or
or
By clicking below, you agree to our terms of service.
New to HackMD? Sign up
Syntax | Example | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|
# Header | Header | 基本排版 | |
- Unordered List |
|
||
1. Ordered List |
|
||
- [ ] Todo List |
|
||
> Blockquote | Blockquote |
||
**Bold font** | Bold font | ||
*Italics font* | Italics font | ||
~~Strikethrough~~ | |||
19^th^ | 19th | ||
H~2~O | H2O | ||
++Inserted text++ | Inserted text | ||
==Marked text== | Marked text | ||
[link text](https:// "title") | Link | ||
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/93937/939372df0c8a736f3e340d55c22717d1884cfb35" alt="image alt" | Image | ||
`Code` | Code |
在筆記中貼入程式碼 | |
```javascript var i = 0; ``` |
|
||
:smile: | ![]() |
Emoji list | |
{%youtube youtube_id %} | Externals | ||
$L^aT_eX$ | LaTeX | ||
:::info This is a alert area. ::: |
This is a alert area. |
On a scale of 0-10, how likely is it that you would recommend HackMD to your friends, family or business associates?
Please give us some advice and help us improve HackMD.
Syncing
xxxxxxxxxx
Leave questions, observations, discussion topics below.
background: team discussions
tmandry: I've heard this topic come up a few times.
launching pad
JP: We're part of the launching pad. The goal of the launching pad is to no longer exist, to find a home for each part of the launching pad. How do we do that?
JP: I've been asking various working groups, e.g. Rust Embedded what they want from the Rust Project. For them it's to know what's going on.
where things stand now
tmandry: I think "WG" is a weird label to put on both us and the other groups when we are deeply embedded in the project. I also don't feel like we have that much of a sense of ownership right now.
yoshua: There is a difference between the informal and formal understanding. Yosh feels strong ownership over async Rust, even if we don't have formal ownership yet. We should formalize that ownership.
eholk: Delegating work without delegating authority. Working groups are sort of "light teams" - we want the status of "full membership" - with checkbox authority.
That said, scoping the authority is going to be hard. Async features impact the language as a whole.
JP: Tyler, do you wish it was different?
tmandry: Yes. Also history of people leaving. And async is very horizontal; we touch lang, libs, dev tools, etc.
team structure
eholk: I think a good model is the types team. Types is a subteam of both lang and libs. We touch compiler, libs, lang.
eholk: It might make sense to split teams into "vertical" and "horizontal".
yoshua: Another example is the const generics initiative/working group. They clearly have a compiler, language, and library aspect.
yoshua: One point of friction that may arise is our relationship to std. I have some ambitions here, but the full libs team might not be on board. We should have a clear set of authority that we're delegated and make sure we each understand what needs broader buy-in.
tmandry: Another challenge I see is that it's going to be hard to have a horizontal team that focuses on all these different areas. That's a lot of competencies.
JP: "Horizontal team" might be confusing. Some might argue the right term is WG. And should those teams have representation on the council?
yoshua: I think we should. Not liking the "prestigiousness" split of the different teams.
eholk: I'm okay with subteam structure. This connects to the question of how big the council should be. I was skeptical that nine people would work, though it's been okay so far. That said, probably shouldn't grow too much.
JP: Adding seats in the council is kind of like carving out a new state
tmandry: I think I'm okay with subteam structure. Maybe we need to have a mega horizontal team that represents some product goals or something.
yoshua: I would be okay with that. We don't need one team equals one rep on the council. The failure I want to avoid is being represented by the vertical teams. We will always exist in tension with those teams, and therefore can't expect them to represent us.
tmandry: Elaborate?
yoshua: Libs and async each have our own priorities. These don't have to overlap fully. At that point we need to decide the tradeoffs. We need a path to resolution, it shouldn't be the same group that represents us that we have tension with.
eholk: If we're a subteam of three teams that seems a little weird, we have eligibility to be the rep for three different teams. Maybe it could work.
yoshua: As example of tension, you can have tension within a team: You have competing priorities within lang that you're trying to satisfy (tmandry: expressiveness vs ease of use). You can also have tension between teams. This is healthy, and you also need a clear path to resolution for resolving those tensions.
eholk: I think of libs and lang as being complementary, working toward shared goal
JP: Seems like one of the problems is the term "working group"
tmandry: Yes; I think it's confusing to share it with other groups that are very different. I also agree with what Yoshua said; we need a way to resolve tensions. I've been musing about a "product team" that would own a shared product vision, but I think it would only work if they had shared membership with all the vertical teams.
Topic
name: prompt