeting scheduling

This week

• Create a proper command-line runner for MediaWiki maintenance tasks phab:T99268

Next week

phab:T97204, phab:T97206

Other business

Content representation

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

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

• Tim: enhanced RC RFC: put in phab