---
# System prepended metadata

title: T-style triage meeting 2023-10-04
tags: [' triage-meeting', T-style, ' minutes']

---

---
title: T-style triage meeting 2023-10-04
tags: T-style, triage-meeting, minutes
date: 2023-10-04
discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/346005-t-style/topic/meeting.202023-10-4
url: https://hackmd.io/FNY_eJwyRMCcbC-tMo2B5w
---

# T-style meeting agenda

- Meeting date: 2023-10-04

## Attendance

- Team members: Jane, Caleb, CE
- Others: TC

## Meeting roles

- Facilitator: Jane
- Minutes: TC

## Check-in

(Not minuted.)

## Scheduled design meetings

None.

Update these [here](https://github.com/orgs/rust-lang/projects/38/views/1).

## Proposed design meetings

None.

Update these [here](https://github.com/orgs/rust-lang/projects/38/views/1).

## Announcements or custom items

(Meeting attendees, feel free to add items here!)

### Talk about system for agenda setting

Caleb: I'd like to request a 5 minute timebox addition to the meeting agenda for orientation around how this works (though I won't be offended if i'm the only one in the dark and folks would prefer we use the 5 minutes for something else).

Caleb: ...and to be clear, the question is not how the bot works, but what the flow/process is for going into these meetings as we move forward.

TC: (Discussion of the structure and intent of this agenda, the triagebot system, how this is used by other teams, etc.)

Caleb: No objections.  Makes sense how this would play out and connect to prior discussions.

CE: +1.

Jane: No objections.  Maybe the format is harder to engage with because it's spread out over the document.  I'm excited about automated agendas.

TC: Note that HackMD can collapse headings.  There are some tradeoffs here.  Having it a bit more spread out is better for the minutes; both for taking them and for the end result.

Caleb: What's the process for using triagebot to generate this?

Jane: It'd be hitting a URL.

Caleb: Should we update the policy documents?

Jane: We could wait until the triagebot changes are merged so we can include the URL in the policy.  But yes, the policy has a lot of language that will be out of date, so we should update that.

Caleb: Could some else clone the repo and run it locally?

TC: Yes, the branch is linked in Zulip, and it can be run.

Caleb: We may want to revisit the roles for coming up with an agenda.

Jane: +1.

Caleb: Echoing what Jane mentioned, it'd be nice to have a bullet-point list.  But that may be difficult technically.

Caleb: Do we still need the other HackMD document?

TC: No.  That will be a historical document once we cover the TODO items in the agenda here to ensure that all of the action items and backlog items are converted to issues and nominations.

*Consensus*: Let's move forward with this system.

### Confirm backlog items are in GitHub issues

TC: We wanted to move all backlog items to GitHub issues.  Do we have anything more to do here?

https://hackmd.io/lcquVLbdTTiW1oMDTmpn5A?both#Backlog

Jane: I propose we do this async.

Caleb: How do we make sure this doesn't slip through the cracks if we do it async?

Caleb: I'll go through all the backlog items and make a suggestion on Zulip on whether it's something that should be converted or dropped.

TC/Jane: +1.

*Consensus*: Caleb will go through the backlog items and post to Zulip suggestions about what should be converted to issues or dropped.

## Action items review

https://hackmd.io/lcquVLbdTTiW1oMDTmpn5A?both#Action-Items

(TODO: Move remaining items to GitHub issues.)

Jane: I'm hoping I should be able to follow-up with Jack today.

Jane: Creating a tracking issue for the 2024 style edition, I still need to do that.

Caleb: The RFC to create the WG for the edition probably supersedes the action item for me.  Let's drop it.

Caleb: The other two, PRs are not opened yet.

TC: How do we move these to action items?

Caleb: I'll handle it along with the backlog items.

All: Thanks Caleb.

*Consensus*: Caleb will go through the action items and convert them to issues or raise them for discussion on Zulip.

### Completed

* Caleb: Ask Jack to determine when the project is planning to ship 2024 edition and share info back with T-style
    * Jane asked/communicated this synchronously with Jack, answer/result pending

## Nominated RFCs, PRs, and issues

### "[style edition 2024] Combine all delimited exprs as last argument" rust#114764

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114764

Caleb: When people have checked their boxes when there are open questions on the PR, what does that mean?

Jane: For my part, I checked my box before the questions, and I haven't checked in recently.

TC: As a matter of process, if a team member feels that a question raised on the PR rises to the level that the PR should not move forward until that point is addressed, a team member can adopt that point by raising a **concern** on the PR.  The PR can't move forward when there are open concerns from team members.

Caleb: I'll do that.  I think there concerns are addressable with some small changes.

Jane: Do we want to unnominate?

Caleb: What are the implications?

TC: If we want to see this again next week and keep this on our radar, then it should remain nominated.  Otherwise, it should be unnominated.

Caleb: We can keep track of this some other way.

*Consensus*: Let's remove the nomination.

## Pending PRs on the style-team repo

### "Clarify empty match arm format" style-team#147

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/style-team/pull/147

Caleb: I feel like we can close this.  We have duplicate items on this.

Caleb: I'll close it.

*Consensus*: We'll close this issue.

### "Add team membership characteristics section" style-team#182

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/style-team/pull/182

Jane: This is blocked on me talking with Josh.

CE: I'm disappointed that this has taken so long.  This goes back to what I want to write about expectations of team members.  What can we do to move this forward?

Caleb: I hear you.  I've had similar feeling in the past.  I do want to prioritize these issues about the team itself.

Jane: I hear your frustration also.

CE: To clarify, it's OK to have strong opinions, and it's OK to be unavailable, but it's less OK to do both at the same time.

TC: In open source, as in many things, decisions get made by the people that show up.  That's often a virtue.  Of course there are limits; some things do need the attention of everyone even if that means waiting.  But on the T-lang side, reversible decisions about the handling of many things are often taken based on the meeting consensus as long as 2-3 out of 5 team members are there.  It may be worth adopting a similar process.

(The meeting ended here.)

### "Clarify muliti-line chain elements" style-team#163

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/style-team/pull/163

## RFCs waiting to be merged

None.

## `S-waiting-on-team`

None.

## Proposed FCPs

**Check your boxes!**

### "[style edition 2024] Combine all delimited exprs as last argument" rust#114764

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114764

## Active FCPs

None.

## P-critical issues

None.

## Check-out

(Not minuted.)
