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.

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

September 2017 #37

Closed
killercup opened this Issue Aug 2, 2017 · 39 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@killercup
Member

killercup commented Aug 2, 2017

Talks talks talks

We are looking for (you guessed it) talks!

If you'd like to give a lightning talk at this meetup, just write a comment!

Talks we have so far:

Other people who've expressed interesting in giving a talk:

ToDo

Invitation draft

Title: CGN: ???

Fellow Rustaceans,
 
our next meetup is set for ???.
 
???

**[You can register here](https://www.meetup.com/RustCologne/events/mtcmwmywmbjb/)**.

See you soon!
 
Yours,
Jan-Erik, Pascal, Florian and Colin
―  
The meetup will likely be held in German, we will however reevaluate this at the
beginning of the evening and may switch to English if needed.

Rust News

last month Rust News

@killercup killercup added the event label Aug 2, 2017

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 2, 2017

Member

At the August meetup (#35) we discussed the idea of having a round of "RFC lightning talks", where a bunch of people present their favorite/exiting RFCs in 5 minutes each.

If we want to do that, I'd say we need at least 3 talks by the beginning of the last week in August. This is also most likely not a question of find stuff to talk about together (we could probably even reduce the scope to "already merged but not yet implemented RFCs" and still have no trouble of finding topics for 10 talks) but of finding speakers and tie them down for a talk.

Member

killercup commented Aug 2, 2017

At the August meetup (#35) we discussed the idea of having a round of "RFC lightning talks", where a bunch of people present their favorite/exiting RFCs in 5 minutes each.

If we want to do that, I'd say we need at least 3 talks by the beginning of the last week in August. This is also most likely not a question of find stuff to talk about together (we could probably even reduce the scope to "already merged but not yet implemented RFCs" and still have no trouble of finding topics for 10 talks) but of finding speakers and tie them down for a talk.

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 3, 2017

Collaborator

Date would 6.9., which works for me

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 3, 2017

Date would 6.9., which works for me

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 9, 2017

Collaborator

Should we get started with this, e.g. sending out the save the date, etc?

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 9, 2017

Should we get started with this, e.g. sending out the save the date, etc?

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 9, 2017

Member

Sure. Do we want to go ahead with the RFC plan, @colin-kiegel, @Florob? Maybe we can even send out an extra-early invite :)

Member

killercup commented Aug 9, 2017

Sure. Do we want to go ahead with the RFC plan, @colin-kiegel, @Florob? Maybe we can even send out an extra-early invite :)

@Florob

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Florob

Florob Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

I'm fine with sending out an early invite for the "RFC plan". I guess even if no-one else has something to present we should find 3 talks among the four of us.

Collaborator

Florob commented Aug 11, 2017

I'm fine with sending out an early invite for the "RFC plan". I guess even if no-one else has something to present we should find 3 talks among the four of us.

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

Yup, I'd be fine with it as well and I would happily prepare something to start of

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 11, 2017

Yup, I'd be fine with it as well and I would happily prepare something to start of

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 11, 2017

Member
Member

killercup commented Aug 11, 2017

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

Hey, I like the idea.

If we have three 5-minute talks plus discussion, the official part might be over after one hour. Should we do one round of open-space afterwards, or just leave it to spontaneous activities?

early-invitation: IMO an announcement via the mailing list is much more visible than just "publishing" the event. Usually we just publish the event to send our save-the-date reminder, but this is only good for headlines. If we want to send more text (like "please tell us if you want to give a talk ..."), we should do this in a regular mail before/after publishing the event. Does that make sense to you? :-)

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 11, 2017

Hey, I like the idea.

If we have three 5-minute talks plus discussion, the official part might be over after one hour. Should we do one round of open-space afterwards, or just leave it to spontaneous activities?

early-invitation: IMO an announcement via the mailing list is much more visible than just "publishing" the event. Usually we just publish the event to send our save-the-date reminder, but this is only good for headlines. If we want to send more text (like "please tell us if you want to give a talk ..."), we should do this in a regular mail before/after publishing the event. Does that make sense to you? :-)

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

Oh and by the way in July someone told me, that it's difficult for him to attend on Wednesdays due to a hobby (singing in a choir every wednesday). I still believe that we should do irregular exceptions to our first-wednesday-each-month rhythm to attract different people once in a while.

So, what about Tuesday 05.09. instead?
@Florob: Most important question is, on which evenings is the C4 available?

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 11, 2017

Oh and by the way in July someone told me, that it's difficult for him to attend on Wednesdays due to a hobby (singing in a choir every wednesday). I still believe that we should do irregular exceptions to our first-wednesday-each-month rhythm to attract different people once in a while.

So, what about Tuesday 05.09. instead?
@Florob: Most important question is, on which evenings is the C4 available?

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 11, 2017

Member

If we have three 5-minute talks plus discussion, the official part might be over after one hour.

that's why I wrote

we need at least 3 talks

:)

I think we should aim for 3 to 5 talks and 5min talk + 5min discussion (with hard cuts if necessary).

So, what about Tuesday 05.09. instead?

Everything but Friday works that week for me. (That way I might even be able to go to the Elixir meetup on the 6th to infiltrate their ranks to copy all their good ideas for make benefit glorious meetup of Rust Cologne!)

Member

killercup commented Aug 11, 2017

If we have three 5-minute talks plus discussion, the official part might be over after one hour.

that's why I wrote

we need at least 3 talks

:)

I think we should aim for 3 to 5 talks and 5min talk + 5min discussion (with hard cuts if necessary).

So, what about Tuesday 05.09. instead?

Everything but Friday works that week for me. (That way I might even be able to go to the Elixir meetup on the 6th to infiltrate their ranks to copy all their good ideas for make benefit glorious meetup of Rust Cologne!)

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

The alternative date would work even better for me.

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 11, 2017

The alternative date would work even better for me.

@Florob

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Florob

Florob Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

The C4 is taken on Tuesdays. We could probably do Monday the 4th if that works for people.

Personally I'd plan a bit more than 5 minutes for discussion, but we can probably vary that depending on the number of RFCs we actually have.

Collaborator

Florob commented Aug 11, 2017

The C4 is taken on Tuesdays. We could probably do Monday the 4th if that works for people.

Personally I'd plan a bit more than 5 minutes for discussion, but we can probably vary that depending on the number of RFCs we actually have.

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 12, 2017

Collaborator

I don't know yet if I can attend on Monday. But if it works for everyone else that would be ok for me.

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 12, 2017

I don't know yet if I can attend on Monday. But if it works for everyone else that would be ok for me.

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 14, 2017

Member

So Monday or Wednesday? Both work for me.


Personally I'd plan a bit more than 5 minutes for discussion

Yep, I'd aim for 5+5 to keep things moving, but not cut off discussions.


Invite text proposal (feel free to change; get the markdown source be editing my comment; I went with the default Wednesday date for now):

Fellow Rustaceans,

Our next meetup is set for Wednesday, September 6th, 2017.

This time, we want to talk not about the Rust we currently know and love, but about the Rust we want to have next year! And how do we know what will happen in Rust over the next year? (Aside from wild speculation, stainless steel crystal balls, and actual time travel that is.) All significant changes to Rust—the compiler, the language, and the ecosystem—are publicly proposed and discussed in form of RFCs (request for comments). You can find the currently open, as well as all accepted and rejected RFCs in the rust-lang/rfcs repository.

And boy are there tons of RFCs! So we'd like to try a slightly new format: We invite you to give lightning talks about specific RFCs. Which ones? You decide. The only requirement is that you need to have fun talking about it! We'll try to have 3 to 5 talks, each one up to 5 minutes longs plus 5 additional minutes for discussion.

If that sounds like something you'd like to do: Awesome! Just comment on the Github issue for this meetup, on meetup.com (or contact us some other way) and let us know what you'd like to talk about! :)

You can register here.

See you soon!

Yours,
Jan-Erik, Pascal, Florian and Colin

The meetup will likely be held in German, we will however reevaluate this at the
beginning of the evening and may switch to English if needed.


Totally OT: I just saw https://twitter.com/bpdp/status/895419283307495425 and I want to have an infographic like that for us as well because it's so pretty but I have no idea why we'd need it 😄

Member

killercup commented Aug 14, 2017

So Monday or Wednesday? Both work for me.


Personally I'd plan a bit more than 5 minutes for discussion

Yep, I'd aim for 5+5 to keep things moving, but not cut off discussions.


Invite text proposal (feel free to change; get the markdown source be editing my comment; I went with the default Wednesday date for now):

Fellow Rustaceans,

Our next meetup is set for Wednesday, September 6th, 2017.

This time, we want to talk not about the Rust we currently know and love, but about the Rust we want to have next year! And how do we know what will happen in Rust over the next year? (Aside from wild speculation, stainless steel crystal balls, and actual time travel that is.) All significant changes to Rust—the compiler, the language, and the ecosystem—are publicly proposed and discussed in form of RFCs (request for comments). You can find the currently open, as well as all accepted and rejected RFCs in the rust-lang/rfcs repository.

And boy are there tons of RFCs! So we'd like to try a slightly new format: We invite you to give lightning talks about specific RFCs. Which ones? You decide. The only requirement is that you need to have fun talking about it! We'll try to have 3 to 5 talks, each one up to 5 minutes longs plus 5 additional minutes for discussion.

If that sounds like something you'd like to do: Awesome! Just comment on the Github issue for this meetup, on meetup.com (or contact us some other way) and let us know what you'd like to talk about! :)

You can register here.

See you soon!

Yours,
Jan-Erik, Pascal, Florian and Colin

The meetup will likely be held in German, we will however reevaluate this at the
beginning of the evening and may switch to English if needed.


Totally OT: I just saw https://twitter.com/bpdp/status/895419283307495425 and I want to have an infographic like that for us as well because it's so pretty but I have no idea why we'd need it 😄

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 14, 2017

Collaborator

ok, +1 for wednesday. :-)

I also like the invitation text.

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 14, 2017

ok, +1 for wednesday. :-)

I also like the invitation text.

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 14, 2017

Collaborator

"And boy are there ..." - I don't like this. Can we change that slightly?

Should we stay strict to the 5min+5min? Or relax it slightly even in writing (I know that for the discussion it's not a hard hard limit)

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 14, 2017

"And boy are there ..." - I don't like this. Can we change that slightly?

Should we stay strict to the 5min+5min? Or relax it slightly even in writing (I know that for the discussion it's not a hard hard limit)

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 14, 2017

Member

"And boy are there ..." - I don't like this. Can we change that slightly?

Sure! How about we go all British and say "But, blimey, there are many RFCs!" or stay classy and say "But there sure are a lot of RFCs!"

Member

killercup commented Aug 14, 2017

"And boy are there ..." - I don't like this. Can we change that slightly?

Sure! How about we go all British and say "But, blimey, there are many RFCs!" or stay classy and say "But there sure are a lot of RFCs!"

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 14, 2017

Member

Oh, and I'd want to stay rather strict on the 5min limit. If that leads to people compressing there talk down to most interesting parts… well, I won't complain. If bad comes to worse they can always ask for a few more minutes (and we can decide ad-hoc).

Member

killercup commented Aug 14, 2017

Oh, and I'd want to stay rather strict on the 5min limit. If that leads to people compressing there talk down to most interesting parts… well, I won't complain. If bad comes to worse they can always ask for a few more minutes (and we can decide ad-hoc).

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 14, 2017

Collaborator

5min it is then!

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 14, 2017

5min it is then!

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 14, 2017

Collaborator

I'd say go the (boring|classy|simple) way.

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 14, 2017

I'd say go the (boring|classy|simple) way.

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 14, 2017

Collaborator

Hehe, I spontaneously liked the enthusiasm of "And boy ..." ;-)

I think one reason for people to come to our meetup is if they expect other people to be enthusiastic about Rust. But don't get me wrong, I don't want to argue over this sentence - I'm perfectly ok with a simple variant, too. I just want to note, that generally I am in favour of enthusiastic, vivid and playful wording (if it doesn't obstruct the message). ^^

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 14, 2017

Hehe, I spontaneously liked the enthusiasm of "And boy ..." ;-)

I think one reason for people to come to our meetup is if they expect other people to be enthusiastic about Rust. But don't get me wrong, I don't want to argue over this sentence - I'm perfectly ok with a simple variant, too. I just want to note, that generally I am in favour of enthusiastic, vivid and playful wording (if it doesn't obstruct the message). ^^

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 16, 2017

Collaborator

Ok, I just sent the pre-invitation and updated the description on meetup! :-)

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 16, 2017

Ok, I just sent the pre-invitation and updated the description on meetup! :-)

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 16, 2017

Member

Thanks! Do you also want to announce the meetup? Or wait for a bit before doing that (and probably sending another mail)?

Member

killercup commented Aug 16, 2017

Thanks! Do you also want to announce the meetup? Or wait for a bit before doing that (and probably sending another mail)?

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 16, 2017

Collaborator

I would wait a few days (maybe until next week), because it's not possible to silently publish the meetup. ^^

Although unpublished, it's already possible to RSVP.

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 16, 2017

I would wait a few days (maybe until next week), because it's not possible to silently publish the meetup. ^^

Although unpublished, it's already possible to RSVP.

killercup added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 21, 2017

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 21, 2017

Collaborator

all invitations sent, except for reddit

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 21, 2017

all invitations sent, except for reddit

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 22, 2017

Collaborator

will take care of reddit

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 22, 2017

will take care of reddit

@diovudau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@diovudau

diovudau Aug 22, 2017

I'm coming, but as a pure passive visitor.

diovudau commented Aug 22, 2017

I'm coming, but as a pure passive visitor.

@mre

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mre

mre Aug 25, 2017

If it's okay, I would like to pick Evolving Rust through Checkpoints, since it's one of the most discussed RFCs so far.

mre commented Aug 25, 2017

If it's okay, I would like to pick Evolving Rust through Checkpoints, since it's one of the most discussed RFCs so far.

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 25, 2017

Member

@mre YES!



You owe me a talk anyway 😉

Member

killercup commented Aug 25, 2017

@mre YES!



You owe me a talk anyway 😉

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 25, 2017

Member

By the way, @Rustaceans/organizers-cologne, should we maybe ping some folks and ask if they want to talk about an RFC they were heavily involved in? Because my fallback idea was to talk about 1946 if we don't have enough other RFCs :) Maybe you feel similarly.

Member

killercup commented Aug 25, 2017

By the way, @Rustaceans/organizers-cologne, should we maybe ping some folks and ask if they want to talk about an RFC they were heavily involved in? Because my fallback idea was to talk about 1946 if we don't have enough other RFCs :) Maybe you feel similarly.

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 26, 2017

Collaborator

We should!
I have 1 or 2 RFCs in mind to do myself, so let's start a list!

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 26, 2017

We should!
I have 1 or 2 RFCs in mind to do myself, so let's start a list!

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 26, 2017

Collaborator

@badboy: @killercup already started a list in the first post #37 (comment) :-)

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 26, 2017

@badboy: @killercup already started a list in the first post #37 (comment) :-)

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 28, 2017

Collaborator

Ok, I will talk about either:

Which do you prefer?

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 28, 2017

Ok, I will talk about either:

Which do you prefer?

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 28, 2017

Collaborator

nice. My vote for fallible collection allocation. :-)

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 28, 2017

nice. My vote for fallible collection allocation. :-)

@badboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badboy

badboy Aug 28, 2017

Collaborator

as you wish goes reading

Collaborator

badboy commented Aug 28, 2017

as you wish goes reading

@colin-kiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colin-kiegel

colin-kiegel Aug 31, 2017

Collaborator

I could imagine talking about RFC #2126: Clarify and streamline paths and visibility. But the 5min-goal will likely be a challenge. :-)

@killercup I would like to hear about your rust-lang/rfcs#1946.

Collaborator

colin-kiegel commented Aug 31, 2017

I could imagine talking about RFC #2126: Clarify and streamline paths and visibility. But the 5min-goal will likely be a challenge. :-)

@killercup I would like to hear about your rust-lang/rfcs#1946.

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Aug 31, 2017

Member

Ohhh, 2126 is a good idea! I totally tuned out of that discussion a while ago 😄

Also: We should totally mention https://request-for-explanation.github.io/podcast/!

Member

killercup commented Aug 31, 2017

Ohhh, 2126 is a good idea! I totally tuned out of that discussion a while ago 😄

Also: We should totally mention https://request-for-explanation.github.io/podcast/!

@Florob

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Florob

Florob Aug 31, 2017

Collaborator

I'd like to talk about RFC 1228: Placement left arrow.
Probably also a case where fitting motivation and birds eye view of the RFC in 5 min will take some work though.

Collaborator

Florob commented Aug 31, 2017

I'd like to talk about RFC 1228: Placement left arrow.
Probably also a case where fitting motivation and birds eye view of the RFC in 5 min will take some work though.

@killercup

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@killercup

killercup Sep 6, 2017

Member

Thanks all!

Member

killercup commented Sep 6, 2017

Thanks all!

@killercup killercup closed this Sep 6, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment