Stream: wg-governance

Topic: meeting 2020-03-12


Val Grimm (Mar 06 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

Remember that the winter/summer time switch is applied inconsistently across applicable time zones until April. So this meeting, which was regularly at 19h00 CET/1pm EST/10am PST, will now be (as I see on my calendar) at 18h00 CET. For details, see https://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/events.html

Val Grimm (Mar 09 2020 at 19:07, on Zulip):

When I prepared official minutes from last time noted items to followup, put in Action Item List Added agenda item fo12 March to discuss what to items of the 27 Feb Action Item List to add to agenda for 26 March and what to take async.

Val Grimm (Mar 09 2020 at 19:07, on Zulip):

For convenience, here is the Agenda link. https://hackmd.io/ATj1rZJaRimaIfIWfAOYfQ

BatmanAoD (Kyle Strand) (Mar 09 2020 at 19:33, on Zulip):

To be absolutely totally explicit: it looks like the meeting time is following the DST time-change; is this okay with everyone? (I have no preference, and it sounds like most of the group members are in areas that follow DST anyway)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 09 2020 at 19:35, on Zulip):

That is fine by me!

Val Grimm (Mar 10 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

as noted in conflict thread, I cannot be present.

Val Grimm (Mar 10 2020 at 18:06, on Zulip):

however given that meeting is on Zulip can happily handle minutes and blog post again

simulacrum (Mar 12 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

Ah I will actually not be able to make it, I had somehow decided it would be Wednesday but today this slot does not work well for me. I will read scroll back or notes though if y'all would like that.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 16:50, on Zulip):

Good morning @WG-governance ! Meeting starts in 10 min!

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 16:51, on Zulip):

@simulacrum That would be great, thanks Mark!

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:00, on Zulip):

Alright! Time for the meeting to begin! Please react with :wavy_dash: to indicate you are here!

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:00, on Zulip):

er...wrong emoji

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:00, on Zulip):

Please react to this message with :wave: to indicate you are here

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:01, on Zulip):

Agenda: https://hackmd.io/ATj1rZJaRimaIfIWfAOYfQ

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:02, on Zulip):

First item for discussion is the Pre-RFC process

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:02, on Zulip):

hello

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:02, on Zulip):

@Nell Shamrell-Harrington Actually I'd like to do some follow-up first.

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:02, on Zulip):

I should add that as agenda item.

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:03, on Zulip):

The first being, I believe core discussed the project group rfc recently, as there has been more activity. I plan to address that feedback this week.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:04, on Zulip):

oh, heh, I forgot about that RFC

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:04, on Zulip):

I thought we had landed it

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:04, on Zulip):

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2856

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:05, on Zulip):

@XAMPPRocky go right ahead!

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:05, on Zulip):

The only other item was again following up on moving the repositories. @nikomatsakis I know you went through them recently. Is there any more to do for that?

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:06, on Zulip):

Looks like @simulacrum had some recent comments on that RFC

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:06, on Zulip):

Re: repos, well, I did a kind of first pass, but I didn't act on any of my thoughts :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:06, on Zulip):

there's definitely more to do

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:07, on Zulip):

e.g. some of the repos (like ena) need to get moved

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:08, on Zulip):

Okay, the move seems to be progressing fine overall though.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:08, on Zulip):

yeah, it's progressing, just slowly

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:08, on Zulip):

That's all I have for follow-up.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:09, on Zulip):

It seems like @simulacrum 's main suggestion on that RFC is to split it into two RFCs - one for the working group and one for community groups definitions

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:09, on Zulip):

What do you think of this, @XAMPPRocky?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:09, on Zulip):

Yeah I was just skimming the feedback.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:09, on Zulip):

I do tend to agree that the "project group" and its lifecycle is the main contribution here

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:09, on Zulip):

That does remind me of something else:

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:10, on Zulip):

which I'll note in passing (and we could make into an ad-hoc agenda item, but probably better to address in a follow up mtg)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:10, on Zulip):

we were discussing the question of approving some of the new domain working group proposals (or just discussing them anyway) in the core team meeting, and we realized that we felt like there hadn't been the kind of "reassessment" of whether the domain working groups themselves were a useful concept that we had thought about it

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:11, on Zulip):

in particular trying to better narrow their goals and parametres, I think

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:11, on Zulip):

Yeah, I want to take some to write my full thoughts. But generally, nrc mentioned having more radical changes to domain wgs and I think if that's something we want to do it definitely makes sense to split the two.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:11, on Zulip):

I proposed that this might be a good convesation for governance wg to try and facilitate (and @simulacrum and I brainstormed a bit about it)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:11, on Zulip):

XAMPPRocky said:

generally, nrc mentioned having more radical changes to domain wgs

basically this -- maybe we should split them out and revisit more holistically

Manish Goregaokar (Mar 12 2020 at 17:12, on Zulip):

i'm roughly of the opinion that we might want to consider they form as "community groups" that we can perhaps link to without endorsing, and we use domain WGs for domains where the project considers them a project priority. and i suspect we won't have many of those

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:13, on Zulip):

Any more thoughts on that RFC?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:13, on Zulip):

(not sure how deep we want to go into that discussion this week)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:14, on Zulip):

one thought I had is

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:14, on Zulip):

we've had some initial experience with #project-inline-asm and #project-safe-transmute

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:14, on Zulip):

as well as #project-ffi-unwind

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:15, on Zulip):

those seem to have gone well?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:15, on Zulip):

I'm not sure if it really effects any of the text that much, though some of that feels relevant to @Nick Cameron's comment here:

I would somewhat expect a formal charter to be in the consensus-making step (2), since I expect that building consensus will require iteration on the charter in many cases. For the exploratory stage, I think only enough of a description to persuade a team member to be a liaison is necessary.

In particular, I think that the "getting started" process for #project-inline-asm has been a bit rocky. :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:16, on Zulip):

and it is interesting to ponder in what order the various steps (e.g., creating zulip stream, formal approval, etc) should take place

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:16, on Zulip):

(in many ways it's also been a success, though, as the group has been very productive)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:16, on Zulip):

but maybe that's better discussed async

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:16, on Zulip):

How about we continue that discussion async this week and next?

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:16, on Zulip):

I think this is all interesting, though I think we should move on, as to not get lost in the weeds. Maybe this can be next meetings topic?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:16, on Zulip):

(not sure @XAMPPRocky if you have a kind of list of feedback to address..?)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:17, on Zulip):

(it might be interesting to start a zulip topic, or even multiple, on any interesting points)

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:17, on Zulip):

Yeah, I think it would also be nice to talk to the project groups and ask them about how they felt.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:18, on Zulip):

Add as something to continue async and discuss as an agenda item for next meeting

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:18, on Zulip):

Are we ready to move onto the pre-RFC process?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:18, on Zulip):

Sure!

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:18, on Zulip):

Let's do it

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:19, on Zulip):

what are people's thoughts on this?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:19, on Zulip):

It's somehow connected to the previous question anyway

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:19, on Zulip):

I think it's quite useful to have a formal pre-RFC process - as it makes it much more likely for the eventual RFC to be accepted

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:19, on Zulip):

First question: are people familiar with the outline of the idea I was proposing?

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:19, on Zulip):

It was very helpful on my GH access policy RFC

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:19, on Zulip):

Do you mind refreshing us on that, @nikomatsakis ?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:20, on Zulip):

Yep. So I wrote this blog post. The idea was to start moving towards more of a phased procss, beginning at "the beginning"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:21, on Zulip):

in particular, rather than the official start of the RFC process being "you open an RFC", we would have some different way to float ideas ("proposals")

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:21, on Zulip):

they would start with an open issue and an internals thread

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:21, on Zulip):

I like what is proposed in that blog post

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:22, on Zulip):

if somebody likes the idea, or the team wants to pick it up, a "liaison" would get involved in the discussion and work with the people pushing on the idea.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:22, on Zulip):

in the post, I wrote that we could create a project group,

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:22, on Zulip):

but I don't necessarily think that's "required"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:22, on Zulip):

the main idea was that the first step to opening an RFC is to get another team member on board

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:22, on Zulip):

and they will work with you

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:22, on Zulip):

(and you are then the "shepherd" of the proposal)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:22, on Zulip):

works for me!

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:23, on Zulip):

I think it's a good idea to discuss a bit the motivations? I think I started from a sense that we often get RFCs that are kind of "out of the blue",

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:23, on Zulip):

and that it would be better to help clarify the ideas that are "moving forward"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:23, on Zulip):

from "ideas that are speculative"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:23, on Zulip):

however, I've since come to be very motivated by stories like @Nell Shamrell-Harrington's

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

I have in the past heard someone propose an idea and said "You should write an RFC for that!" and then they spent a ton of time on the formal RFC and....it wasn't accepted

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

that is, the realization that navigating the RFC process can be intimiating

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

and/or just not that much fun? not sure what best adjective is

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

but in any case it works best with a liaison

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

@Ryan Levick said the same

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

:thumbs_up:

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

Nell Shamrell-Harrington said:

I have in the past heard someone propose an idea and said "You should write an RFC for that!" and then they spent a ton of time on the formal RFC and....it wasn't accepted

yes, also this

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

like, there's no sense in writing out a full RFC without the ide that somebody on the team is into the idea

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:24, on Zulip):

Speaking as someone from outside the lang team, I like it because there are often ideas for language features that I want to propose but I can't commit to doing the research and work to make the proposal.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:25, on Zulip):

yes, exactly

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:25, on Zulip):

nikomatsakis said:

like, there's no sense in writing out a full RFC without the ide that somebody on the team is into the idea

this is also a way of exposing "team capacity"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:25, on Zulip):

I don't really see this as specific to the lang team, I should add

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:25, on Zulip):

but I thought it made sense to start there

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:26, on Zulip):

On the question of 'project group',

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:26, on Zulip):

I don't recall who I was talking to -- maybe @pnkfelix?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:26, on Zulip):

but we were talking about the distinction between "some work that a few people are doing"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:26, on Zulip):

versus "a big effort that kind of demands more collaboration"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:26, on Zulip):

this comes up a lot in the compiler team

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:26, on Zulip):

but also I think in the lang team

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:26, on Zulip):

and I'm sure other teams

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

Yes, mark also mentioned this in the project group rfc.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

we were thinking of the term "project" vs "project group"

Manish Goregaokar (Mar 12 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

i like this, it's making processes that kinda already existed more explicit

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

where "project group" is a subset of projects, or subclass, dependong on your POV :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

/me OOP till I die

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

i.e., it's sometimes useful to just talk about all the ongoing "projects"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

but if you are looking to e.g. join and contribute,

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

then you're maybe more interetsed in the "project groups" -- those will be the places we tend to have regular meetings and more structure

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

a project is probably just a reviewer + a person or two writing PRs, and they're not looking to mentor and grow

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

I like that

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

anyway, I mention it because

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

one of the bits of feedback I usually get with this proposal is

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

"my idea is small, I don't really need all that overhea of a project group"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:29, on Zulip):

I happen to think most people underestimate how big their ida is :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:29, on Zulip):

but I think saying "we'll create a project -- or even a project group, if warranted" is fine

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:29, on Zulip):

I agree

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:29, on Zulip):

in the case case of a project it mostly means "we list it in our list of active projects, and it still needs a liaison"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:30, on Zulip):

(that's kind of the lang team equivalent of "reviewer")

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:31, on Zulip):

I'd probably add the informal (or maybe formal) rule that when selecting a liaison, you look at all the other projects that they are involved in (across all teams) and judge if they really have capacity. My hunch is people should do at most 2 or 3 things at a time -- and only 1 of them should be a "group".

(Note: I know because I violate this rule quite fragrantly :P)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:31, on Zulip):

What's the next step on turning this into an RFC? (I am assuming that will be the eventual end point)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:31, on Zulip):

I was just going to say maybe we should cut to that since I don't think anyone is "opposed"

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:32, on Zulip):

Let's do it!

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:32, on Zulip):

who wants to write it up?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:32, on Zulip):

I guess I think it makes sense to make this an RFC

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:32, on Zulip):

for the usual reasons

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:32, on Zulip):

but among them

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:32, on Zulip):

I'd really like to "transition" all the open RFCs to whatever new system is

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:32, on Zulip):

and I think that takes an affirmative decision

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:33, on Zulip):

Nell Shamrell-Harrington said:

who wants to write it up?

this then is the question

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:33, on Zulip):

I think I should not do the writing :) I'd be happy to be "liaison" to the ida though ;)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:33, on Zulip):

I can do the write up - but it would likely need to wait until next week

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:33, on Zulip):

(says the person who just said that he should liaison fewer things)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:33, on Zulip):

Nell Shamrell-Harrington said:

I can do the write up - but it would likely need to wait until next week

that is fine, there's no especial hurry

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:34, on Zulip):

Adding to the meeting notes

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:34, on Zulip):

Next up is a related topic "How to manage RFC discussion"

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:35, on Zulip):

I think there are two aspects to this

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:35, on Zulip):

Hmm, I don't remember this.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:35, on Zulip):

1) How to moderate discussion on RFCs - especially when someone disagrees strongly

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:35, on Zulip):

one question

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:35, on Zulip):

before we move to that

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

well, I think there are some interesting details on how "pre-RFC" should work

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

2) How to get more discussion on RFCs when they are quiet

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis cool

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

I'm not sure if it makes sense to talk about them in this meeting? I guess we could try to discuss them async too

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

Let's do that async

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:36, on Zulip):

ok.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

Nell Shamrell-Harrington said:

I think there are two aspects to this

or maybe three, as the related issue ws talking about something else entirely

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

Back to managing RFC discussion?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

I mean https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-governance/issues/38

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

which was discussing specifically the way we make FCP decisions, but also kind of branched off into generally managing "long and complex" discussions

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:37, on Zulip):

ah

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:38, on Zulip):

I have a meta thought

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:38, on Zulip):

I think it'd be great for us to be experimenting with changing the way that RFC discussion works

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:38, on Zulip):

I am a bit nervous about trying to do too many things at once

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:39, on Zulip):

I am definitely interested in hearing more about that potential experimenting

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:39, on Zulip):

that said, we also did an experiment with rfc#2850 (now rfc#2873) that is relevant

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:39, on Zulip):

though I'm not following closely enough to really saw how well it has worked =)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:39, on Zulip):

skimming through it now

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:40, on Zulip):

the idea there was that the discussion thread on rfc#2850 got too long and painful, we @Amanieu summarized it into the RFC and we closed rfc#2850 and opened rfc#2873. The hope was that we could refocus the discussion on the key outstanding points, and also avoid rehashing old arguments.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:40, on Zulip):

ah

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:40, on Zulip):

I also feel that, that is a common complaint of RFCs.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:40, on Zulip):

I think that for this to work effectively (a) we'll have to do it a few times and (b) we'll have to combine it with some stronger moderation probably (at least in controvesial cases)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:40, on Zulip):

but reawlly what I want is

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:40, on Zulip):

when the RFC thread gets to be >N comments (50? 75?)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:41, on Zulip):

it is locked by a bot

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:41, on Zulip):

or even just closed (probably not closed :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:41, on Zulip):

and the shepherd is pinged to do this step of summarizing

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:41, on Zulip):

I can see being locked by a bot

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:41, on Zulip):

I do think that you have to close+open for it to really work, because you want people to be able to come without having to click the "view more" buttons etc, and you want to be able to start the thread from a new point, and not from "the beginning of time"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

there is a kind of DOS potential here I realize :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

but I guess we can deal with that separately

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

or some sort of alert on the PR asking the shepherd to open a new RFC with a summary

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

if it ever really happened

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

(anyway we have that same problem, but worse, without locking)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

we can lock after it is closed

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

and the new RFC is open

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

@simulacrum and I had talked about making said bot but I don't think they ever did

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:42, on Zulip):

I definitely think you want to lock

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:43, on Zulip):

the idea should be "conversation cannot continue until a summary is done"

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:43, on Zulip):

gotcha

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:43, on Zulip):

like "no reasonable human should be asked to follow all this" :P

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:43, on Zulip):

but there are some interesting questions, like,

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:43, on Zulip):

how "neutral" should the summary be?

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:43, on Zulip):

good point

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:43, on Zulip):

we would definitely want several examples

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:44, on Zulip):

my take is "not neutral", actually, but I'd be curious to hear what other thinks

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:44, on Zulip):

I think it should reflect the team's current opinion, well justified of course

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:44, on Zulip):

or at least I think it's ok for it to do so

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:44, on Zulip):

I think neutrality is a bad goal. People are clearly biased and a lot of decisions are not rational.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:44, on Zulip):

that's part of it, I don't think neutrality can be "achieved", but I also think

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:45, on Zulip):

we want to be driving discussions to conclusions

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:45, on Zulip):

there's a fine line between "shutting down" dissent and helping to provide clarity :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:45, on Zulip):

so it'll take some practice

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:45, on Zulip):

but it's work we already do all the time anyhow

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:46, on Zulip):

(a recent example of me trying to do this -- present the arguments, but also take a position)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:46, on Zulip):

shall we continue the discussion async until next meeting?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:46, on Zulip):

maybe it's useful to highlight what are the questions to discuss async?

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:46, on Zulip):

good point

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:46, on Zulip):

Also we don't have anything left, except pick next topic which we kinda did.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:47, on Zulip):

(also, this idea doesn't really address the first two points you raised, moderation + getting more feedback, but that's probably ok)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:47, on Zulip):

I think the most relevant one is "What do we do when a discussion in a PR becomes unwieldly?"

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:47, on Zulip):

Or at least we have a choice of a few.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:47, on Zulip):

Followed by "How do we moderate discussions in a PR?"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:48, on Zulip):

one question is "how to approach this" -- i'd be incline to create a bot and let individual rfcs or threads "opt in" to trying it, to start, for example

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:48, on Zulip):

We may be able to leave off the "Get more discussion" point for now

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:48, on Zulip):

I feel like closing and opening new PRs is the right move, as you have said it's the only way to reset conversation while keeping history.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:48, on Zulip):

I guess yeah then maybe there is some fine-tuning of exactly how the bot works that could be done, though the high-level idea seems clear enough

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:48, on Zulip):

The heuristics would be difficult though.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:48, on Zulip):

a related note would be "velocity"

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:49, on Zulip):

I think it'd be useful to auto-lock threads if the rolloing average of "comments/hour" over the last hour is>N

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:49, on Zulip):

it feels like creating a bot might be jumping to the solution before getting buy in about the solution

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:49, on Zulip):

er, about the problem, rather

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:49, on Zulip):

E.g. it can't just be N comments, what if someone proposing fcp causes the rfc to close?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:49, on Zulip):

yeah, it's definitely possible to do manually.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:49, on Zulip):

at the same time, I feel very clear that we need this :)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:49, on Zulip):

I can understand that

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:50, on Zulip):

maybe pre-bot a good idea would be to write-up guidelines

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:50, on Zulip):

I agree on that

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:50, on Zulip):

e.g., I'd be interested in

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:50, on Zulip):

can we give a "structure" to the summary?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:50, on Zulip):

even a simple one I bet would be really helpful

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:51, on Zulip):

So the follow on question is who wants to take on the work of writing up guidelines :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:51, on Zulip):

(maybe that's a "first deliverable"?)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:51, on Zulip):

I cannot take that on before next meeting

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:51, on Zulip):

related: it feels like we should open a new wg-governance issue for this idea

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:52, on Zulip):

hmm

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:52, on Zulip):

I might be able to take a stab at a "guideline outline"

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:52, on Zulip):

cool

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:52, on Zulip):

I know I shouldn't volunteer

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:52, on Zulip):

but I'm kind of curious :)

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:52, on Zulip):

do you mind opening the issue as well?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:53, on Zulip):

yeah, I volunteer to open an issue, and take a first draft at an outline. the former I'll definitely do, the latter, well,let's see :P

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:53, on Zulip):

I agree you shouldn't volunteer - but also know that you likely have the most experience and thoughts on this

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:53, on Zulip):

ok!

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:53, on Zulip):

happy if anyone wants to take it off my plate

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:53, on Zulip):

Okay, so we have about 5 minutes left.

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:53, on Zulip):

ranother related thing might be

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:53, on Zulip):

collecting examples of summary comments to study :)

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:54, on Zulip):

(I might actually do that to start)

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:54, on Zulip):

I can work on it, though it would be late next week, though maybe that would be sooner than you were thinking :stuck_out_tongue:

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:54, on Zulip):

yeah I mean it's all good, I don't think we have to move at a frenetic pace

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:54, on Zulip):

Anything else to discuss this meeting?

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:55, on Zulip):

Nope, and I have a hard stop in 5 min

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:55, on Zulip):

Just what topic for the next meeting.

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:56, on Zulip):

I nominate domain WG changes or the pre-RFC process RFC if it's ready in time.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:56, on Zulip):

I second those nominations

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:56, on Zulip):

Third.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:56, on Zulip):

w00t!

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:56, on Zulip):

Re: domain WG, we should start an async thread, I'll do that and seed a bit perhaps

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:56, on Zulip):

I can write these up in a blog post

XAMPPRocky (Mar 12 2020 at 17:57, on Zulip):

Sounds good, thanks everyone! :wave:

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:57, on Zulip):

I think we're ready to close the meeting, then

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:57, on Zulip):

Thank you all!

nikomatsakis (Mar 12 2020 at 17:58, on Zulip):

Thanks @Nell Shamrell-Harrington :sparkling_heart:

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 12 2020 at 17:58, on Zulip):

yw!

simulacrum (Mar 12 2020 at 20:08, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis as a bit of follow-up -- the primary reason I have not worked on a bot is that I did not have a concrete spec :)

simulacrum (Mar 12 2020 at 20:08, on Zulip):

but if someone writes up how they expect it to work then implementing that is something that we could get in a week or so I would expect

centril (Mar 13 2020 at 18:46, on Zulip):

Regarding the process for starting a project group, I think it's important that before the group is actually started (e.g. creating Zulip streams, GH repos, etc.), the liason should bring the idea to the language team and not get a "no". This lets the team as a whole push back against proposals for which there is no consensus and to limit the amount of work done concurrently. Otherwise, I fear this will make the language team "more productive" (i.e. produce more designs, and not just being effective with our time in general) overall, which I think would be at odds with "sustainability" (in the 2019 roadmap sense).

BatmanAoD (Kyle Strand) (Mar 13 2020 at 19:22, on Zulip):

Interesting thought. Even a "let's wait a year and reconsider" would be preferable to opening a project that languishes indefinitely.

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 17 2020 at 00:10, on Zulip):

Just submitted a PR with the minutes for the meeting https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-governance/pull/45

Nell Shamrell-Harrington (Mar 17 2020 at 17:45, on Zulip):

Blog post has also been submitted

Val Grimm (Mar 19 2020 at 11:12, on Zulip):

@Nell Shamrell-Harrington I saw that you dealt already with the minutes and blog post for the meeting I miss, thanks Nell!

Val Grimm (Mar 26 2020 at 16:56, on Zulip):

oops, deleted

Last update: Apr 03 2020 at 18:20UTC