Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

Daniel Kinzler
Hi all!

The Architecture Committee, and especially Tim, has been going through the RFC
backlog over the last moths. Many where discussed at the weekly RFC chat on
Wednesdays, and most of these were resolved. But there are some rather old RFCs
left, for which it's a bit unclear whether anyone is still interested in
discussing them.


So, if you like, go through the list below and tell us whether you would like to
discuss an RFC, or think it should be abandoned, or amended, or rewritten, or
whatever.

*
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Refactor_on_File-FileRepo-MediaHandler

This is a proposal to refactor media handling code. In particular, it proposes
to split backend tasks performed by MediaHandler from UI related tasks.

*
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages

This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages. Perhaps
obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since?

* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Itemise_protection

This argues that we should support multiple protections to apply to a page at
once, e.g. indefinite semi-protection and at the same time a short-term full
protection.

I'd personally like to discuss this as part of a larger refactoring that would
implement protection based on our permission system. Basically, applying
protection would mean overriding which group has which permissions on a given page.

* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Regex-based_blacklist

A proposal to overhaul SpamBlacklist (from 2008). I'd personally be more
interested in integrating this with (a rewrite of) AbuseFilter. We could have
multiple lists, accessible from AbuseFilter rules.


There are also some RFCs that relate to organizational issues rather than
MediaWiki features and architecture as such:

* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Release_notes_automation

Automatically compose RELEASE-NOTES based on special lines in the git commit
message. I like the idea!

* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Distribution_and_deployment

This looks like a grand design, with very little information about what exactly
it is supposed to do, and how. It's from 2010 and marked "incomplete". Anyone
interested?

* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/MediaWiki_Foundation

This is about creating a governance group for MediaWiki, separate from
Wikimedia. The release management for MediaWiki has since been moved to Mark
Hershberger and Markus Glaser, but I don't know much about their arrangement
with WMF. Is there still demand for a MediaWiki Foundation?


Some good ideas here, and some old cruft. I think the most important factor in
deciding what to discuss is to see for which RFCs there are people interested in
working on them.

So, please give us some feedback, ideally until Monday, so we can plan the RFC
chat for Wednesday .


Cheers,
Daniel

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

Chad
On Thu Dec 04 2014 at 1:41:43 PM Daniel Kinzler <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/
> Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages
>
> This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages.
> Perhaps
> obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since?
>
>
No, it's not obsolete. Actions should still be removed in favor of special
pages.

Cleaning up action handling was a waste of developer cycles to further
enshrine a bad system :)

-Chad
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

Daniel Kinzler
Am 04.12.2014 22:46, schrieb Chad:

> On Thu Dec 04 2014 at 1:41:43 PM Daniel Kinzler <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/
>> Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages
>>
>> This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages.
>> Perhaps
>> obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since?
>>
>>
> No, it's not obsolete. Actions should still be removed in favor of special
> pages.
>
> Cleaning up action handling was a waste of developer cycles to further
> enshrine a bad system :)

I kind of like the ideas of "views" on a page though (e.g. history), and the
SpecialPage system seems like a bad match. On the other hand, I'd be very happy
if we could rewrite EditPage :)

-- daniel


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

Daniel Kinzler
In reply to this post by Daniel Kinzler
So, Chad wants to talk about getting rid of actions.

Anyone want to discuss any of the other RFCs?

If not, how about we just declare them closed/stalled/abandoned or whatever?

-- daniel

Am 04.12.2014 22:41, schrieb Daniel Kinzler:

> Hi all!
>
> The Architecture Committee, and especially Tim, has been going through the RFC
> backlog over the last moths. Many where discussed at the weekly RFC chat on
> Wednesdays, and most of these were resolved. But there are some rather old RFCs
> left, for which it's a bit unclear whether anyone is still interested in
> discussing them.
>
>
> So, if you like, go through the list below and tell us whether you would like to
> discuss an RFC, or think it should be abandoned, or amended, or rewritten, or
> whatever.
>
> *
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Refactor_on_File-FileRepo-MediaHandler
>
> This is a proposal to refactor media handling code. In particular, it proposes
> to split backend tasks performed by MediaHandler from UI related tasks.
>
> *
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages
>
> This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages. Perhaps
> obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since?
>
> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Itemise_protection
>
> This argues that we should support multiple protections to apply to a page at
> once, e.g. indefinite semi-protection and at the same time a short-term full
> protection.
>
> I'd personally like to discuss this as part of a larger refactoring that would
> implement protection based on our permission system. Basically, applying
> protection would mean overriding which group has which permissions on a given page.
>
> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Regex-based_blacklist
>
> A proposal to overhaul SpamBlacklist (from 2008). I'd personally be more
> interested in integrating this with (a rewrite of) AbuseFilter. We could have
> multiple lists, accessible from AbuseFilter rules.
>
>
> There are also some RFCs that relate to organizational issues rather than
> MediaWiki features and architecture as such:
>
> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Release_notes_automation
>
> Automatically compose RELEASE-NOTES based on special lines in the git commit
> message. I like the idea!
>
> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Distribution_and_deployment
>
> This looks like a grand design, with very little information about what exactly
> it is supposed to do, and how. It's from 2010 and marked "incomplete". Anyone
> interested?
>
> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/MediaWiki_Foundation
>
> This is about creating a governance group for MediaWiki, separate from
> Wikimedia. The release management for MediaWiki has since been moved to Mark
> Hershberger and Markus Glaser, but I don't know much about their arrangement
> with WMF. Is there still demand for a MediaWiki Foundation?
>
>
> Some good ideas here, and some old cruft. I think the most important factor in
> deciding what to discuss is to see for which RFCs there are people interested in
> working on them.
>
> So, please give us some feedback, ideally until Monday, so we can plan the RFC
> chat for Wednesday .
>
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Kinzler
Not sure who is allowed to comment here, so I hope mentioning a +1 to the
ones which I understand sufficiently and like might be okay.

On Dec 4, 2014 10:41 PM, "Daniel Kinzler" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all!
...
> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Itemise_protection
>
> This argues that we should support multiple protections to apply to a
page at
> once, e.g. indefinite semi-protection and at the same time a short-term
full
> protection.
>
> I'd personally like to discuss this as part of a larger refactoring that
would
> implement protection based on our permission system. Basically, applying
> protection would mean overriding which group has which permissions on a
given page.
This makes a lot of sense imo.

> *
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Regex-based_blacklist
>
> A proposal to overhaul SpamBlacklist (from 2008). I'd personally be more
> interested in integrating this with (a rewrite of) AbuseFilter. We could
have
> multiple lists, accessible from AbuseFilter rules.
Imo not obsolete...

>
> There are also some RFCs that relate to organizational issues rather than
> MediaWiki features and architecture as such:
>
> *
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Release_notes_automation
>
> Automatically compose RELEASE-NOTES based on special lines in the git
commit
> message. I like the idea!
Me too :-)

Rupert
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

Daniel Kinzler
Am 09.12.2014 17:41, schrieb rupert THURNER:
> Not sure who is allowed to comment here, so I hope mentioning a +1 to the
> ones which I understand sufficiently and like might be okay.

Anyone show is interrested in dicussing an RFC can chime in here. If you are
willing to *work* on an RFC, please say so too.

Thanks for the input Rupert!

-- daniel

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Kinzler
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
>Anyone want to discuss any of the other RFCs?
>
>If not, how about we just declare them closed/stalled/abandoned or
>whatever?

Why? It's unclear to me what this would accomplish.

I'm pretty strongly in favor of treating RFCs the same way that we treat
bugs (now tasks): they live or die by their merits alone. It's largely
irrelevant who the author is or when the last activity was. What's
important is whether the RFC covers a reasonable, implement-able idea.

I'd much rather see energy put into finding volunteers to help move these
RFCs forward than I would see energy put into closing down discussions.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat

Daniel Kinzler
Am 10.12.2014 02:11, schrieb MZMcBride:
> Daniel Kinzler wrote:
>> Anyone want to discuss any of the other RFCs?
>>
>> If not, how about we just declare them closed/stalled/abandoned or
>> whatever?
>
> Why? It's unclear to me what this would accomplish.

If there is nobody to discuss it, and nobody to work on it, it should not be in
the queue of things to discuss. Nobody suggested it should be deleted.

-- daniel

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l