Stream: t-lang

Topic: Lang team proposals, project groups, and active/backlog


Josh Triplett (Apr 30 2020 at 22:22, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis and I just sketched out a policy draft and a graph of the workflow for handling language proposals:
https://hackmd.io/vtE1YgufTU-q_u-NOXqW8A?both

Josh Triplett (Apr 30 2020 at 22:23, on Zulip):

The idea would be to get the language team more in a mode where we just review ideas and charter project groups to delegate the writing of RFCs to, and then review the output of those project groups when ready.

Josh Triplett (Apr 30 2020 at 22:24, on Zulip):

Thoughts, feedback?

Lokathor (May 01 2020 at 02:21, on Zulip):

I think it could be improved with clarification for what's "small" and what's "big enough for an RFC". Maybe pick some previous RFCs that lang oversaw that you can deem, in retrospect, to actually be "useful, but sub-RFC complexity"

Charles Lew (May 01 2020 at 03:44, on Zulip):

Mmm, "Idea" in the graph means "unbaked proposal" right? Sometimes i personally want to raise some pain points without knowing what the first proposal towards solving it would look like...

Josh Triplett (May 01 2020 at 07:45, on Zulip):

That's very much the goal of the side loop for iteration: internals, zulip, etc.

nikomatsakis (May 01 2020 at 09:17, on Zulip):

Charles Lew said:

Mmm, "Idea" in the graph means "unbaked proposal" right? Sometimes i personally want to raise some pain points without knowing what the first proposal towards solving it would look like...

I think it's a good question, actually -- I'm not sure how far along an idea has to be, but I definitely want to move us closer to the "unbaked" side than RFCs tend to be today.

simulacrum (May 01 2020 at 16:50, on Zulip):

I think it would be great to call out if e.g. this process would mean that we close issues on rust-lang/rust that need lang team approval, asking people to follow this process. We currently do that in some cases (e.g. lint requests, major feature proposals) but not very consistently, in part because the RFC process is (too) heavy weight

simulacrum (May 01 2020 at 16:51, on Zulip):

I would personally love to say that we do, and that people should use internals/zulip for "I have some idea I'd like to iterate on" rather than an issue on rust-lang/rust. But getting "official" sanction of that would be great, beyond the ad-hoc "Mark thinks so and is somewhat happy to go close people's issues"

nikomatsakis (May 01 2020 at 20:52, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

I think it would be great to call out if e.g. this process would mean that we close issues on rust-lang/rust that need lang team approval, asking people to follow this process. We currently do that in some cases (e.g. lint requests, major feature proposals) but not very consistently, in part because the RFC process is (too) heavy weight

yes

nikomatsakis (May 01 2020 at 20:52, on Zulip):

I will start extending the doc I think a bit there

nikomatsakis (May 01 2020 at 21:03, on Zulip):

(just did)

nikomatsakis (May 01 2020 at 21:23, on Zulip):

cc @Dirkjan Ochtman but also @WG-governance

nikomatsakis (May 01 2020 at 21:29, on Zulip):

For context for y'all, probably best to just start at the top, but this is a attempt to specify the workflow for language change proposals, I think a key first step towards something like "staged RFCs", but also towards increased transparency of what the lang team is prioritizing and working on.

nikomatsakis (May 01 2020 at 21:46, on Zulip):

I was thinking maybe it behooves us to also spell out "just enough" of the staging here

Dirkjan Ochtman (May 02 2020 at 18:12, on Zulip):

I want to make explicit that in my view there's quite a gap between the transparency/accessibility of internals compared to Zulip

Dirkjan Ochtman (May 02 2020 at 18:14, on Zulip):

as in, keeping lightweight tabs on what's going on through internals works well for me, not so much with Zulip IMO

Dirkjan Ochtman (May 02 2020 at 18:18, on Zulip):

to what extent is the "Language team list of proposals we'd like to see" fleshed out? This seems like a big important thing to me

Josh Triplett (May 02 2020 at 18:55, on Zulip):

@Dirkjan Ochtman It's not something we currently have written down in one place, but we'd like to fix that.

Josh Triplett (May 02 2020 at 18:55, on Zulip):

There are scattered notes, but historically we haven't written it all down in one place.

Lokathor (May 02 2020 at 20:57, on Zulip):

Myself, I think that Internals has a worse setup and is harder to follow than Zulip is.

scottmcm (May 04 2020 at 05:36, on Zulip):

I think it depends on depth. To me, looking at an overview and following maybe one or two threads is easier in IRLO, but for deep involvement in something it's easier on zulip.

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:35, on Zulip):

Something I was thinking about:

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

I think an important part of the RFC process is that team members and non-team members use it in roughly the same way

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

(You might see liaisons as a kind of exception to this, but I think of it as more of a way to make that promise more true, rather than less)

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

I think we should make explicit that lang team ideas also begin as proposals

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

And along those lines I have one in mind ;)

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

Another thing I was wondering:

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

When a project group has an idea for an RFC... do they start with a proposal?

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

I think the answer is probably "no", but it may depend on the scope of the project group

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

I think if we keep project groups relatively narrowly tailored, there wouldn't be a need for a follow-up proposal

nikomatsakis (May 06 2020 at 17:38, on Zulip):

But if we have groups with a broad focus -- I'm thinking of things like "async" or "error handling" -- then it might make more sense. These sorts of groups are perhaps closer to what we've traditionally called "domain working groups", though.

nikomatsakis (May 07 2020 at 21:20, on Zulip):

@Josh Triplett I'm trying to capture a bit of our thoughts about how project groups should fit into overall lang team workflow into the hackmd

nikomatsakis (May 07 2020 at 21:32, on Zulip):

I'm finding it sort of hard to decide what to write down, I admit

nikomatsakis (May 07 2020 at 21:33, on Zulip):

some things that are on my mind:

nikomatsakis (May 07 2020 at 21:35, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (May 07 2020 at 21:35, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (May 07 2020 at 21:35, on Zulip):

maybe I'm getting too ambitious :)

nikomatsakis (May 07 2020 at 21:36, on Zulip):
Last update: Jun 05 2020 at 23:20UTC