The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
The software stack running the projects has not evolved organically as this recommendation states, at least not in the last 5 years. Large architectural changes have happened via consensus and working groups in the WMF Technology department after thorough review of the technological landscapes and options at hand. The oversight of hard-to-undo architectural changes is the mission of the Wikimedia Technical Committee. A body notably absent from this recommendation, probably suggesting a lack of awareness of its existence. This is deeply troubling to me, as an understanding of the existing landscape is necessary to making such recommendations.
The absence of deliberate Technology expertise on the board is indeed problematic and should be addressed. It's probably part of the reason why budget requests to address technical debt have been repeatedly underfunded in the past.
Thanks for the feedback. I was involved in drafting this, the working group does know about the existence of TechCom. While the technology stack has evolved less organically than perhaps previously, it still is not always in sync across the WMF Technology Department, Product Department, WMDE and the rest of the movement. It is not always looking out beyond the next few years either. The intent of this recommendation is focused at a higher strategic level than TechCom or the current work happening in Technology. Someone with this strategic knowledge could also serve to help support the work that is already going on. Is this not clear within the text and do you have a suggestion to make it more clear?
TechCom reviews proposals; it does not make any. TechCom members have in the past repeatedly rejected such a role (reasonably, since they do not command any resources to make proposals happen). What does or does not get proposed is a fairly ad hoc process; I feel "organically" is a fair description. Certainly there were some more systematic and visionary changes, like the platform evolution project or some of the stuff that came out of TechConf; IMO they are still the exception more than the rule. --Tgr (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)