New TechComm, same as old ArchComm

[Rogol Domedonfors]

We're saved! Saved, I tell you! Victoria Coleman announces the new Wikimedia Technical Committee to replace the Architecture Committee. It will act as "an extension of the CTO" (Victoria herself) and "is to act as an authority on technical decisions regarding any official software that serves Wikimedia users".

TechCom is the guardian of the integrity, consistency, stability and performance of the software supporting the Wikimedia projects. It acts as the senior advisor and the convergence point of all decisions related to technical work that is strategic, cross-cutting, and/or hard to undo.

So how will the users be represented on this commttee, or involved in the decision-making process it goes through when exercising its authority? According to its Charter, er, not at all. "Those decisions will be informed by discussions with and between interested members of the technical community." So, not the users then -- indeed, "TechCom could diverge from community consensus". What if the community want to discuss something at the strategic level? "RFCs brought to TechCom should include a plan for how they will be implemented". So nothing strategic from the users please.

Surely the community were consulted in setting up this process?

But it's got a new name. So that's all right then.

[Poetlister]

Technical isn't there to serve the "community", whatever that is. It's there for the benefit of the developers.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Well, of course that's the reality of the situation -- indeed, the whole WMF apparatus is there largely for the benefit of the staff. But while they pretend to be writing "software that serves Wikimedia users", and "supporting the Wikimedia projects" it is fair, and even better, fun, to mock them for not having any way of finding out what those users, or the people working in those projects, want or need in the way of service or support.

[Vigilant]

Since they've shown zero ability to manage this function in the past and they're not hiring external people with actual architectural skills, I'm a bit pessimistic.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Technical isn't there to serve the "community", whatever that is. It's there for the benefit of the developers.

It turns out you were spot on. I asked Victoria how TechCom would "will work with the community in its various aspects to find out what forms of support and service the users and contributors want and need" and her response, which was prompt and courteous, was all about how "the volunteer developer community will interact with the TechCom". Oh well. Perhaps one day someone will ask the people who use the stuff what they want.

[Poetlister]

Technical isn't there to serve the "community", whatever that is. It's there for the benefit of the developers.

It turns out you were spot on.

Whew, what a relief! Obviously, I had no idea if I was right when I said that.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Well, the rest of us need that extra bit of assurance from evidence, documentation, that sort of thing. We don't all have privileged access to objective truth.

[Poetlister]

Well, the rest of us need that extra bit of assurance from evidence, documentation, that sort of thing. We don't all have privileged access to objective truth.

What do you mean by "the rest of us"? Everyone else on this site?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I mean everyone on this site who does not yet comprehend that Poetlister is automatically correct in everything they write.

[Bezdomni]

I noticed that the Signpost carried this story too. This issue carried all sorts of stories about international scandals, but nothing about the local Minassian "scandal".

The commitee's authority over technical development at the WMF is also specified – it acts as an extension of the Chief Technical Officer.

source

Links being for clicking, one learns that:

This page is about the legacy CTO role. For the current CTO opening, see this page.

source

where they don't seem to be looking for a CTO after all (though they are looking for a CMO / CCO, despite the fact that the 2017-2018 plan states they're using sub-contractors from Minassian Media again, maybe Jove Oliver still, who knows?). It also looks like they're having a bit of difficulty filling these posts?

In any case, I did eventually track down Victoria Coleman's hire on the WMF blog.... I see that she seems to like War Games, which suggests to me she's probably fit onto the Battleship-o-pediapop crew just fine.

She serves as a volunteer advisor on the United States Department of Defense’s Defense Science Board and is a member of Lockheed Martin’s Technology Advisory Group.

source

She has also been a volunteer advisor on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Information Science and Technology advisory group as well as DARPA’s Defense Sciences Research Council.

source

This, in addition to an already very impressive resume. And yet.. despite her manifest notability (Samsung, Intel, Yahoo!, HP, Technicolor, Lockheed, Berkeley), she doesn't have an en.wp page. I guess that's one of the perks of being the CTO or the communications contractor, huh? Mr. Minassian, that erstwhile reserver of the National Mall and Clinton Foundation PR guy still doesn't have one either despite Colbert having made him into a Wikileaks star. Though he's not quite at Victoria Coleman's notability levels, surely some good Doctor could make him a stub, no? Unless these folks are meant to be wearing cloaks of mini-visibility?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Victoria has given a very courteous further reply to me,

How do we collect and prioritize these needs? In some cases through our own expertise, in some cases by being part of the community , in others by doing research to understand what works and yet in others by working closely with the Audiences team in the Foundation. The Audiences team has the mandate to deliver user facing features based on research and close interaction with the community.

Sadly that seems to mean that she and the new committee rely on the usual suspects to find out what the users actually want and need. So no change there then.

[No Ledge]

From the latest Tech News:

On July 18, the Wikimedia Foundation launched a survey about the technical decision making process for people who do technical work that relies on software that is maintained by the Foundation or affiliates. If this applies to you, please take part in the survey. The survey will be open for three weeks, until August 7. You can find more information in the announcement e-mail on wikitech-l.

I was pretty much unaware of the existence of this technical decision making process. Searching the WPO archives, I found this thread started by Rogol Domedonfors six years ago.

I took the survey. I told them they should include non-technical users of products in the decision-making process for those products. Although that was not something the questionnaire specifically asked about, they did include a line where I could add other factors I considered important, so I did. Just noticed this point was also made by Rogol years ago.

I also told them that I was unaware of the process, and that from my perspective the technical decision-making process consists of:

1. Submit a Phabricator.
2. Hope for action.