MediaWiki

Requests for comment/Governance/2016-01-06 meeting

< Requests for comment | Governance
copied from https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WorkingGroups on 2016-07-18

Version 1434 Saved January 6, 2016

edit

Authors: robla, Tim, Gabriel, Krinkle, Dude

Working groups

 

Who makes decisions?

What is the relationship with ArchCom?

Who is responsible for creating these groups?

Who disbands them?

What does membership in a group mean?

What are the responsibilities of these groups?

Should we have working groups at all?

 

Action item: RobLa: read the Rust model

 

Models to observe/study

  • Rust - https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md
  • Core team:
  • permanent
  • ~8 members
  • spins up subteams as needed, spins them down when decisions are done
  • (after RFC is approved) makes final decision on whether a feature or change implementation enters stable release (or 'master' branch) of software.
  • Each subteam is led by a member of the core team.
  • Team lead decides initial team memberships. Further membership is decided by subteam members consensus.
  • Sub teams are enpowered to decide.
  • Discussions are mostly asynchronous, online.
  • RFC shepherded by a member from a relevant subteam. The shepherd is responsible for guiding the RFC through the process. Shepherd is responsible to detect when all relevant arguments have been surfaced.
  • Last call (1-2 weeks).
  • Decision is made by that subteam, not by core team.
  • Core team members can bring up arguments and concerns as part of the larger audience participating in the RFC process toward the champion of the RFC.
  • Delegation of authority per RFC
  • Last call called by the champion
  • Questions about this process:
  • What happens if ArchCom wants to override the WG?
  • IETF
  • Meetings run by a consulting company
  • IESG: 12 person steering group
  • Some IESG members are area directors (ADs)
  • IAB elected by ISOC (?), but not supposed to be important
  • ADs approve creation/disbanding of WGs
  • WGs are "temporary" (but sometimes measured in decades)
  • ADs do not decide on RFCs with their AD hat on.
  • WG chair decides on RFC status (draft or ready for approval by IESG)
  • IESG delegates development process to WG but not final decision-making power
  • Python
  • W3C

 

Roan: do we have a scaling problem? Do we really need WGs?

Robla: yes, people don't have enough time to read and review all RFCs. If we delegate RFC responsibility then archcom won't have such an impossible task

Daniel: sometimes I go into an archcom meeting not having read an RFC, seeing it for the first time. With WG split that is not so likely.

 

Questions for later:

  • How does archcom membership work?
  • What is the current membership of ArchCom
  • Confirmed: Gabriel, Roan, Daniel, Timo, Tim
  • Are Mark and Trevor still members? – https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee
  • Mark: asked to drop out.  RobLa failed to announce
  • Trevor: Never accepted nomination – Tim
  • Ori: declined, then agreed to attend "when it makes sense"
  • What are archcom's responsibilities
  • Do we want permanent "areas" like IETF
  • Do we also/instead want temporary WGs?
  •  


Retrieved from "https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Governance/2016-01-06_meeting&oldid=5071563"