**tchay** wrote:

You're going to resort to ad hominem instead of attacking the argument when you're already getting what you want?

I am not trying to "dictate" anything to volunteers. Volunteers didn't deploy the code onto test and test2, it was Reedy. Volunteers are free to develop. They're not free to have their developed code deployed on the cluster. Nobody is.

As for the proof of this "doctrine," just like MediaWiki core has always been the responsibility of Platform, the Extensions space has traditionally been the responsibility of Features Engineering. Historically, new extension deploy and a commitment to deploy was done by Brion and later by Roan. This used to be enforced in terms of SVN access, and the artifact still exists in the form of who has +2 on Gerrit. In the case of deploying a new extension, it requires +2 on gerrit, shell access, and an implied commitment to maintain.

I've been trying to relax this as I feel this is unscalable solution, but with that right comes the responsibility. If you or other community developers are unwilling to hold yourselves to the same responsibility that every engineer of the Foundation is held to, you are free to do so. But nobody has the right to have +2, nobody has the right to shell access, etc. Just as Platform and Ops reserve the right as policy to rescind my +2 access and my non-existent shell access, they could rescind anyone else's, even yours if it existed.
  

(In reply to comment #38)

> > The requirement for extensions to be deployed has ALWAYS been that Features
> > Engineering sign off on a commitment to maintain the extension.
> 
> This isn't consistent with the documentation at [[mw:Writing an extension for
> deployment]], [[mw:Review queue]] and Greg's checklist in comment 7.

Interesting links.

To the first document which has its origins in the SVN days, the first stop with Howie Fung and his product management team. To my knowledge the only person asked was a Dan Garry, and not as a first stop on anything. I mentioned in my original post why that people should know better. The second stop was wikitech-l. To my knowledge mine was the first post on the subject.

The second document is newly written by Platform not vetted by anyone in Features. I assume that if Platform wants to operate that way then they're committed to maintaining an extension approved that that process, that's cool with me and entirely consistent to my statements. In it's original incarnation it was Sumana's way of managing code review of existing extensions.

The third link refers to someone who has been at the WMF even less time than me. If we're to use MZMcBrides seniority rules, the fact that some newly-minted, improperly vetted document was used by a relatively new engineer doesn't carry weight.

I hope that documentation is updated.