Stream: project leads (public)

Topic: Pre-RFC: Roadmap 2021


simulacrum (Dec 04 2020 at 00:47, on Zulip):

I’m writing to announce that the core team has prepared a first draft of the roadmap for next year. The core team’s time will be focused on improving Rust’s governance, and working closely with all of you to help prepare charters for all of our teams and working groups. Our expectation is that this work helps each team better understand what their aims are and will help the Core team better serve your needs.

I’ve prepared a draft PR for an initial round of commentary from all of you here: https://github.com/Mark-Simulacrum/rfcs/pull/1.

Josh Triplett (Dec 04 2020 at 02:08, on Zulip):

@simulacrum Would it make sense for the RFC to include a list of such teams, to concretely make it clear to people which teams at what levels will participate in this governance regularization process? (e.g. core, lang, libs, compiler, ...)

simulacrum (Dec 04 2020 at 02:09, on Zulip):

I expect all groups within rust to participate - both teams and working groups (project groups too, but those are much more recent and we've been pretty good about chartering them - great place to get feedback!)

simulacrum (Dec 04 2020 at 02:09, on Zulip):

So I think it's possible we can include a list but I am not sure we can make it exhaustive - I'd be happy to add a section explicitly calling this out.

simulacrum (Dec 04 2020 at 02:11, on Zulip):

Before we post fully I expect to spend some time double checking "team" and "group" being used interchangeably but confusingly :)

Josh Triplett (Dec 04 2020 at 02:18, on Zulip):

I'm expecting most of governance to participate as well, but it'd be helpful to spell that out in the RFC for clarity. For instance, it wasn't at all obvious to me if this included working groups or not.

Josh Triplett (Dec 04 2020 at 02:19, on Zulip):

And in the other direction, I'm hoping this includes core.

Josh Triplett (Dec 04 2020 at 02:20, on Zulip):

Also, I'm not sure if this is within the intended scope of the RFC, but I'd love to see a mention of unifying contribution processes among groups. (e.g. current work on project-based contribution processes.)

simulacrum (Dec 04 2020 at 03:04, on Zulip):

Happy to try to edit these into the RFC with some stronger language - could you leave a comment on the PR?

Core is definitely in scope.

I think we're going to try to focus more on the governance side of things rather than directly addressing contributor interfaces, but I think some of the charter work is going to include project based contribution. I think there's more I can do to make that clearer for sure.

Joshua Nelson (Dec 04 2020 at 05:38, on Zulip):

Josh Triplett said:

unifying contribution processes among groups

can you expand what you mean by this? like how people should start on large projects, whether they should go through RFC/MCP/FCP?

Josh Triplett (Dec 04 2020 at 05:42, on Zulip):

@Joshua Nelson Right. In particular, harmonizing the MCP process across teams, especially for the case of cross-team-scope projects.

Josh Triplett (Dec 04 2020 at 05:42, on Zulip):

So that there isn't one process to deal with lang and a different process to deal with libs.

Joshua Nelson (Dec 04 2020 at 05:43, on Zulip):

that would be nice :smile:

Florian Gilcher (Dec 04 2020 at 09:17, on Zulip):

@Josh Triplett from my PoV, we also need a team restructure in some ways, so naming a team list in the RFC might weaken that.

Josh Triplett (Dec 04 2020 at 09:18, on Zulip):

Can you elaborate on that?

Florian Gilcher (Dec 04 2020 at 09:22, on Zulip):

Joshua Nelson said:

Josh Triplett said:

unifying contribution processes among groups

can you expand what you mean by this? like how people should start on large projects, whether they should go through RFC/MCP/FCP?

So, one of the things that became hard - even for me, as a person that has been around the project is finding out how to approach a project, what feedback they need, how I can find out if my feedback currently fits, etc. But e.g. also things like licence checks on code and whatever. Again, speaking personally, we should have an eye on the classic "just enough process" though - improving visibility,. reducing insecurity and removing cognitive load for all.

Florian Gilcher (Dec 04 2020 at 09:24, on Zulip):

Josh Triplett said:

Can you elaborate on that?

Especially in WG-land, some WGs aren't active or have changed scope, which may point to them restructuring and going into other parts of the projects. There's nothing I want to highlight, as that would be top-down, I just think it's a place we can optimise in.

Florian Gilcher (Dec 04 2020 at 09:25, on Zulip):

But for example, community-team reforms in January and may drastically change its structure.

nikomatsakis (Dec 10 2020 at 13:51, on Zulip):

This is something we talked a lot about in the context of the governance wg

nikomatsakis (Dec 10 2020 at 13:53, on Zulip):

Not to derail the thread, but to give an idea of what I at least have in mind when it comes to "project reorg", my current opinion is that we ought to retire the concept of domain working groups and generally move them to something independent from the rust-lang project. I think in some cases, we might opt instead to create a team, or to reposition the working group as a project group within an existing team. I do think there may be room for some kind of "community directory", to help people find and get involved with external groups.

nikomatsakis (Dec 10 2020 at 13:54, on Zulip):

I think there is probably some amount of room for other changes, e.g. I've kicked around the idea of a "product team" for a while now that tries to pull together the technical teams for tighter cooperation, but I'm not sure I have a clear picture there yet of what would really work.

nikomatsakis (Dec 10 2020 at 13:54, on Zulip):

Definitely I share the concern that we need to make the project as approachable as we can, and especially approachable for "organizations" or "groups" (I think we do rather better with individuals, even though there is work to be done on consolidating)

Last update: Jun 20 2021 at 00:45UTC