Developer committee

The Board would like to encourage the creation of a developer committee whereby certain developers are assigned responsibility for ensuring that tasks, such as buying servers, are carried out in an efficient and timely way. It is expected that a number of non-official positions will be created by this committee, and that particular developers can be named in certain roles if the committee feel that would be beneficial.

Who is on that committee?


The developer committee will consist of both system administrators and MediaWiki developers. There was a time when these groups were the same, but they have now diverged slightly. Wikimedia has asked the committee to organise both of these activities, so it's important that both groups be represented. The following list is proposed.

  • Tim Starling, developer liaison
  • Camille Constans/Shaihulud
  • Jamesday
  • E23/Snok
  • Jens Frank
  • Jerome Jamnicky
  • Magnus Manske
  • Erik Möller
  • Jason Richey
  • Timwi
  • Brion Vibber
  • Ashar Voultoiz
  • Gabriel Wicke

From this committee, I propose we form a subcommittee for the purposes of allocating funds from the proposed MediaWiki development fund (MDF). This subcommittee should consist of MediaWiki developers rather than system administrators, since the proposed account is for their benefit.

SourceForge requires that the people listed as project administrators give their assent to the donation scheme of the project. I propose that the initial MDF subcommittee be composed of those project admins:

  • Brion Vibber
  • Tim Starling
  • Magnus Manske
  • Erik Möller

Acceptance of nomination


Please sign your name below if you accept the nomination and wish to serve on the developer committee.

What is the relationship between the Foundation and the committee?

  • The committee should help the developer liaison document its activities, for the benefit of the board and the community, and to clarify who is handling what and when.
  • The committee should be the primary expert in Developer payment issues, to recommand or on the contrary not-recommand some developements proposed by developers to the board.

Activities the committee could take care of



Topics for discussion

  1. Are patches being ignored? Are potential new developers feeling excluded? If patches are rejected, are the reasons explained to the people who submitted them?
  2. Should Wikimedia declare that it has no interest in supporting MediaWiki for any non-Wikimedia projects.
  3. Should non-Wikimedia development be discussed on a separate mailing list?
  4. Do the developers feel non-Wikimedia developments are getting in the way?
  5. Is there objection to supporting non-Wikimedia projects?
  6. How should policy-related software changes, such as new user access levels, be implemented? Is community consultation needed first? Who should make these decisions?
  7. Are better defined roles for developers, such as "software developer" or "database administrator", needed?
  8. How are people who have shown interest in technical involvement treated? Could this be improved?
  9. Are new developers needed? How could these be recruited?
  10. Is the informal status of developers enough or would a more formal recognition of standing, based on objective criteria, be helpful?