--- tags: governance --- # Rust Governance Interview Questions * What would you describe as the biggest strengths with the current governance structure? The biggest weaknesses? * If you had to pick one thing about Rust governance structure to change, what would it be? If you could only keep one aspect of the current Rust governance structure, what would it be? * Are there any "non-technical"/"meta project administration" work that you feel should be done but is currently not being done? * On the following spectra where do you believe the Rust project should live and why? * Centralized authority to distributed authority * Publicly transparent vs. controlled public messaging * Explicit power structures vs. implicit soft power structures * What does it mean for the Rust project to have an opinion? Who speaks for the project? How much does the entire project get a say in the shape and content of public messaging on behalf of the project? * How much should meta project administration be performed by the same set of folks who lead in technical areas of the project? * How much should decisions about (non-technical) project-wide issues be made by those making the technical decisions in the project? How does the project ensure that non-technical decisions get the proper amount of attention? * How important is it to ensure that positions of power or influence are open to those who cannot be dedicated to the project full-time (i.e., 40-hour/week or more)? * Does the Rust project value non-technical contribution (i.e., policy, project documentation, project management, etc.) in practice? If not, why not? How large of an issue is this? * Imagine the following scenarios. How would you envision them being handled under an ideal governance structure? * The leads of two top level teams consistently do not get along. Their behavior is always within the confines of the Code of Conduct but it is clearly impacting how their teams interact. Who should be responsible for identifying this as an issue and ensuring a good outcome? * It is unclear what policy the survey team should adopt for how it shares data with the wider public. Who does the survey team check with to ensure their policy ideas make sense in context of the entire project? Who signs off on the policy? Where is it documented? * An effort that began as a subteam of one of the project teams has grown in size to where the leads of the parent project team can no longer ensure it's being managed correctly. Ideas spread about making this a new top level team. Who approves the new team? * A particular team adopts a new policy that works well for that particular team but does not take other teams' or the Rust project's needs into consideration. Who should identify this is the case? Who provides feedback as such? Do they have the authority to prevent that team from adopting that policy? * A new year begins and project members begin to plan the year for themselves and for the teams they are on. Should someone help set the tone for the entire project as a whole? If so who? What weight should the project collectively put behind this?