Leave questions, observations, discussion topics below.
tmandry: I've heard this topic come up a few times.
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.
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.
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.
name: prompt
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