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