Stream: t-compiler

Topic: design meeting 2019-11-12


nikomatsakis (Nov 12 2019 at 20:10, on Zulip):

Hey @T-compiler/meeting -- on this coming Friday, we will be doing a "Working Group Review" for our design meeting. In the lead-up to that, I have prepared a short survey to collect thoughts. Anybody is welcome to fill it out. As the form states, I intend to "postprocess" the data a bit to extract themes and to help shape our discussion

simulacrum (Nov 12 2019 at 21:18, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis Do you want this for all working groups or just those "under" compiler?

nikomatsakis (Nov 12 2019 at 22:10, on Zulip):

@simulacrum this is specific to those intersecting the compiler. I would include things like #wg-traits and #wg-async-foundations whose precise "parent" team is a bit .. more complicated. :)

simulacrum (Nov 12 2019 at 22:10, on Zulip):

makes sense.

nikomatsakis (Nov 12 2019 at 22:14, on Zulip):

I think it would be in scope to talk about triage/design meetings a bit as well -- i.e., if there are goals that one might expect from working groups (like how to manage design) that are not well served in current processes

nikomatsakis (Nov 14 2019 at 16:06, on Zulip):

I forgot to make an announcement in today's meeting, so this is a reminder:

@T-compiler/meeting -- compiler wg retrospective meeting is tomorrow in this topic. If you haven't already, please take some time to fill out the short survey we prepared

mw (Nov 14 2019 at 16:10, on Zulip):

/me plans to fill out survey tomorrow morning

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 14:51, on Zulip):

Hello @T-compiler/meeting -- meeting starts in about 10 minutes. I'm going to go collate the survey feedback now (previous call ran over, so running a few minutes behind)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 14:57, on Zulip):

I'm collecting notes in this hackmd document if you want to folow along

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:01, on Zulip):

Announcements

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:01, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:01, on Zulip):

I'm in the process of drafting a blog post about testcase-reduction

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:01, on Zulip):

I think how I'd like to structure the meeting is to have people leave some marks in the hackmd with topics they'd like to focus on or spend time discussing in more depth

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:01, on Zulip):

oh cc @T-compiler/meeting meeting starting now-ish (announcements!)

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:01, on Zulip):

If you are interested in seeing a draft (of aforementioned blog post) and giving early feedback, PM me

oli (Nov 15 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

At rustfest we've had a mir-opt "room" where ppl interested in compiler hacking flocked to and it was a total success

oli (Nov 15 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

ppl have asked for this to be a regular thing at rustfests

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:04, on Zulip):

for people leaving marks in the hackmd, I recommend the :speech_bubble: (at least when responding to questions/ideas)

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:04, on Zulip):

At rustfest we've had a mir-opt "room" where ppl interested in compiler hacking flocked to and it was a total success

yeah it was great, I wondered if you were able to get them into Zulip or something like that and how things are going to continue

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:05, on Zulip):

but yeah, that discussion is not for this meeting, I guess :)

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:07, on Zulip):

@Esteban K├╝ber you should have a a diagnostics "room" ^^

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:08, on Zulip):

OK, just one left to go

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:08, on Zulip):

I hope people are reading :)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:09, on Zulip):

Main topics

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:09, on Zulip):

feel free to start tossing in ideas for bigger discussion themes and topics

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:09, on Zulip):

one thing I saw a lot was "improving the check-in process"

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:10, on Zulip):

which I assume means, in part, stop skipping the check-in's due to running out of time. :)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:10, on Zulip):

another, related theme was improving the "clerical work" in keeping web pages up to date, they get neglected, which in turn means people can't see (e.g.) up to date info on status

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:10, on Zulip):

another: clarifying the different kinds of working groups, the concept feels muddled

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:11, on Zulip):

the wind-down process came up a few times

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:11, on Zulip):

I'm also curious how people feel about the wall-of-text approach that some of the WG-checkin's take

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:11, on Zulip):

I propose we do this:

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:12, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:12, on Zulip):

times being slightly flexible :)

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:12, on Zulip):

I'm also curious how people feel about the wall-of-text approach that some of the WG-checkin's take

well, I actually think that the checkin may be better if handed beforehand to the person that is running the meeting

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:13, on Zulip):

Check-ins and how to improve them (already started a bit :)

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:13, on Zulip):

(anyone see any topic that they think must be incorporated into the above agenda that niko proposed?)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:13, on Zulip):

(sorry, not trying to railroad, just seeing that we're running slightly behind)

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:13, on Zulip):

((I guess they can PM it to niko.))

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:13, on Zulip):

yeah lets keep going

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:13, on Zulip):

there was definitely a general sentiment that the check-ins are good but could be better

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:13, on Zulip):

I agre with this

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:14, on Zulip):

I've definitely seen the check-ins result in both interest and spotting problems and other things

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:14, on Zulip):

However I also think it's quite hard to answer, at any given time, "what has been happening lately in this WG"

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:14, on Zulip):

Originally we had talked about having the check-ins be pushed to the repo

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:14, on Zulip):

so that you could go to a WG and see them (e.g., they would be added ahead of time to a NOTES.md file)

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:14, on Zulip):

but then it doesn't happen, right?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:14, on Zulip):

this .. just doesn't happen

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:14, on Zulip):

i.e. we need to maximize light-weightness

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:15, on Zulip):

well, it's at least not been happening thus far

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:15, on Zulip):

I've proposed something about checkins which is ... I guess it could be great to hear more often about wgs maybe every 2 weeks with a pre-cooked text handed to moderators of the meeting

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:15, on Zulip):

I'm not sure if that doable for leads of wgs

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:15, on Zulip):

I think the other concern is that the check-ins could be more visible, though the posting of triage meeting minutes to Inside Rust is helping imo

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:15, on Zulip):

but could even be just well nothing important happened during this 2 weeks, which is ok

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:16, on Zulip):

One thing about breaking a check-in into multiple lines of text during a meetng

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:16, on Zulip):

Another common theme was that there just isn't enough time in the triage meting

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:16, on Zulip):

is that it gives readers the chance to interrupt

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:16, on Zulip):

which depending on POV can be good or bad thing

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:16, on Zulip):

I think my take is that the wall of text is kind of good, but it does tend to limit feedback a bit.

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:17, on Zulip):

I'm not convinced that the current setup of pinging people last minute is actually keeping things lighterweight

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:17, on Zulip):

at the very least, individual lines of zulip comments allow people to target their emoji reactions!

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:17, on Zulip):

But I guess I don't have a ton of concrete alternatives :)

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:17, on Zulip):

yeah, just in case what I was saying I think I'd like to see wgs state statuses more often if people think that that's possible

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:17, on Zulip):

regardless on how that's done

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:18, on Zulip):

One other thing that was brought up was trying to ensure more uniform procss across WGs

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:18, on Zulip):

Personally I feel that the check-ins are working OK on meetings overall and "don't fix what ain't broken" sorta

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:18, on Zulip):

I wonder if there would be a way to have a process that tends to produce summaries as more of a side-effect? Not sure what that means

qmx (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

case in point, I am under the impression that lang-team WGs function very differently than compiler-team WGs

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

I think I sort of agree with @centril -- maybe the idea is more that we should keep an eye for ways to improve, more than anything

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

maybe each zulip stream for a WG could have a dedicated topic

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

as the WG makes interesting decisions/progress

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

they post a comment in that topic

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

ooh, interesting

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

then the summary is just derived from the log there?

mw (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

indeed

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:19, on Zulip):

could be easily missed tho?

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:20, on Zulip):

requires @pnkfelix to remember ^^

qmx (Nov 15 2019 at 15:20, on Zulip):

not if it's part of the check-in process

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:20, on Zulip):

I do think something like that -- maybe eventually with some kind of bot that scrapes and collates the information? -- could be really nice

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:20, on Zulip):

yeah I do have problems with that

qmx (Nov 15 2019 at 15:20, on Zulip):

"go over the list of topics"

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:20, on Zulip):

I think emoji reactions in that stream could help too

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:20, on Zulip):

my concern is people will forget to post, but I think that posting to a zulip topic is definitely an improvement on "open a PR against GH", which is kind of a pain

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:20, on Zulip):

i.e. even if there's a huge number of items, the WG participants (or 3rd party observers, for that matter) can use :point_of_information: to indicate the really important ones

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:21, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis but this info is then collected to GH somehow later right?

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:21, on Zulip):

can't we even automate a ping to leaders on Zulip to ask them to post things?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:22, on Zulip):

@centril right now, it's not, except in the form of blog posts. I would like for it to be.

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:22, on Zulip):

if nothing else, we'll have zulip-archive.rlo

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:23, on Zulip):

I think my take is-- check-ins are good, but the hardest problem in terms of getting a feeling for what WG is "doing" is more establishing a roadmap and steps

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:23, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis but we have minutes from check-ins at meetings, no?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:23, on Zulip):

which ties in with another theme, one I didn't pull out, of leadership and how we can help with that

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:23, on Zulip):

yes, that's true. what we don't have is way to find -- for a given WG -- the current updates, but if we had the zulip streams, we would

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:23, on Zulip):

I also posed a question about whether each WG should define some specific metrics by which they measure their progress.

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:23, on Zulip):

and it would be always up to date

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:23, on Zulip):

by its very nature

mw (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

I think my take is-- check-ins are good, but the hardest problem in terms of getting a feeling for what WG is "doing" is more establishing a roadmap and steps

yeah, the WGs I'm on don't have a written down roadmap...

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

metrics may or may not be useful in helping drive summaries of progress.

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

which ties in with another theme, one I didn't pull out, of leadership and how we can help with that

(I'd like to propose we semi switch to this, even though it's altering my proposed schedule)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

in particular, I'm wondering --

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

one thing I personally have found super useful

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

is having somebody sit down and help me

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

to form a roadmap and ideas

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

I would if some of us (myself, felix, maybe others) could try to actively spend time doing that with working groups?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:24, on Zulip):

or if it's worth a try?

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:25, on Zulip):

I think my take is-- check-ins are good, but the hardest problem in terms of getting a feeling for what WG is "doing" is more establishing a roadmap and steps

I think this is a great idea, on learning we would have a meeting to define a roadmap next week I think

mw (Nov 15 2019 at 15:25, on Zulip):

that sounds great

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:25, on Zulip):

I think that could fit with what @Santiago Pastorino was talking about

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:25, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix I'd be a bit careful about not making the metrics feel like performance reviews at a company or some such (because that makes OSS less fun, and more alienating)

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:25, on Zulip):

yeah it seems like helping WG's make roadmaps would be time well spent.

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:25, on Zulip):

i.e., maybe there is some way to have a periodic "roadmap check-in" meeting with leads of the WG

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:26, on Zulip):

I would if some of us (myself, felix, maybe others) could try to actively spend time doing that with working groups?

I can definitely help with this

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:26, on Zulip):

ok so I think it would work like this

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:26, on Zulip):

we try to go through each WG and make sure they have a roadmpa, scheduling meetings over the next time to work on that as needed

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:26, on Zulip):

this helps the check-ins be phrased in terms of that

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:27, on Zulip):

we can then repeat as needed, kind of monitoring progress?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:27, on Zulip):

I mean it's nothing too formal, more just the idea that we'll try to actively do this

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:27, on Zulip):

:+1:

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:27, on Zulip):

(maybe something for the meta wg to try and do -- a kind of "WG triage")

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:27, on Zulip):

(I've been pondering the idea that the meta wg should shift gears from "set up system" to "maintain and help monitor system")

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:28, on Zulip):

WG triage collides with the Triage WG :P

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:28, on Zulip):

there's Triage WG?

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:28, on Zulip):

/me looks around

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:28, on Zulip):

Under t-release

Santiago Pastorino (Nov 15 2019 at 15:28, on Zulip):

part of release team I think

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:29, on Zulip):

ok, we're 20 minutes in, so far I've got down some notes in the hackmd of:

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:29, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:29, on Zulip):

(I really like the "zulip topic" idea btw)

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:30, on Zulip):

that summary sounds right.

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:30, on Zulip):

so you wanted to move on to discussing WG leads?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:30, on Zulip):

I did, though I think the roadmap idea is solidly helpful

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:30, on Zulip):

or should we discuss winddown first

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:31, on Zulip):

I was going to suggest we touch on wind-down

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:31, on Zulip):

it seems clear we have some WGs that need to wind down

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:31, on Zulip):

NLL and pipelining come to mind

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:31, on Zulip):

we don't really have a procedure for this

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:32, on Zulip):

but .. I think the main two questions that arose are:

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:32, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:32, on Zulip):

at the very least, we need to ensure that open bugs tagged with WG-nll still keep relevant metadata, e.g. they need to be tagged with A-borrow-checker (I think)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:33, on Zulip):

I feel like @simulacrum, @centril and @Matthew Jasper have been doing the lion's share around NLL ( :heart_eyes: )

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:33, on Zulip):

(It would be unfair of me to take much credit for NLL; I only swept in at the last minute ^^)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:33, on Zulip):

maybe another aspect is what to do about working groups that are de facto inactive -- or just moving very slowly -- is that a problem?

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:33, on Zulip):

/me also feels like I've done nothing

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:34, on Zulip):

heh, I disagree with both of y'all :)

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:34, on Zulip):

I think it's clear that NLL isn't well tracked atm

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:34, on Zulip):

I agree

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:34, on Zulip):

it's in a "cleanup" phase sorta

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:34, on Zulip):

I'm not sure how big a problem I think it is

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:34, on Zulip):

we have migration mode and regionck

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:34, on Zulip):

but it seems like at least something we could improve, though I'm not sure how

qmx (Nov 15 2019 at 15:35, on Zulip):

wg-grammar is one that moves very slowly, but still moves

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:35, on Zulip):

at the very least, we need to ensure that open bugs tagged with WG-nll still keep relevant metadata, e.g. they need to be tagged with A-borrow-checker (I think)

Oh, i guess we don't even have a WG-nll label on github (at least not anymore)?

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:35, on Zulip):

I do think that wind down is roadmap completion, mostly

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:35, on Zulip):

probably not a great problem; the work is being done, mostly by @nikomatsakis and @Matthew Jasper last few weeks

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:35, on Zulip):

regionck is a good point, @centril, I think we should definitely formally discuss our plan around where that work moves to

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:35, on Zulip):

(I have thoughts, but this meeting doesn't seem the place to go into them)

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:35, on Zulip):

So if we don't have a roadmap I don't think we can discuss winddown effectively

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:36, on Zulip):

but at least we should try to have a "winddown meeting" where we try to uncover all that stuff and decide it

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:36, on Zulip):

so maybe the answer is

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:36, on Zulip):

Seems sensible; and collect a list of "remaining tasks"

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:36, on Zulip):

the roadmap check-in meetings we discussed earlier, but targeting wind-down?

qmx (Nov 15 2019 at 15:36, on Zulip):

kinda like a retrospective meeting?

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:37, on Zulip):

Well, I'd figure out a roadmap - perhaps even looking back at what was done for existing wgs - and then if everything is done then you're done

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:37, on Zulip):

kind of like a retrospective, except I think the goal isn't to look at "how did it go and what could we improve"

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:37, on Zulip):

but more like "what did we get done, what's left, and -- if it matters -- who will do it"

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:37, on Zulip):

A separate survey or w/e to figure out what could've gone better etc seems good, but I think is orthogonal to an extent

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:38, on Zulip):

OK, I'm happy with this around NLL. I don't think that the pipelining WG has as much follow-up work, but we should do the process anyway, we might surprise ourselves.

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:38, on Zulip):

I would think that in the case of NLL, the roadmap is dictated, at least in part, by the NLL tracking issue #43234

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:38, on Zulip):

(I imagine most WG's don't have this, of course; just wanted to remind people that this does exist...)

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:39, on Zulip):

that's a bit outdated; https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57895#issuecomment-535271853 is more up to date I think

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:39, on Zulip):

(time-check: 40 minutes in)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:39, on Zulip):

what do people think about "less active" wgs?

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:40, on Zulip):

(But in any case, I think I agree that the details of NLL's wind-down in particular can be handed in a dedicated roadmap meeting for WG-nll)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:40, on Zulip):

also, another common theme we could discuss: should we clarify the distinctions of e.g. "long-term working groups" vs "goal-oriented working groups"?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:40, on Zulip):

I'm trying to push for the term "project group" for the latter

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:40, on Zulip):

I don't think they're a problem, we should let things move at their own pace; though there should be a clear sense of goals at any point

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:40, on Zulip):

I think an example of longer-term activities might be:

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:40, on Zulip):

#t-compiler/wg-llvm

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

#t-compiler/wg-meta -- if we are using it for a kind of "keep the system up and going" sort of things

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

Is the naming of the terms a problem? I haven't been confused about the overloading of WG as a term personally

oli (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

The distinction is probably clear in some situations, but e.g. for const eval and mir-opt it seems like they are open end, but kindof also have a major goal?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

Yes, there are some that straddle the line -- I think #t-compiler/wg-traits is another example

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

however

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

I think that is partly the work that a roadmap formation would help with

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

but still

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

wg-traits is like the most open-ended :D

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

there seems to be a kind of "people who like to hack on this part of the code" concept

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:41, on Zulip):

that might be useful

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:42, on Zulip):

Is the naming of the terms a problem? I haven't been confused about the overloading of WG as a term personally

I have observed confusion, particularly with domain working groups

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:42, on Zulip):

imo it is domain WGs that should be renamed

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:42, on Zulip):

for example, what process is used to create a working group? domain working groups have an application procss, but ..? etc

mw (Nov 15 2019 at 15:42, on Zulip):

there's also wg-compiler-performance, which is a useful GH team for pinging people, but maybe that should just not be called a working group

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:42, on Zulip):

possibly

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:42, on Zulip):

there's also wg-compiler-performance, which is a useful GH team for pinging people, but maybe that should just not be called a working group

yeah, so we have ICE-breakers for this

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:42, on Zulip):

maybe we should rename that, not sure, but that's what it is designed to do

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:43, on Zulip):

(They are far fewer and don't really operate like WGs I'd say; more like "domain interest group")

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:43, on Zulip):

(or just use the mechanism with some other terms sometimes)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:44, on Zulip):

OK so it seems like we have the following sorts of things:

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:44, on Zulip):

I'm not sure how much difference there is between the first two

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:44, on Zulip):

well some goal could touch many parts of the compiler, e.g. some ergonomics feature

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:44, on Zulip):

I edited the list after the fact :)

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:44, on Zulip):

The first never goes away?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:44, on Zulip):

yeah, that's why I added it

mw (Nov 15 2019 at 15:45, on Zulip):

"project groups" could just be "projects" done by the corresponding working group?

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:45, on Zulip):

there's probably a lot of overlap in the 4 bullets

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:45, on Zulip):

I think the middle two feel .. like they are different but very similar. Both could maybe benefit from some kind of roadmap, unless the code is "perfect" and just needs bug fixing :)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:45, on Zulip):

"project groups" could just be "projects" done by the corresponding working group?

indeed, there is some kind of relationship like this I think

simulacrum (Nov 15 2019 at 15:45, on Zulip):

i.e. we would not expect a roadmap, more a road circle for wg-llvm and the like

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:45, on Zulip):

I think @mw hit on the relationship that might make the most sense

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:46, on Zulip):

like, there might be a group around some area of the code, and they might have active projects

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:46, on Zulip):

project groups with a pretty clear goal
groups around an area of the code

This is true of NLL for example; probably not so much the other 2

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:46, on Zulip):

(or they might be kind of in between that and just hanging out, talking about obscure combinations of LLVM passes and wishing LLVM would add poison already) (Update: I'm worried this will seem insulting :P just trying to make bad jokes ;)

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:46, on Zulip):

groups to ping people ("ICE-breakers")

this would be e.g. a group for organizing rollups

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:47, on Zulip):

OK, 50 minutes in :)

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:47, on Zulip):

wg-traits is probably a WG that would have many sub-projects with clear goals

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:47, on Zulip):

feel free to keep chatting :) but I'm gonna skim the hackmd to see if there are final themes worth hitting in. (Not sure if we reached a conclusion on this topic, though)

centril (Nov 15 2019 at 15:47, on Zulip):

and then the WG has a "we are focusing on this right now"

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:47, on Zulip):

OK, 50 minutes in :)

leadership ?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:48, on Zulip):

well, ok, so we talked about helping mentor leaders around roadmap formation

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:48, on Zulip):

there is also the matter of it being hard to find people with enough time

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:48, on Zulip):

I think those two are intertwined

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:48, on Zulip):

like, having help and support will help people fel encouraged, make more time

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:48, on Zulip):

but I also would like to hear from folks like @lqd, @Wesley Wiser, @oli who are kind of doing leadership "on the side" of other jobs

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:49, on Zulip):

about what frustrates them the most and what could help

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:49, on Zulip):

(not meant to be an exclusive list, anybody should feel free to pitch in :)

Wesley Wiser (Nov 15 2019 at 15:50, on Zulip):

/me at $DAYJOB now and 174 messages behind in this Zulip stream

nagisa (Nov 15 2019 at 15:50, on Zulip):

@Wesley Wiser only the last couple matter for the question at hand.

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:50, on Zulip):

lol sorry @Wesley Wiser :)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:51, on Zulip):

I guess that is part of the answer right there ;)

lqd (Nov 15 2019 at 15:51, on Zulip):

some of the topics about helping roadmaps, check-ins and increasing participation already seem worthwhile to me

nagisa (Nov 15 2019 at 15:51, on Zulip):

I feel fairly similar fwiw. Officially I provisionally lead a wg-llvm, but in practice I did nil leader-like things for that wg.

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:51, on Zulip):

one thing I see various +1s to

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:52, on Zulip):

is "multiple leads"

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:52, on Zulip):

(with which I strongly agree)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:52, on Zulip):

not sure how to make that happen, but maybe it's something to keep an eye out for if nothing else

oli (Nov 15 2019 at 15:52, on Zulip):

For me the current scheme works quite well. Though we could probably be more effective if we had some more organization.

lqd (Nov 15 2019 at 15:53, on Zulip):

"other people's time" always helps but is the hardest to make happen

nagisa (Nov 15 2019 at 15:53, on Zulip):

Add another hour to the day.

mw (Nov 15 2019 at 15:53, on Zulip):

having multiple leads is a total game changer for me

oli (Nov 15 2019 at 15:53, on Zulip):

But since everyone has other things to worry about, noone is moving very fast so I think it kind of fits

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:53, on Zulip):

(ps, skimming the hackmd, it seems we hit on a lot of the topics, one of the things we didn't is labeling -- kind of a germane topic, but maybe we can discuss in a separate topic @pnkfelix -- I do think we could do more to "normalize" our labeling schemes between groups, and I'd like to share the experiences of #wg-async-foundations here, which I think is working reasonably well)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:54, on Zulip):

having multiple leads is a total game changer for me

confirm

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:54, on Zulip):

I guess we should make an active goal that every WG has two leads

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:54, on Zulip):

(ps, skimming the hackmd, it seems we hit on a lot of the topics, one of the things we didn't is labeling -- kind of a germane topic, but maybe we can discuss in a separate topic pnkfelix -- I do think we could do more to "normalize" our labeling schemes between groups, and I'd like to share the experiences of #wg-async-foundations here, which I think is working reasonably well)

WG-NLL being able to make their own set of labels I thought was very useful too

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:54, on Zulip):

maybe we should try to allow for that more frequently?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:54, on Zulip):

(yes, I think the scheme would be more of a template than a set of specific labels)

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:55, on Zulip):

I just meant allowed+encouraging WG's to devise labels

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:55, on Zulip):

because AFAIK its the exception, not the rule, currently

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:55, on Zulip):

no?

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:55, on Zulip):

oh but then I guess that might run counter to normalized labels. :)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:55, on Zulip):

the specific thing that we've been doing in async-await is having a "triaged" label, so each meeting we skim the A-Async-await to look for things that lack a Triaged label and decide what to do about them

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:56, on Zulip):

I think having a "Triaged" label (and then other labels as desired) is a good template

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:56, on Zulip):

As in, a way for a WG to mark that they triaged the bug

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:56, on Zulip):

yes

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:56, on Zulip):

and encourage them to setup their own labeling schemes beyond that, as well

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:56, on Zulip):

we also might want a MyWG-nominated

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:57, on Zulip):

yes plausibly

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:57, on Zulip):

at least, I dislike how right now I have to dissect I-nominated when its tagged with multiple teams+WGs

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:57, on Zulip):

I guess we should make an active goal that every WG has two leads

is there more we can do here? I'm not sure exactly what. I guess that for WGs that lack multiple leads, we could try to actively advertise or something

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:57, on Zulip):

I guess the answer is just that we should look for wgs that lack multiple leads and talk about how we can fix that :)

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:57, on Zulip):

there was a PM from someone recently to me

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:57, on Zulip):

asking about forming a WG

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:58, on Zulip):

ah interesting

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:58, on Zulip):

and they explicitly said that they themselves didn't feel comfortable being lead

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:58, on Zulip):

we didn't talk at all about WG creation

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:58, on Zulip):

we don't really have time to dig into it

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:58, on Zulip):

oh right, that's explicitly undocumented

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:58, on Zulip):

(as in, we have documentation saying we lack protocol for creation)

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:58, on Zulip):

but I think there are definitely "ongoing activities" that would be good to capture in a WG

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:58, on Zulip):

maybe good for follow-up?

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:59, on Zulip):

as in, a topic for a later steering meeting?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:59, on Zulip):

yes

pnkfelix (Nov 15 2019 at 15:59, on Zulip):

Or maybe just in a dedicated zulip topic?

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:59, on Zulip):

maybe start there

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 15:59, on Zulip):

we're at 59 minutes, in any case, and I think this was pretty fruitful

nikomatsakis (Nov 15 2019 at 16:00, on Zulip):

So a big :thank_you: and much :heart: :heart: to all who participated

Wesley Wiser (Nov 15 2019 at 16:06, on Zulip):

Sorry, had some stuff come up I needed to deal with. Based on the other replies here, I think I'm missing some context for the question but one of the challenging things for me is effectively being in the wrong timezone. Even though I'm EST, I'm working during the day so in the evenings, most everyone else is offline which can make even simple conversations take a lot longer.

Wesley Wiser (Nov 15 2019 at 16:06, on Zulip):

I personally have started getting up earlier to do Rust stuff so that I'm active in the middle of the day for Europe and that has made a huge difference in my personal productivity and IMO also the teams I contribute to.

Last update: Dec 12 2019 at 01:25UTC