Stream: t-compiler/meetings

Topic: [design meeting] survey results part 2 compiler-team#302


pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 13:56, on Zulip):

hey @T-compiler/meeting , I think we have a design meeting now

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 13:57, on Zulip):

@Wesley Wiser posted an outline of what they wanted to cover over here: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bproposal.5D.20survey.20discussion.20II.20compiler-team.23302/near/200963079

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 13:58, on Zulip):

(and I think they also transcribed that into the description of compiler-team#302 )

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 13:58, on Zulip):

Yeah, I put some extra details there that I thought might be relevant.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 13:59, on Zulip):

So here are the three broad topics we hope to cover in today's meeting, to finish this thing off:

  1. long standing problems going unaddressed (or hard to track progress thereof; lack of status updates)
  2. worker drain and lack of bandwidth.
  3. change-to-test cycle is too long (more broadly, everything is too high latency)
Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 13:59, on Zulip):

(If there were other things people wanted to talk about, I'm also open to appending them to the agenda)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 13:59, on Zulip):

Do we want to try and discuss those 3 "in order"?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:00, on Zulip):

okay so yeah, lets first try to quickly work out this agenda, both in terms of whether we need to add anything, and the order in which we'll attack them

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:00, on Zulip):

Seems reasonable to me.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:00, on Zulip):

I think the worker drain problem is probably the most important one to cover

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

because without workers, the others won't matter

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

I am also not entirely convinced that's an actual thing

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

:)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

i.e., I think we actually have in some ways the most bandwidth we've ever had :)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

at least I feel like the team is kind of at its most active

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

(I just want to throw that out there, I've been thinking about it a lot)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

that's an interesting point

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

but clearly the survey results had some people worried about it

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

so even if its not real

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

it is perceived ?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

yeah. my point is that I'd like to dig a bit deeper into what we feel is missing somehow

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

There were a few other different but related points that got lumped together into that topic

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

some of this comes from me doing a lot of introspection :)

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

IE:

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

i.e., I have a lot of ambitions, and I'm often feeling like things are moving too slowly, but I've been thinking a lot about how part of that is a need to focus on fewer things.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

anyway, i propose this ordering:

  1. worker drain + lack of bandwidth
  2. long standing problems going unaddressed (or hard to track progress)
  3. change-to-test cycle is too long (everything is too high latency)
pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

and that we firmly stick to at most 15 minutes per topic

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):

(to be clear, i'm also not saying "everything is rosy", I think we have problems, but I also think we've done a lot of great work, and some of these are the kind of problems that come from doing a lot of things right)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):

(I suppose I should say "firmly", given how loosey goosey everything goes over chat)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:05, on Zulip):

OK

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:05, on Zulip):

so the first thing I want to say is that I think some of the new systems we've put into place are already showing dividends

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:05, on Zulip):

at least from my POV

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:05, on Zulip):

say more :)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:05, on Zulip):

the Major Change Proposal process is helping funnel design work

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:05, on Zulip):

into threads outside of PR's

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

and outside of github

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

(I'm definitely interested in us taking time to be positive :grinning:)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

I would be curious to know

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

if others think the practice of saying

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

that reminds me, I wanted to propose an MCP retrospective for the next meeting cycle

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

"go to this zulip thread to discuss things, the github issue is just to track high level points"

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

if that's something that has been successful? or if some people would prefer the old way, or a different way of getting a similar effect?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

I have mixed feelings about that

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

from my POV, I like it, but I like zulip

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

I personally like it, though I know @RalfJ has expressed that they prefer long-form design discussion to happen on a more "permanent" form

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

yeah, that's one of my concerns

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

I also think that for the vast majority of MCPs in particular

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

yes, it takes discipline to actually log the points

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

there isn't that much discussion

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

and I also kind of like the discipline of "if it doesn't quickly come to some resolution, maybe close and open a fresh one"

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

we've done that a few times

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

well, maybe not that much. :)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

another reason that I ask this question is that I've been wondering if we should do something similar for tracking issues on github

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

I will say this

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

because today you see sort of random comments on tracking issues

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

I really hate going to an old tracking issue and just seeing..yes, that

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

yeah random comments are great to avoid

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

at the same time, it's great to have some way to "log" experience reports and the like

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

and I don't think zulip would work so well

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

tough problem

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

but I feel like we've strayed a bit from the questions of bandwidth

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

so does this all imply that we might need to be more proactive about having feedback flow from zulip up to the github thread?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

oh yeah, sorry

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

I like Zulip but I find it's very difficult to remember to move the discussion there instead of just posting a comment on the issue because I've been reading the issue, I have something to discuss and the GH comment box is right there.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

well all of this was in part to say that I think the MCP process has helped us work better with the bandwidth that we do have ?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

heh yes there is that, too

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

we could lock the issues that are meant to progress on zulip

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

Yeah, I think it's also helped broadcast design questions to the rest of the team for things that might not have gotten the attention of everyone before.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

(of course we should only do that (lock the github issue), after the appropriate link to the corresponding zulip topic has been posted to the github issue)

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

Someone had this to say in the survey results:

Always the same ppl reviewing similar PRs feels like we may be doing lots of stuff that the larger team may disagree with without us knowing they would.

and I think the MCP process helps a lot with that.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

Yeah.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

Something else I want to say

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:12, on Zulip):

On this topic of leadership/mentoring

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:12, on Zulip):

I guess just some kind of "experience reports", maybe

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

oh I suppose I should have copied this from the start of this part

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

for the #t-compiler/wg-rfc-2229 I did make a point to actively reach out to folks, and @Matthew Jasper has been involved, and I think that's been working out pretty well. It helps that @Aman Arora is really great too (and the other folks, though they're not as active on Zulip). I guess my main point is that I think it's been good to actively think about "let's try to make sure we have >1 person involved here"

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

This is what @Wesley Wiser had written about this topic area over all:

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

which is something we've often said we should do but I think we've found hard to follow through on

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

it seems perinent to e.g. the idea of getting organized around incremental compilation

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

right, I started there and haven't followed through

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

(To clarify for everyone, the bullet points under the topic were things people mentioned in the compiler team survey and I thought seemed relevant to the topic)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

(On the question of tracking issues, the other thing is that we've been using a custom repo to track out work, and I think that's been interesting and helpful)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

I'm curious @Wesley Wiser to get your take on how the #t-compiler/wg-mir-opt "feels and works"

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

regarding "risk of burnout"

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

I think it's been a very good experience overall.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

should we be trying to encourage people to take breaks?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

obviously people who literally do this as their jobs wouldn't

davidtwco (Jun 19 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

A thought that by the time I finished writing, the conversation had moved on a little:

Could the perception of worker drain come from experienced team members being unable to spend as much time working on the project as they have previously? There's still a bunch of people who are around, but without much time to spend (it seems like someone announces they have had to reduce the time they spend contributing somewhat frequently?), or folks who (like myself) haven't been around as long.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

but I think it might help to normalize vacation time

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

The group definitly let a bunch of people that were interested in doing some of the same things find each other and start working together.

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

Yeah, I think perception is a large factor of that.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

@davidtwco do you mean people have less time due to self-quaratine due to covid-19 ?

davidtwco (Jun 19 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

That could be a factor, but I think life circumstances in general - switching jobs, things like that.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

sure. there's all kinds of factors, both personal and societal, at play right now

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

okay 2 minute warning

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

so

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

in the psat we talked about doing more active planning

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

i.e., trying to do some mentoring around developing "roadmaps" and things

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

this kind of never happened

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

I am not sure whether to give up on this idea or to give it another try

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

I mean a lightweight form would just be to try and convene some regular "sync up" chat to talk things over

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

somehow I don't remember this being decided as something we were going to try

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

I wonder if i could even replace wg-checkins to some extent

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

e.g., a recorded zoom chat to go over and make plans, every couple of months

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

I think the skill-tree thing I've seen around is a really interesting take on that. It's kind of a roadmap but without deadlines.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

well I don't know to what extent it was decided, I remember it came up in the WG retrospective

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

do we want to replace the wg-checkins?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

yeah, I'm not interested in release dates

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

I was under impression that people were mostly okay with how those were going?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

probably not, I think they've actually been functioning reasonably well

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

I will say though that for chalk, say

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

the skill-tree has definitely been helpful, though I'm somewhat behind in updating it, and I've been thinking about the right levle of detail

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

but I do think it'd be interesting to talk it over and explain it

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

and get feedback

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

I don't know, I'm kind of brainstorming

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

if its okay with everyone, I'd like to move to next topic

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

I know we didn't finalize this

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

it might just be "more work" which is not great

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

I think the zoom call idea is interseting

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

but there's some interesting ideas being posed

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

that we can follow up on later

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

yeah, maybe we can try this out as a one-off, or just discuss async

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

seems fine

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

okay next topic

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):

(I guess this ties into some things we were just discussing)

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):

Yeah topic 1 & 2 seemed very related to me

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis can you give a link to the chalk skill tree?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

never mind, I googled it: https://rust-lang.github.io/wg-traits/roadmap/skill-tree.html

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

do we think this kind of picture is worth bubbling up to a broader audience?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

I'm interested in the retrospective thing

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

actually, the "Creates impression that nothing is happening." can be interpreted in many ways

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

do we think this kind of picture is worth bubbling up to a broader audience?

not clear

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

I think that having blog posts is maybe a better way to reach an overall audience

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

I also think that the chalk skill tree is too detailed right now

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

(at first I took it to mean "people outside compiler team don't see any progress", but I just realized it may well mean "people inside compiler team do not see progress")

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

I want to revamp it so that the "items" are all links to tracking issues

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

and the tracking issues have more the "individual PRs"

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

I'd personally like to see more team retrospectives. At my work, one of the biggest changes we did that helped the "meta" of our work was doing regularly scheduled retrospectives. Having a dedicated time to talk about what was working and what wasn't made it easy to change a lot of small things that probably no one would have ever complained about before.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

but yeah one of the challenges is finding the level of detail for different audiences, when it comes to communication

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

so I wodner

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I mean maybe we should just have like every 3rd meeting be a retrospective, full stop?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

every third Friday meeting?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

well I guess I mean every 4th

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

/me thinks

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

i.e., "planning, topic X, topic Y, retro" as the cycle

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

so the planning meeting is to decide just two meetings?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I guess the question is whether retros should be targeted

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

oh I see

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

side note that I was just preparing a MCP retrospective survey on the side

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

if retro's are targetted then planning meeting is not as inefficient as I feared

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

Part of the challenge is finding a good cadence. You want there to be enough time for things to have happened that you can talk about but you also don't want it to be too long that you forget to talk about important things.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

I know that @Santiago Pastorino has often felt more retrospective time would be useful, very similar feedback to @Wesley Wiser

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

how much time do we need for retrospectives?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

my hunch is that the "every 4th week" is not right

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

another approach would be to make first have of planning meeting be retro

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

Also, we ended up starting with very long meetings because there was a lot to talk about. Now our meetings are typically once a week for 15 minutes.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

ah, interesting

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

hmm

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

if we go back in time, the steering meetings we now do weekly started as "every 3 weeks to discuss non-technical things"

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

There tends to be a "backlog" of things to talk about.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

small scale stuff you would think we could handle in the thursday meeting

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

but I guess there's so much on agenda

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

I think the new setup is better, but I also do feel like we sort of lost something by generalizing

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

there's no time allocated for random interjection of retrospective type feedback

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

I think it's important that it's a dedicated time, mixing with triage doesn't feel right

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

We also have the added complication of a globally distributed team and mornings (in eastern US time) aren't great for everyone.

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

At least, that's my impression.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

yeah, I was thinking about that

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

I do wonder if retros with the whole team are not maybe the right pattern

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

e.g. maybe surveys like we did for this meeting is better

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

almost like... submit every time you notice anything going not quite great

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

and instead individual WG's should plan to schedule retrospectives?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

heh. a podcast i listen to has a weekly "what hurts?" section

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

for some reason that came to mind

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

I do think more targeted retros is probably better, I'm intrigued on the idea of an "ombudsman" or something

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

well, there's a difference between "some place to take complaints that you'd like resolved" and "a place to leave thoughts"

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

I find myself somewhat skeptical about "retros" as the framework -- I guess I just don't see what we'd be retro'ing in concrete

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

that's interesting, in terms of whether it should be posted publically or submitted privately

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

I mean, this meeting is basically a retrospective

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

I had at first inferred we would post publically

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

but thinking on it further

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

this kind of reminds me of the idea that I've been kicking around about designating "officers" of the compiler team (elected/chosen/nominated on some cadence) for different roles. I'd thought about having someone to focus on (e.g.) contributor experience, and maybe someone to focus on collecting feedback would be good too...

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

it makes more sense to make it private, in terms of being able to handle potentially sensitive matters

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

it makes more sense to make it private, in terms of being able to handle potentially sensitive matters

(this is in response to the "ombudsman" comment)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

I guess I thnk we're using "retro" as a bit of a shorthand for "a place to talk about how things are working"

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

okay so I'm thinking

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

but I do agree that the structure of "do a survey and talk about the results" is very helpful

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):
  1. we should try to shedule surveys
pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

the last one was somewhat ad hoc

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

I think "a place to talk about how things are working" makes sense, along with surveys, but "retro" in my understanding doesn't make sense

Santiago Pastorino (Jun 19 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

I find myself somewhat skeptical about "retros" as the framework -- I guess I just don't see what we'd be retro'ing in concrete

if we talk about retros in general it's hard to say something in concrete but I'd think retros are a way to improve processes, a way to look back at what happened and how to improve, so it could be applied to more focused things and to more general things too

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):
  1. we should consider trying to create an "ombudsman" role (I'm not 100% sure that term is the best one)
pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

(2 minute warning, by the way)

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

Part of the value we ($DAYJOB) get is that when someone brings up an issue, we can have a discussion about why that happened and it often leads to things we can do to prevent that kind of thing from happening in the future.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I do think we try to do this naturally already

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

@Wesley Wiser that sounds very valuable and would be good to have

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

e.g. when certain bugs occur, we sometimes day "can we extend tidy to prevent this reoccuring"

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I do agree we try...

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

but it would be good to make it an official part of routine

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

rather than happy accident

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

Surveys are kind of one way and I don't think it would encourage the kind of two-way dialog some problems require.

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

IE: a lot of times, people bring up an issue but they don't understand the complete picture of why it happened.

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

Other people on the team fill in missing information or provide a different viewpoint

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

okay so time is up

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I think of the survey as

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

but

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

a way to uncover the issue

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I'm wondering if we should keep talking about this

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

rather than moving to the change-to-test cycle issue

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

(which then leads to the dialog)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

rather than moving to the change-to-test cycle issue

I do sort of feel like we're not going to change anything here :P

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

but I mgiht be wrong, and maybe there's an interesting twist on the issue

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

well, I think it might deserve its own hour long brainstorming session :sick:

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

e.g. one thing that @matklad and I have discussed is "when is it time to re-open the mono-vs-poly repo question"

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

does anyone here want to move to discussing change-to-test cycle time?

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

I agree that I'm not feeling like there's something we can get at in the next several minutes

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

but that too deserves its own time

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

(in particular, I feel like e.g. contributors to chalk don't have any of these problems)

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

I think topics 1 & 2 are more important but I wanted to include 3 out of fairness to all the major topics @pnkfelix identified.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

lets stick with topic 1 then

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

or whatever, the most recently discussed topic, "long standing problems going unaddressed" etc

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

I'm still thinking about the survey/feedback/retro question -- based on what Wesley Wiser has been saying, it feels to me like "general check-ins" might indeed be useful

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

speaking of things to look back on, we could discuss the planning meeting and design meeting process :)

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

I almost wonder if ... a private meeting amongst T-compiler + contributors would be a better fit

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

out of curiosity @Wesley Wiser , you noted that surveys were "one way"

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

or maybe not Zulip, not sure

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

Interesting

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

but our, or at least my intention

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

was that the survey would just set up the framework (or foundation, i guess)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

for a two-way discussion

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

I could see that, for sure, though I've generally felt like our Zulip meeting structure has served us surprisingly well

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

for one thing, many people can't participate over Zoom

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

(that said, I wouldn't be opposed to making a #t-compiler (private) stream for members/contributors)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

as long as we didn't use it much, which I think we wouldn't

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

another thought would be an audio chat stream

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

(and that would provide a home for that sort of thing)

Santiago Pastorino (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

maybe we can give "checkins" a different structure, like what have you guys done, what are you planning to do next, what are you struggling with kind of scheme and have not only wgs doing that but also all the different areas of the compiler

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

for people to just talk on while they hack

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

though an audio chat stream would not necessarily be structured at all

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

Yeah, if the survey is followed up with something else, then it's not as one-way. But by itself, it's one way. Especially in a larger survey where it's not feasible to try to understand or follow up on every free-form comment you get.

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

basically I think that there may be some element of reluctance to air problems in a public channel

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

I am intrigued by @Santiago Pastorino's suggestion

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

basically I think that there may be some element of reluctance to air problems in a public channel

yeah, this is why I realized @nikomatsakis was bringing up an "ombudsman"

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

my sense is that the wg-check-ins are still not quite working as well as they could

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

I sort of like the idea of someone proactively seeking feedback

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

yes that sounds like a really nice iea

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

but even just having a form to fill out could be useful

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

just asking people a question like "What kind of support do you need"

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:47, on Zulip):

might be helpful to get people to think of things they'd have overlooked otherwise

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

I want to circle back to @simulacrum 's concern about reluctance to air problems in public channel

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

basically I feel like from time to time I just want to mention something I've come across, but there's not really a great place to do it

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

so there's two scenarios I can imagine

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

one is where someone's worried about offending someone unintentionally, b/c they complain about how some API is structured or how some code was written, etc

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

the other is where someone actually has a complaint about another contributor

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:50, on Zulip):

so, I can certainly imagine saying "Submit concerns here" and (e.g.) the leads read it, but I think it's quite likely that a problem arises that has to do with the leads (i.e., if we've pushed for something), so I sort of like the idea of a 3rd party; potentially the mod team could play this role, but that seems not as good as a team ombudsman

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:50, on Zulip):

(and so its not about fearing unintentional offense, but rather recognizing that bringing up dirt can hurt)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:50, on Zulip):

(I'd certainly appreciate having someone bring that sort of feedback to me, and I can see it'd be harder to do directly)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

our model in the past, AFAIK, has indeed been for people to bring up personal issues directly with leads, if they can

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

Yeah today I sometimes PM niko with it, but that feels a bit awkward

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

e.g. via PM's, as you say

Santiago Pastorino (Jun 19 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

nikomatsakis said:

I sort of like the idea of someone proactively seeking feedback

yeah, I guess it depends on what we want with checkins or other sort of way of getting the same result. With an schema like that we would have a "report" of the current status, what was done and what's next, so everyone is informed and maybe others are able to join some efforts and with the struggling part of the report we would be able to quickly look for ways to fix certain issues

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

an interesting phenomenon I have seen in the past

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

is that when people actually do get chance to share grievances as a group

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

there is catharsis

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

in that people say "okay, other people do feel similarly, I'm not off-tilt for my feelings here"

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

(I think it' important to emphasize, in check-ins, that "not much progress" isn't necessarily a problem, I worry that they can contribute to a feeling of not doing enough or something that sometimes isn't really necessary.)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

yes, I definitely think it's good to find ways to move concerns to a public setting when possible

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

but at the same time

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

its really hard (impossible?) to do so in a 100% public setting

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

at least when you're talking about individuals

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

I don't know best way to deal with that

Santiago Pastorino (Jun 19 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

nikomatsakis said:

(I think it' important to emphasize, in check-ins, that "not much progress" isn't necessarily a problem, I worry that they can contribute to a feeling of not doing enough or something that sometimes isn't really necessary.)

yes, this worries me a lot :)

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

Yeah I think there's a difference between a truly "public" environment like this channel and a invite-only contributor group channel.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

except to say that I know both I and niko know that getting PM's about things like this is part of what we have to do as team leads

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

one other thing

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

is that I think it's important in these retros

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

to not exclude info from contributors or newcomers :)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

but I think it's fine to isolate that to a distinct form

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

e.g., the survey we recently did

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

(two minute warning)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):

I guess I like the idea of setting up some cadence to do surveys / talk about these issues; I think weekly like Wesley Wiser described is prob not feasible / reasonable for compile team, which is after all not a full-time $DAY_JOB for most team members

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):

I'd like to try to condense all of this into some set of action items

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):
  1. more structure to wg-checkins sounds like a really good idea
pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):
  1. and yes, we should figure out a regular cadence for surveys and general discussion shortly thereafter
Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

40 work hours is probably ~1 - 2 months of regular contributor time so I think it would scale with how much stuff has happened not necessarily calendar time.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):
  1. ... Do we need a dedicated ombudsman?
pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

namely someone separate from team leads to receive feedback about problems people observe?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

(would it need to be someone outside the compiler team??)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

I don't think it needs to be outside

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

we have the leads too after all

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

I think the iea would be that

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

somebody shoul be on top of observing this cadence

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

and making this happen

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

I guess that can be a distinct role from collecting the feedback

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

yeah I think that's a good start

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

but I think it makes sense to kind of combine

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

I think it would be good to have a documented way to deal with three general kinds of problems:

  1. I noticed something isn't great -> submit feedback here
  2. I have a problem with someone on the team (not a lead) -> pm niko/felix
  3. I have a problem with a team lead -> pm moderation team?
pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

I do think we wrote that down somewhere at some time

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

that is also quite reasonable

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

like, I specifically remember a flow chart that ended at mod team

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

/me wonders where that is... CoC?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

I have no memory of that but it sounds useful,

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

It should probably go somewhere on the compiler team web site

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

yes and/or forge

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

but I think the key point is the first one

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

like, I think problems with individuals are a thing no doubt, and maybe I'm underestimated their frequency, but I suspect there's a lot of "this could work better"

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

that doesn't rise quite to that level

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

okay

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

yeah personally I think 1. is the most frequent

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

what channel do we want that feedback to be delivered via ?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

the feedback for 1., that is?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

I'd say either e-mail or a google form;

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

maybe the latter is too permanent

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

and doesn't send notifications :)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

i see. and then we'll figure out how to sort it on our end

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

but yeah let's figure something out

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

the intent is that these things will end up publically visisble, possibly after some editting, right?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

editting, and possibly collating, that is

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

I'd say the intent is that we'll bring it up in some form, but not necessarily quoted or attributed

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

yeah, I think so, though definitely in some semi-anonymized form

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

I think that's appropriate for what kind of feedback we should be getting for that category of problems.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

okay, just checking. We should try to make that super clear on the input form

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

maybe even a opt-in checkbox for "you need not hide my identity" or something

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

okay I think that's all the time we have, folks!

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

Maybe also a "If this problem is about a contributor, please pm niko/flix" message?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:04, on Zulip):

I think all of the action items above are things that @nikomatsakis and @pnkfelix can take on

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:04, on Zulip):

thanks to everyone in @T-compiler/meeting for attending! Stay safe, stay :mask: well, stay :ruler: distant

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:04, on Zulip):

With Google Forms Email Notifications, you can send an automatic email to one or more people when a new form response is received.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:04, on Zulip):

side note :)

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

I wonder -- we could maybe send those to a private zulip stream for t-compiler + contributors?

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

might be a good way to collate feedback in some sense

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

actually one more thing to clarify

Santiago Pastorino (Jun 19 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

I wonder -- we could maybe send those to a private zulip stream for t-compiler + contributors?

I was thinking exactly about the same thing

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

even if the form submissions are not publically visible

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

we are going to let arbitrary members of T-compiler see it, right?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

I want to be able to delegate management if need be

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

it sounds like the answer is "yes" based on talk of private stream for T-compiler (+ contributors ?)

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

I think that would be best for a number of different reasons.

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

I was thinkinga bout that

Santiago Pastorino (Jun 19 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

Santiago Pastorino said:

simulacrum said:

I wonder -- we could maybe send those to a private zulip stream for t-compiler + contributors?

I was thinking exactly about the same thing

at least there are a lot of things that can be solved more quickly and without a lot of overhead on a private topic

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

when we've run surveys it's been pretty annoying to not have a lot of clarity about how long things remain private, etc, and of course there are new leads over time

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

why don't we allocate a stream for that right now?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

I think having not-personal things get sent to a private channel is good

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

#t-compiler/private, I mean

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

seems good to me

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

yeah that's fine

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

I tend to think every team should have a public/private channel

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

and it would indeed include contributors, right?

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

we can maybe even... skip the form for now, perhaps

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

I would yes

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:08, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

we can maybe even... skip the form for now, perhaps

maybe, though I feel like for most of these things, the immediate action is "log and consider later"

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:08, on Zulip):

but hard to say in advance!

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:08, on Zulip):

a form that in the end spits a result into a fresh topic in #t-compiler/private seems like it would be fine

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:08, on Zulip):

I do think that form is nice

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:08, on Zulip):

though I have no knowledge of how hard that is to do

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:08, on Zulip):

it's easy enoguh to do

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

there is an e-mail for zulip streams

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

(just saying if there's people that want to say things now, would be fine to kick off with that)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

hey @simulacrum -- you've been exploring the zulip API

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

and it would indeed include contributors, right?

I think it would be good to include them. I imagine most of the topics would be procedural or technical in nature and would affect them too.

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

hhmm

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

how easy is it to synchronize stream membership with team repo?

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

should stream have Private, shared history, or Private protected history

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

I also feel we should include contributors always unless we have a compelling reason to do otherwise

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

Private, shared history is probably fine, right?

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

I think shared history

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

the only thing is

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

maybe it'd be good to have a protected history one for discussion about people being nominated to be added to contributors etc

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

I think it's not possible at all

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

we should file a bug about that

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

it's super annoying to manage this stuff

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

or maybe it's just me who can't tolerate it ;)

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

nikomatsakis said:

maybe it'd be good to have a protected history one for discussion about people being nominated to be added to contributors etc

I'd think we'd want to leave that over email wouldn't we? Is everyone on the compiler team active on zulip?

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

we don't adjust membership in T-compiler that often, but yeah

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

yeah I know, but every time I am grumpy :)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

I hope I didn't annoy people by auto-subscribing them

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

it's more about the working groups

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

and the user groups like @_WG-nll or whatever

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

anyway

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

Wesley Wiser said:

I'd think we'd want to leave that over email wouldn't we? Is everyone on the compiler team active on zulip?

yeah e-mail is fine for now :+1:

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:13, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

I hope I didn't annoy people by auto-subscribing them

heh I auto-subscribe people to things all the time

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:13, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix who did you auto-subscribe? there's a lot of emails there and I don't recognize many of them

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:14, on Zulip):

everyone in #t-compiler

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:14, on Zulip):

actuallyt hat was dumb

Wesley Wiser (Jun 19 2020 at 15:14, on Zulip):

There's uh 3k subscribers to the private channel :laughing:

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:14, on Zulip):

yeah let me go delete that now

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:15, on Zulip):

lets try this again

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:15, on Zulip):

I'll go look at the team repo now

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:15, on Zulip):

(now I see why @nikomatsakis was asking about synchronizing with team repo)

nikomatsakis (Jun 19 2020 at 15:15, on Zulip):

lol

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:17, on Zulip):

this is why I could never work for a bank

lcnr (Jun 19 2020 at 15:23, on Zulip):

(deleted) ups

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:26, on Zulip):

@simulacrum okay does that look better?

lcnr (Jun 19 2020 at 15:27, on Zulip):

I can't access it, so it should be fine :thinking:

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:27, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix well I'm not in it :)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:27, on Zulip):

hmm

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:28, on Zulip):

I meant for you to be @simulacrum , but maybe I screwed that one up

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:28, on Zulip):

i guess I'll double check the list now then

simulacrum (Jun 19 2020 at 15:29, on Zulip):

but seems loosely correct

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:29, on Zulip):

some people definitely got left out

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:29, on Zulip):

I'll fix it now

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:29, on Zulip):

(its frustrating because zulip's interface for adding people initially is very bad.)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:30, on Zulip):

(it only gives you the full set of all users, with check boxes and a search box. You can't filter to see "who have I checked off" alone)

pnkfelix (Jun 19 2020 at 15:32, on Zulip):

okay should be good now

nagisa (Jun 21 2020 at 02:00, on Zulip):

Super late to the party, but I see wg-checkins as a great opportunity to provide retrospectives and at least sate the problem of hard to observe progress in some projects.

nagisa (Jun 21 2020 at 02:01, on Zulip):

at the very least I know that I don’t have enough bandwidth to closely track the progress of many projects we have but I very much love to see short blurbs every so often reassuring me that something is _still_ happening there.

nagisa (Jun 21 2020 at 02:03, on Zulip):

Some projects that are not a part of the wg structure AFAICT (chalk, polonius?) miss out on this benefit from the checkins.

pnkfelix (Jun 22 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

nagisa said:

Some larger projects that are not a part of the wg structure AFAICT (chalk, polonius?) miss out on this benefit from the checkins.

(I think wg-traits is effectively wg-chalk, FYI)

pnkfelix (Jun 22 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

thanks for that feedback, @nagisa !

Last update: Nov 25 2020 at 01:30UTC