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)
@nikomatsakis Will it be obvious from looking at some particularly GitHub search/view in rust-lang and (separately) other related repos what projects someone is involved in across all teams? If not, is this something to fix?
If nothing else, it could probably be done by searching
@Val Grimm it won't be, but if we do this right, I'd like to see that information collected and available
What would be the best way to proceed? I can think of several but am aware I lack context? Also a response can wait as this is not on the agenda for the meeting today.
I think at some point
rust-lang/team can be updated to have a "shepherd" field for project groups. Not sure how much work that will be.
that'd be easy enough, though there was also discussion of renaming "shepherd" to "lead"
personally I sort of prefer shepherd
but I'm not sure if there's a real difference
Ack, I was thinking of the missing "liaison" field.
Right now that's conflated with "lead"
If there is confusion about names then maybe the names are unclear (:
Or their definitions
Well, "shepherd" is also not currently an existing field, but Niko's right that it aligns pretty well with the existing "leads" field
whereas liaisons doesn't, really
I think in practice the liaison is also a kind of lead -- but it's not 100% clear :)
well no I take that back
I mean, it's close enough that currently we're listing both liaisons and shepherds as "leads" in
how many roles are needed?
how would you describe the differences between the roles?
(I'm going to ignore RFCs here)
(want to hear what is in your head)
so I see two distinct ways to look at this
I think my original thought was that the
and maybe the liaison is also a shepherd
Is it ideal that this would be a combined role?
Or is it preferable for it not to be?
but I think another valid thing to say would be: each project group has some leads, at least one must be a team member, and they need to share those duties in some way that works
by team member you mean core Lang team?
or project team member
I mean member of whatever team(s) the project group is associated with
my motivations for separating out roles a bit:
so it'd be nice to have a way where they see a good project and they can help it move along without having to invest a ton of time
for a lot of the teams that aren't oriented around coding, it's really hard to figure out the "path to membership"
it won't be, but if we do this right, I'd like to see that information collected and available
btw what I meant by this is not so much that we can scrape the team repo -- that tells you something about what groups someone is involved in -- but I'd like to see us just doing a better job collecting the projects overall, not all of which will be "groups" I should think ..
so liaison is a team member, and they may also be, but are unlikely to be/better not to be the shepherd, for reasons of time and being spread too thin?
So then it becomes a questions to trying to figure out the technical or conceptual requirements for being aware of projects
I need to wander around in the Github a bit more to muse about this I suppose
we've been wrestling with this a bit in the compiler-team repo
I don't think we've quite got it figured out yet but we're getting there
would it be helpful to interview someone from the compiler team to summarize that?
Well, I'm on the team :)
I'm not sure there's a better person