Stream: t-compiler/wg-meta

Topic: meeting 2019.04.11


nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 17:51, on Zulip):

Hi @WG-meta -- meeting in 10 minutes.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 17:58, on Zulip):

I created a rough draft of the "compiler team contributors" RFC

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 17:59, on Zulip):

Meta working planning document

Pietro Albini (Apr 11 2019 at 18:01, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis (reading the rfc draft) yep, write access is required to relabel issues/prs

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:02, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis do we have an agenda or something for the meeting?

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:02, on Zulip):

Have you ditched the idea of having a "in-training/mentorship" process for becoming a compiler team member?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:02, on Zulip):

on top of Rust Latam I was a bit absent in general on this WG

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

@davidtwco I did not

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

but I didn't include it in the RFC either ;)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

would be great to have a quick update

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

Well, I also feel a bit confused :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

on what's the status of things and what we are working on

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

:)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

so maybe we can start by trying to define our goals :P

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

let's be all confused together then :P

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:03, on Zulip):

seems like a good idea :)

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:04, on Zulip):

but I didn't include it in the RFC either ;)

That's why I asked.

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:04, on Zulip):

Other than that part (which I don't disagree with, just wasn't what I was expecting), I like the RFC draft.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:05, on Zulip):

We've basically been pursuing a few things thus far:

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:05, on Zulip):

(Sound about right?)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:06, on Zulip):

my sense is that there are some remaining things to do with all of these

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:06, on Zulip):

we've made pretty good progress on the WG infrastructure,

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:06, on Zulip):

I've just remembered that @mw was compiling a list of tasks that they did to set up their out-of-tree crate.

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:06, on Zulip):

I should take a look at that.

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:06, on Zulip):

Oops.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:06, on Zulip):

but there are a few things we don't have:

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:07, on Zulip):

plus I think that we need to gain experience with WGs, but that takes a bit of time

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:07, on Zulip):

finally, I think there are probably some kind of meetings that are not strictly WG but which may be useful

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:07, on Zulip):

e.g., my recent proposal for a design meeting

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:07, on Zulip):

we had planned tomorrow at the steering meeting to cover a bit of the WG review + design meeting

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:08, on Zulip):

does it also worth to talk about the documentation WG?

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:08, on Zulip):

good question, I'm trying to think how that fits into my breakdown :)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:08, on Zulip):

I feel like that is kind of "figuring out what the right set of working groups are", and it does't quite feel like our job here

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:09, on Zulip):

(but it could well be a good thing to talk about at the steering meeting, or just in general)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:09, on Zulip):

(I view this meeting as more about setting up the structure)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:10, on Zulip):

feel free to tell me if that seems wrong :)

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:10, on Zulip):

I agree.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:10, on Zulip):

ok, so let's defer that for a bit

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:11, on Zulip):

so the second bullet point:

# policies for common scenarios

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:11, on Zulip):

here we focused on the out-of-tree policy and the policy for creating WGs

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:11, on Zulip):

(ps, I'll try to update the meta WG planning paper in a bit)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:11, on Zulip):

(that is, try to take some of what we're saying here and get that in there...)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:12, on Zulip):

it seems clear that there are more policies around :)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:12, on Zulip):

e.g., I think it'd be useful to spend time doing things like:

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:12, on Zulip):

though i'm not sure if I'd call it the top priority

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:12, on Zulip):

e.g., I think it'd be useful to spend time doing things like:

Triage meeting already has some documentation in the compiler-team repository.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:12, on Zulip):

(also not super hard)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:12, on Zulip):

ah, ok

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:13, on Zulip):

I guess the tl;dr is that I think at the moment I don't see more policies we should document beyond the out-of-tree crate thing, except as part of making other changes

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:13, on Zulip):

here - it isn't very much, granted.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:13, on Zulip):

but I'm maybe overlooking things

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:13, on Zulip):

here - it isn't very much, granted.

ah, yes.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:14, on Zulip):

I mean it is probably enough

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:14, on Zulip):

not clear how much value there is in writing everything down

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:14, on Zulip):

I can't think of anything that's particularly important to document that we haven't already.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:14, on Zulip):

I was a bit absent when you defined the out-of-tree crate thing, is there stuff to read to catch up?

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:14, on Zulip):

I was a bit absent when you defined the out-of-tree crate thing, is there stuff to read to catch up?

this document has the current state of it.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:15, on Zulip):

so that leaves us with the final item

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:15, on Zulip):

trying to create more structure in the compiler team membership

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:15, on Zulip):

this is where, for starters, my proposed RFC fits in, as it adds a level ("contributor")

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:16, on Zulip):

the RFC also leaves a few questions -- e.g., should we have a 'senior level', or other distinctions

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:16, on Zulip):

but I'm inclined to do the simplest thing to start

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:16, on Zulip):

in a (more complete) answer to your question @davidtwco , I did not give up on the idea of active mentoring, but I wanted to start with this, beacuse I have a big set of people I want to nominate for this role :)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:16, on Zulip):

and then I thought we could layer the active mentoring on top

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:16, on Zulip):

yes, this could start simple and keep improving

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:17, on Zulip):

since that will have a more restrictred capacity (by design)

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:17, on Zulip):

I like your RFC, there are only two places I'd have any comments or suggestions:

Once a working group participant has been contributing regularly for some time, they can be promoted to the level of a compiler team contributor.

I don't think we should define what "regular" is, but we should set some loose expectations for how "regular".

As a contributor gains in experience, they may be asked to become a compiler team member.

I liked the active mentoring ideas we had for this part of the process.

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:17, on Zulip):

(I wrote the above before you sent your message)

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:17, on Zulip):

I think it makes sense to start with something a bit smaller in scope.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:17, on Zulip):

I think we can leave it as a "planned future extension"

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

the active mentoring specifically

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

I think we can leave it as a "planned future extension"

I agree, that makes sense.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

but we should get started now on planning it :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

remember me what are you talking about when you say active mentorship :)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

I can't think of anything that's particularly important to document that we haven't already.

jumping back to this -- processes -- I guess the main thing I would include here that probalby IS worth trying to write down is "how WGs typically work" or "advice for running a WG"

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

in general I agree with the baby steps way of moving forward, try the idea and keep improving and making the thing more complex :)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:19, on Zulip):

remember me what are you talking about when you say active mentorship :)

take a look at the "member in training" text here, @Santiago Pastorino

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:19, on Zulip):

remember me what are you talking about when you say active mentorship :slight_smile:

tl;dr A process whereby to become a compiler team member, someone on the team already nominates you, other members of the team agree, and they then mentor you through the responsibilities of team membership and in general compiler work for some period of time until you're deemed ready.

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:20, on Zulip):

jumping back to this -- processes -- I guess the main thing I would include here that probalby IS worth trying to write down is "how WGs typically work" or "advice for running a WG"

I'm not convinced there's a lot we can do about this right now until we've got some more experience seeing what works with the WGs we have.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:20, on Zulip):

so considering everything the path is ... contributor -> in training (where you have a mentor) -> member, is that right?

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:22, on Zulip):

ok so I think this leaves us with the following "active work items" at the moment?

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:22, on Zulip):

the RFC also leaves a few questions -- e.g., should we have a 'senior level', or other distinctions

I have some thoughts about whether their should or shouldn't be a"senior level" but it's probably more tied into the active mentoring discussion.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:22, on Zulip):

yes, I see a relationship between them too

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:23, on Zulip):

in particular i"m not sure if being a member should involve more responsibilities (e.g., to mentor, lead, etc) than it presently does

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:23, on Zulip):

I am inclined move a bit slowly there

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:24, on Zulip):

in particular i"m not sure if being a member should involve more responsibilities (e.g., to mentor, lead, etc) than it presently does

with mentoring/leading specifically: I think it should be encouraged but I wouldn't want to force anyone into that if they didn't want to/didn't have time/aren't comfortable doing so. At the very least, if they're asked about something (being on the team and all) then they could point that person towards someone else who would know.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:24, on Zulip):

yes, I see a relationship between them too

agree on this too :)

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:25, on Zulip):

my hunch is that the "members" will naturally start to subdivide into more categories and roles

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:25, on Zulip):

e.g., hackers, organizers, mentors, etc

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:25, on Zulip):

yep

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:25, on Zulip):

but it may or may not ever be worth trying to formalize that

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:25, on Zulip):

and if so, probably better to do it a bit after the fact

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

this might be more like the "expert map"

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

I guess the part of being active can be judged by different parameters

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

i.e., you can opt-in to place yourself in whatever categories you like

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

some people may contribute code but some other may just mentor people

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

I do think it's worth us talking about these activities a bit more explicitly

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

it's something that I hint at in my RFC

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

but I want to do more

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

in part because I think we need to start actively reaching out to folks

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

I think letting people set a "subtitle" of sorts under their name wherever their membership is listed could be enough initially for people to advertise the ways in which they are involved and what sorts of things they do.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:26, on Zulip):

who are interested in helping with non-coding activities

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:27, on Zulip):

(which relates, @Santiago Pastorino, to the doc wg)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:27, on Zulip):

yes

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:27, on Zulip):

ok so anyway I have to run

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:27, on Zulip):

for this coming week, can we pick a few things to do?

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:27, on Zulip):

I see one:

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:28, on Zulip):

ok so I think this leaves us with the following "active work items" at the moment?

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:28, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:28, on Zulip):

yeah I'm trying to get a bit more specific within that bullet list

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:28, on Zulip):

We can divvy these up among us.

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:29, on Zulip):

I suppose the second and third items are quite broad and the fourth and fifth are just waiting.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:29, on Zulip):

@davidtwco do you know what to finish for out-of-tree policy? is that actionable?

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:29, on Zulip):

this is something both of y'all can do :)

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):

To the best of my knowledge, all that it needs is some more detail, based on @mw's experience with the measureme crate. I can chat with them and try incorporate some of their experience into the policy.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):

anyway, I'm going to start walking home, but feel free to keep talking, or we can discuss a bit async the work items, or get to it next week

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):

this was very productive for coming up with a roadmap anyway

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):
  • review the contributor RFC and offer comments? should I move the draft somewhere, or just leave it in my fork?

this is something both of y'all can do :slight_smile:

I don't think we can easily make comments on the fork.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):

I will open a PR on .. the compiler-team repo?

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):

I can make a "draft rfc" section

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):

That or a paper document.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):

then you can comment on the PR easily

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:30, on Zulip):

paper is a pain to export from, I've found

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:31, on Zulip):

the markdown is not as clean as you might like

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:31, on Zulip):

I could do hackmd

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:31, on Zulip):

PR on compiler-team repo sounds good.

nikomatsakis (Apr 11 2019 at 18:31, on Zulip):

anyway I'll do something

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:31, on Zulip):

we can comment on the branch too or the commit that lead to that doc

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:31, on Zulip):

doesn't need to have a PR

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:31, on Zulip):

but whatever :)

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:31, on Zulip):

I tried to find a way to comment on the commit because I've seen it done before but couldn't find it.

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:32, on Zulip):

There probably is and I missed it.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:33, on Zulip):

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/commit/d81ffb0b2b6f10461c86482c068ed5679fa2b96a#diff-a7165cb4c579024c289a5143f071e08dR14

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:33, on Zulip):

go there and check between line numbers and text, once you hover that area a blue + sign will show up

davidtwco (Apr 11 2019 at 18:33, on Zulip):

Huh, that wasn't showing up for me before. Odd.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 11 2019 at 18:34, on Zulip):

that's in the commit url and not in the branch url

mw (Apr 12 2019 at 08:24, on Zulip):

@davidtwco here are the notes that @Wesley Wiser and I took while setting up the measureme out-of-tree crate: https://hackmd.io/JnY4TBjoRi-sZrj320ntcg

davidtwco (Apr 12 2019 at 08:29, on Zulip):

Thanks, I'll take a look.

nikomatsakis (Apr 12 2019 at 18:08, on Zulip):

@davidtwco something I remembered -- I think we should also make sure to modify our triage links and things to search across the whole github org

nikomatsakis (Apr 12 2019 at 18:08, on Zulip):

which implies we ought to create T-compiler and P-high labels, etc

davidtwco (Apr 12 2019 at 18:45, on Zulip):

That's a good idea, what repos would we want them on?

nikomatsakis (Apr 13 2019 at 11:57, on Zulip):

I imagine any T-compiler related repository

Last update: Nov 18 2019 at 00:40UTC