[17:52:10] dstrine: so to confirm, no phab meeting in 8 minutes, right? [17:52:28] nope I had to move it [17:52:45] sent emails to wmfall [17:52:50] did you see it? [17:53:26] part of the move was because people were not seeing my emails to wmfall [17:53:56] * dstrine is emailing IT about this [17:56:56] i saw the email, but wanted to double-check since i had signed up to help [17:57:28] also i had copied the even to to my own calendar, which meant it was still there, despite you having deleted the original event [17:57:53] so intellectually i knew I had to delete my copy as well. but my lizard brain was afraid and insisted I confirm first [17:59:45] yeah thanks for being a volunteer! There is no pressure to help next week if you can't make it. [17:59:52] That note about the meeting is interesting [18:01:09] I think you can set an invite to be "joinable" by others but not editable [18:02:17] Admins can also send out true invites, like they did for some of the strategy stuff. But for something open to non-staff, that probably wouldn't make sense [18:02:40] yeah [19:18:42] 6Team-Practices, 6Community-Advocacy, 6Community-Liaisons, 6Developer-Relations: Goal: Binding code of conduct for all Wikimedia technical spaces with consequences for breaches - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90908#2056476 (10Keegan) [20:37:45] Seeing recent breakage in Phlogiston, has there ever been a (documented) TPG evaluation of Phragile? [20:37:47] (I think we discussed that once but maybe that was a Hangout without any archived discussion?) [20:45:57] Ah well. Seeing the complexity of its documentation, I withdraw my question. [20:52:14] andre__: We mostly concluded that it does sprint burnups well....but that won't help for long-term project planning, which was a lot of the driver behind charting [20:52:21] it = phragile [20:52:39] hence our shift to working more on phlogiston and less on phragile [20:53:05] Has Phlogiston been productized? [21:06:01] andre__: I think jaufrecht_ would like to better understand what productizing Phlogiston would entail (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T121720) [21:06:36] (so, no :-)) [21:09:25] Heh, thanks. As that task is assigned to himself, I guess I have to wait. :) [21:30:19] Andre_, what would productized mean to you? [23:00:28] jaufrecht_: the level of expected support from other people who are not maintainers, I'd roughly say [23:28:05] andre_, what would productized mean to you? [23:31:31] meeple27: mbinder retrotime!! [23:32:04] meeple27: yep 1 min [23:33:37] jaufrecht_: the level of expected support from other people/teams who are not maintainers of Phlogiston, I'd roughly say [23:36:20] is there any recognized process, formal or informal, leading to that? [23:36:29] A committee meeting that approves new workload, etc? [23:43:36] I'd expect TPG to know that better than I do. [23:44:21] I don't think that WMF has a "committee" for "talk to the manager of that team that includes person ABC I'd like to help work on XYZ". [23:44:28] If I don't get your question wrong. [23:56:52] does architecture committee play any role? Would RobLa have insight into how this has worked? My expectation is that it's mostly been very informal. [23:57:18] But what legitimates a project? When someone in Ops accepts some kind of responsibility for it? [23:57:24] I'm not sure we are talking about the same things. [23:57:41] see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee for a description [23:59:10] Ermm, what is a situation when "legitimating a project" is required / would be good? [23:59:57] We might come from very different angles / backgrounds here. :)