Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Evaluate improvements to the RFC system #23

Open
ehuss opened this issue Aug 8, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Evaluate improvements to the RFC system #23

ehuss opened this issue Aug 8, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
S-needs-council Status: Needs a council representative to adopt this

Comments

@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor

ehuss commented Aug 8, 2023

Evaluate improvements to the RFC decision process, such as tracking and supporting multiple potential outcomes and changes in people's preferences without restarting decisions, and providing lighter-weight mechanisms for reversible decisions.

The RFC process itself can be grueling and stressful. Is there some way to improve that?

Should management of the RFC repo itself (like rust-lang/rfcs#3339) be the responsibility of the Leadership Council?

Should there be an issue tracker (see rust-lang/core-team#26)?

Currently @ehuss manages the RFC repo (such as tracking assignments, dealing with build and CI issues, etc.), just because they randomly decided to take on that responsibility. Should that be formalized? Can we find others to help?

I'm sure there are many other questions and concerns.
@ehuss ehuss added the S-needs-council Status: Needs a council representative to adopt this label Aug 8, 2023
ehuss added a commit to ehuss/rust-forge that referenced this issue Aug 9, 2023
@ehuss
Remove outdated RFC 1068 governance docs.
fa12dfc 
These docs are very outdated and contains some misleading information.
There are important things to resurrect at some point, which is
something the Council should take on:

* Definition of teams, and the structure of the Project in general:
  rust-lang/leadership-council#33
* Team charters, defining what each team's mission and responsibilities
  are: rust-lang/leadership-council#44
* Suggestions on moderation team processes should follow up with either
  the Council or https://github.com/rust-lang/moderation-team
* Suggested decision making processes for teams:
  rust-lang/leadership-council#45
  (and rust-lang/leadership-council#23 to some
  degree).
@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehuss commented Aug 12, 2023

Comment from @yaahc on Zulip:

improving feedback loops around the RFC process and similar proposal oriented processes. I think we could do a better job of asking RFC authors, both for merged RFCs, and perhaps more importantly for stalled and closed RFCs, how the process was for them, what worked well for them and what didnt.

@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehuss commented Aug 12, 2023

One concept that I would like to see iterated on more is that for large RFCs to start with a GitHub repo where individual issues and documents can be hashed out. The GitHub PR interface does not handle threading very well, and PRs with hundreds of comments are overwhelming and difficult to navigate.

Some examples are https://github.com/Manishearth/namespacing-rfc and https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware.

Similar to that, I think breaking down large RFCs into smaller decisions could help with making incremental progress. For example, starting with a statement of intent to tackle something, but not diving into the details too much. Then moving on to prototyping and experimenting, and collecting feedback. Then once things are approaching some steady state make a final proposal to stabilize. Perhaps there can be additional smaller steps added throughout this process.

@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehuss commented Aug 17, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Brought up in https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/392734-council/topic/Nominating.20issue.20for.20discussion, the current system does not handle small teams very well. rust-lang/rfcbot-rs#315 proposes to make an at least 2/3 requirement.

Another suggestion in that thread is to allow it to be configurable by team.

ehuss added a commit to ehuss/rust-forge that referenced this issue Aug 21, 2023
@ehuss
Remove outdated RFC 1068 governance docs.
9634f6b 
These docs are very outdated and contains some misleading information.
There are important things to resurrect at some point, which is
something the Council should take on:

* Definition of teams, and the structure of the Project in general:
  rust-lang/leadership-council#33
* Team charters, defining what each team's mission and responsibilities
  are: rust-lang/leadership-council#44
* Suggestions on moderation team processes should follow up with either
  the Council or https://github.com/rust-lang/moderation-team
* Suggested decision making processes for teams:
  rust-lang/leadership-council#45
  (and rust-lang/leadership-council#23 to some
  degree).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
S-needs-council Status: Needs a council representative to adopt this
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@ehuss