Hey @simulacrum the Zulip stream comment for new MCPs says something about "this will be discussed in the next meeting" or something. Maybe we could rephrase to something like
"This will be announced in the next meeting to try and draw attention to it."
or something like that?
Sure! Do you think it needs to be different for lang and compiler? I guess no?
no, the main thing is not to convey that there is some "synchronous discussion" that is going to happen
see also the discussion here https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/303
I guess ideally we'd maybe tinker the text a bit more even but that'd be a start
@simulacrum are these comments chiding folks for leaving comments on the github issue?
or are they the result of a bug of some kind
Well, we can call it whatever you'd wish :)
But not intentional
lol ok :)
Probably good to file an issue for both requests here
@simulacrum I don't think I would want to nag folks, to be clear.
tbh I still don't think it's clear that MCP discussion over zulip is better than on the issue
Yes, I think it's probably overdoing it
I do think having something more .. dynamic, I guess, I useful for hashing things out
But I'm not sure if that means we should recommend Zulip topics for "simple things" and push for more formal discussion on GitHub. I think it's similar to RFCs in this way, where GitHub isn't ideal but maybe also the best we have
I could see some value to saying:
there is a Zulip topic that can be used for back-and-forth
I don't know :/
I guess I think that having a GH conversation that is "short-lived" is pretty decent
i.e., if the MCP is going to undergo major changes, it should be closed and re-opened with those changes
hm yeah perhaps
I do think ... like, if I want to ask a question, I somewhat prefer to do that on Zulip
particularly if there's discussion that's more "on key" (with e.g. people who know more)
maybe we should push for discussion on github and questions on zulip but no real enforcement of either.
not sure if that makes sense though. I wouldn't really want to split discussion though