I don't want to monopolise the discussion so I'll briefly reply to some "personal points".

(In reply to comment #32)
> > This appears to be a false problem. If Echo or something else in a future
> > provides equivalent or better features, the extension will fall into disuse
> > and/or it can be undeployed.
> 
> That argument may have held water back when extensions like ReaderFeedback or
> LiquidThreads were written and deployed. 

This comparison carries no value: 1) LQT can't be undeployed because we'd lose critical data (discussions) from the wiki, 2) AFT is being expanded right now with no exit strategy I'm aware of (probably under the understanding that nobody cares if all that data disappears from the wikis after undeployment).

> [...]
> 
> > I don't get these points. If you're responsible for Echo, it's your
> > responsibility to decide what Echo is going to incorporate, it's not the
> > others' responsibility to guess it and be blocked for years while you figure
> > it
> > out.
> 
> I'm responsible for ENGINEERING RESOURCING on Echo. [...]
> 
> You have a misguided view of what I do or what works in general in our
> movement
> or at the WMF.

I highly doubt I do. My sentence started with an "If" for a reason: I've no idea who's responsible for Echo.

Let me note that I asked how you planned to coordinate with other pieces of code/devs working in this area already 9 months ago: [[m:IRC office hours/2013-01-08]].

> [...] I'm asking that while I agree (and I think most would) that it'd be nice to
> have movement on the parent bug, people stop trying to exploit known holes in
> our development processes to try to get a particular implementation that is
> not
> derived from consensus and has bypassed every standard erected to safeguard
> sustainable development at the WMF: either work within the system or don't
> but
> don't try to get something deployed and say it's Features' problem because
> it's
> an extension. This sort of behavior breaks down trust in our people and
> processes many of whom and which are new, fragile,and need to be nurtured,
> not
> exploited.

I gather that you feel insulted and circumvented or something like that and I'm sorry for this personal pain you're suffering, but all this talk about exploiting doesn't look helpful.

> [...]
> > > The above can occur independently or in parallel to the above. If Product
> > > thinks it cool to commit Platform's constrained engineering resources to
> > > [...] use it to take
> > > advantage of Echo when the features roll out in some undefined future,
> > 
> > this looks like an unreasonable requirement
> 
> The requirement for extensions to be deployed has ALWAYS been that Features
> Engineering sign off on a commitment to maintain the extension. [...]

This is not a reply to my line you quoted.