Stream: t-compiler/wg-meta

Topic: managing membership


nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:05, on Zulip):

So we were talking about the question of managing WG membership over in the lang team meeting. @Aaron Turon mentioned that the WG.net has used some kind of dropbox paper or something to collect e-mail addresses (is that right, @Aaron Turon?) in order to make announcements. @Taylor Cramer was also keen on having such a list -- which makes sense.

This seems to overlap the idea we were having of having some kind of GH alias that you can add yourself to.

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:05, on Zulip):

I wonder if we could even do a crazy thing like -- you add yourself to a spreadsheet, and some bot synchronizes the spreadsheet with the GH team (which would have read permission to various repositories, and hence be assignable)

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:06, on Zulip):

I think the "how to broadcast to people" question is interesting. @Aaron Turon do you actually use e-mail?

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:06, on Zulip):

Somehow that never occurred to me :P

davidtwco (Feb 21 2019 at 21:07, on Zulip):

I think a GitHub and Zulip group are the only things we'd need for notifications. The mechanism that people use to subscribe to those (read: get added to them), I don't know.

davidtwco (Feb 21 2019 at 21:09, on Zulip):

Perhaps have an issue on the compiler-team repository for each working group, where people can ping a bot to subscribe and unsubscribe. @rust-wg-bot subscribe wg-meta and it adds you to those two groups. I think I prefer this to having some world-writable spreadsheet.

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:10, on Zulip):

It seems like you want some kind of central "step" people can take

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:10, on Zulip):

I guess I would prefer to do something simple to start for now

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:10, on Zulip):

Hmm

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:11, on Zulip):

I see, you are suggesting that you have distinct mechanisms per venue?

davidtwco (Feb 21 2019 at 21:11, on Zulip):

I see, you are suggesting that you have distinct mechanisms per venue?

Pinging that bot would add you to any group for that wg - GitHub, Zulip, whatever.

Pietro Albini (Feb 21 2019 at 21:11, on Zulip):

would sending PRs to rust-lang/team be better? it might be a bit more involved than typing a command, but it would integrate with the rest of the infra

davidtwco (Feb 21 2019 at 21:12, on Zulip):

would sending PRs to rust-lang/team be better? it might be a bit more involved than typing a command, but it would integrate with the rest of the infra

Perhaps the bot could commit to that repo in order to affect change so that it is still the source of truth, but having a bot makes it really simple and not error-prone to subscribe.

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:13, on Zulip):

would sending PRs to rust-lang/team be better? it might be a bit more involved than typing a command, but it would integrate with the rest of the infra

that seems fine

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:13, on Zulip):

heh :)

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:13, on Zulip):

I guess I think either is ok

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:13, on Zulip):

as long as it's documented

Pietro Albini (Feb 21 2019 at 21:13, on Zulip):

I plan to start writing the github integration with the team repo soonish

Pietro Albini (Feb 21 2019 at 21:16, on Zulip):

and if you want to use a @rust-lang.org email address the team repo is the only place where you can configure the addresses

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:16, on Zulip):

(The thing about a GH team is that it's not something one can easily "announce" to, right?)

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:17, on Zulip):

Ooh, an e-mail address, that's kind of interesting.

Pietro Albini (Feb 21 2019 at 21:17, on Zulip):

since yesterday all the mailing lists are configured from the team repo :D

davidtwco (Feb 21 2019 at 21:17, on Zulip):

If they are added to a Zulip group too (and I'd expect so), then we can ping them here. Otherwise, the GitHub group is useful when someone wants to draw the working group's attention to an issue.

Pietro Albini (Feb 21 2019 at 21:18, on Zulip):

I'm not sure how feasible is to integrate the team repo to zulip though, I did a quick check a few days ago but I didn't find any API to manage group memberships here

Pietro Albini (Feb 21 2019 at 21:18, on Zulip):

(tbh I didn't look that much, I might have missed it)

davidtwco (Feb 21 2019 at 21:19, on Zulip):

Yeah, I've looked before too (we're trialing zulip at work) and I don't think there is one. I should file an issue for that.

Aaron Turon (Feb 21 2019 at 21:28, on Zulip):

I wonder if we could even do a crazy thing like -- you add yourself to a spreadsheet, and some bot synchronizes the spreadsheet with the GH team (which would have read permission to various repositories, and hence be assignable)

not so crazy -- this is the intent that @Pietro Albini has with the general team repo

Aaron Turon (Feb 21 2019 at 21:30, on Zulip):

ah i see that's already come up

Aaron Turon (Feb 21 2019 at 21:30, on Zulip):

but yeah, @nikomatsakis your summary is basically right -- we had a sign-up sheet on dropbox paper where people would put email, github, and discord aliases

Aaron Turon (Feb 21 2019 at 21:30, on Zulip):

email mostly used for setting up regular meetings etc

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:31, on Zulip):

seems reasonable to start

Aaron Turon (Feb 21 2019 at 21:31, on Zulip):

but honestly, the broader point is that "membership" just looks like some way to track "who wants to be involved", very low bar, and mostly about being able to easily contact people

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:31, on Zulip):

I also think the lang team and compiler team may very slightly here

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:31, on Zulip):

well both want that

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:31, on Zulip):

I sort of expect lang team to make a bit more use of e.g. video calls

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:32, on Zulip):

not sure why that matters, feels like it may

Aaron Turon (Feb 21 2019 at 21:32, on Zulip):

ah that's a good point

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:32, on Zulip):

I guess because on compiler team so much communication is over zulip

Aaron Turon (Feb 21 2019 at 21:32, on Zulip):

though i still think the core issue of "how do we reach you to set up meetings" is the same

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:32, on Zulip):

though maybe lang team should shift; but I feel like the extra bandwidth of video has value

nikomatsakis (Feb 21 2019 at 21:33, on Zulip):

yeah, it is

nikomatsakis (Feb 25 2019 at 22:36, on Zulip):

continuing the conversation from the wg template section, where @Cem Karan wrote:

Would it be possible to maintain a priority queue of members?

I think that would be possible, but my main question is that i'm not sure when it would be helpful.

Cem Karan (Feb 25 2019 at 22:53, on Zulip):

I can think of just a few times when it would be helpful to know who is at the head of the list
- Figuring out who the best person to get in contact with might be.
- Figuring out if it's time for the current lead to pass the torch to someone else.
- Figuring out if the working group is dead (if the most active person hasn't posted in 3 years, that might be a hint that it's time for the group to be wrapped up and shelved).
- Helping prune the member set (mostly by sending messages to people asking them if they are still interested in the group).

Beyond that, I'm not sure. It really depends on how the list is maintained; the better the metrics are, the more useful it could be.

davidtwco (Feb 25 2019 at 23:13, on Zulip):

I'm not sure the maintainance burden of keeping a priority queue of members, with the priority being activity, is worth it. Maybe way down the line, if there are a lot more people involved and a lot more working groups, but IMO, not with the current scope of working groups. That said, maybe I'm missing something or there are some advantages to this that I'm not seeing - I'm not making the decisions about the working groups afterall. Some thoughts based on my understanding of what the idea is:

I think the current expectation is that a combination of posting in the working group's chat, pinging the leads and checking the "experts list" (another thing that the meta working group has on the list of things to think about) will be enough to provide an adequate solution to this problem.

I think the current intent is that the small number of working groups would be mostly headed up by compiler team members, and that working groups would regularly check-in with the team. The hope is that this would result in keeping working groups active and being able to make changes to help encourage activity as soon as there start being issues.

As the working groups are predominantly a mechanism to enable the compiler team to scale and better organize when working toward that year's goals - I think it'll be unlikely, given how important working groups might end up being (if this all pans out) to achieving the year's goals, that they go sufficiently unsupervised for these problems to occur.

By avoiding formal membership, this isn't an issue.

:shrug:

Last update: Nov 11 2019 at 21:55UTC