kiitoksia @taavi

Fwiw, I interpret "It is not necessary to file a Phabricator task" as that it'd be ok for me for, say, to add someone based on an in-person request at a hackathon or similar without forcing the person next to me to create a task just for me to immediately close it. Filing Phabricator tasks is still totally fine.

I use phabricator due to lack of *the* method suggested. And advertise it on WMF slack afterwards to lure some Gerrit admin

I think I misunderstood the self-service part; the linked docs only say that “Gerrit administrators may immediately act on requests from the following trusted organisations”. (I was confused by some other groups like wmde-wikidata, which seem to be viral in the same way as Trusted-Contributors: any member can add other members. But wmde-mediawiki doesn’t seem to work like that.)

i miss where it says it is self-service, where's that?

IIUC this group is supposed to be self-service, but neither Leszek nor I are in it AFAICT? https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/admin/groups/8f7f4df5062198c795a6eb18c3536f3410c465fe,members

thank you @thcipriani !

Hi @WMDE-leszek sorry for the delay. Processed this under the "expedited" process for trusted organisations. And should be up-to-date with the list on this task now.

Thanks everyone for your comments. See you in code review!

Done!

Novem_ Linguae has proven to be a good caretaker of PageTriage, asks thoughtful questions in review and understands both the good and bad impact that a change can have. I think it would be a benefit to have them able to merge patches in core and other extensions.

@Kizule I see you awarded a "thumbs down" token - can I ask why you oppose this?

Can certainly vouch for @Novem_Linguae being a careful and considerate reviewer :-)

Policy-required wikitech-l@ email: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/JUDNTRECSZWD7RKGSKAE6F52OB4KDTBH/

Thanks everyone for your support!

Done.

More than 7 days have elapsed and we count 20 thumbs up for 3 thumbs down which seems we have reached consensus. As a Gerrit Administrators I have added @Paladox to the MediaWiki gerrit group, effectively granting Code-Review +2 to all the MediaWiki repositories.

I'd like to start off with a thank you for the nomination! To get into things I'd like to bring up my +2 rights on Gerrit-review that @Tgr mentions above. Whilst yes they aren't bleeding edge in the backend they are more so for the frontend. Users are more easily impacted if there was malicious code inside the frontend code. Not to mention people building or running it locally. A maintainer breaching trust would be huge and also have reputational damage especially as big companies use it such as Wikimedia and Volvo and more. I wouldn't go around merging anything I don't understand. (I show this on Gerrit-review).

In T355619#9510445, @Dzahn wrote:

but at the same time people involved in more complex changes are not willing to review and merge small maintenance patches (because they are considered trivial)

I already raised support on a list. For here I would just like to say that if a +2 is rejected based on an argument that most patches are small maintenance patches but at the same time people involved in more complex changes are not willing to review and merge small maintenance patches (because they are considered trivial) then that is kind of a lose-lose situation.

maybe we should just hire Paladox instead?

I'm getting English Wikipedia RfA vibes here :(
You don't need to be a content writing machine to be a good admin, and similarly I don't think you need a ton of XL patches to prove yourself as an engineer capable of reviewing other's patches.

I worked with Paladox in the past on the gerrit codebase, I trust him to use his +2 rights wisely.

Reviews by Paladox: +2, +1, -1, -2, comments.

Again, that's not what I said. Nobody here is talking about "someone we have never met".

In T355619#9483624, @thiemowmde wrote:

This seems more like an argument that we should abolish this process and give all contributors +2 rights.

That's not remotely what I said. Not "all contributors" are active for more than 10 years.

This seems more like an argument that we should abolish this process and give all contributors +2 rights.

In T355619#9481817, @thiemowmde wrote:

Why not just ask @Paladox if they even want the +2 button?

What are we afraid of? That people with +2 rights start running around merging random patches that should not be merged? That people with +2 rights make mistakes?

While I agree with a lot of what was said above I still wonder what the concern is? What are we afraid of? That people with +2 rights start running around merging random patches that should not be merged? That people with +2 rights make mistakes?

+2 access to MediaWiki core and the hundereds of related extensions and skins not a participation trophy we give from being around for many years. It is, to quote the policy, a "strong expression of trust, and trust is maintained through good judgement and careful action".

I'm not the most active Mediawiki+extensions contributor so that's only small two cents from me. I'm quite impressed @Paladox kept to hang around for that long after T106359 had happened, which has been quite a disappointing read.
The number of contributions is quite impressive. Those might be small contributions but I think they deserve opportunity to demonstrate the disputed understanding of the codebase in reviews. I think granting +2 rights could be a nice encouragement and motivation to do more of these (that's how I understand to above comments, that there's not been enough of complex mediawiki changes reviewed abd submitted by Paladox)

In T355619#9479984, @hashar wrote:

@Paladox is my de facto point of contact for patches I write for Gerrit. He is quite speedy, productive and has valuable reviews.

Oppose, largely per Bawolff. MediaWiki /is/ a complex codebase and I do not think one can effectively review even small patches without a good ability to understand how a piece of code fits into the larger picture. I am just not seeing that demonstrated here. Sorry.

@Paladox is my de facto point of contact for patches I write for Gerrit. He is quite speedy, productive and has valuable reviews.

In T355619#9479729, @daniel wrote:

In T355619#9479498, @Bawolff wrote:

I think the key skills involved in determining that are developed when writing more complex features or refactorings that change the ways components work in non-trivial ways. I worry that paladox does not have enough experience with that sort of development to be able to catch unexpected interactions with code under review.

My main expectation is that someone with +2 rights will have to good sense to not approce things they don't sufficiently understand. There are certain kinds of changes that I would not give a +2 on, e.g. config changes and changes to CI setup. Complex code changes are not the only kind of change that need review.

In T355619#9479498, @Bawolff wrote:

I think the key skills involved in determining that are developed when writing more complex features or refactorings that change the ways components work in non-trivial ways. I worry that paladox does not have enough experience with that sort of development to be able to catch unexpected interactions with code under review.

I appreciate that Paladox has done a lot of great work. He's also demonstrated much growth over the years.

Done!