Add Cargo team charter. #12010
Add Cargo team charter. #12010
Conversation
|
r? @weihanglo (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
A-documenting-cargo-itself
| Members are required to always: | ||
|
|
||
| - Represent the Rust project in a way that upholds the [Rust code of conduct][coc] to a high standard. | ||
| - Represent the Cargo Team in a way that upholds the expectations of this charter, and be friendly, welcoming, and constructive with contributors and users. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we have anything on being clear in representations that reflect the team vs the individual?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you say more about what your thoughts are here? I think I have a vague idea of what you're getting at here, but I'm not sure how to put it into words. I assume this is trying to make the distinction of making some public statement, and wanting to distinguish between "I'm speaking for the whole team" and "I'm just giving my personal viewpoint"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thats it. I'm not sure what to even put down for a policy, if anything. Its just something I try to keep in mind
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We would always be recognized as “Cargo team member” or whatever your strongest public image when interacting with the community. That's a thing one can never shave off even after stepping down.
For example, when one team member talks about cargo-eval pre-RFC, even when they state it's their own personal opinion. They still have a vote to affect the decision. People then tend to see it as a portion of the team's opinion if they find the connection.
That's an inevitable consequence of being a formal member.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In terms of making a statement for the whole team, we usually start like “after the team's recent discussion, we….” I think that kind of speaking gives enough information to the audience to decide where it comes from.
Just be clear. I am fine with not having a policy here for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's absolutely the case that we'll be perceived as Cargo team members, but with some care we can make sure to state when we're speaking for the team, and when we're specifically not speaking for the team.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Following today's episode of the rust drama... being unclear about whether someone was speaking on behalf of the team or just expressing their own opinion may have been a key contributor to this round of drama.
|
I want to make sure there is a unanimous approval for adding this, so I'd like to make sure that this isn't merged until everyone checks off on it. @rfcbot fcp merge |
|
Team member @ehuss has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: Concerns:
Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
rfcbot
added
the
proposed-final-comment-period
rfcbot
removed
the
final-comment-period
Co-authored-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Co-authored-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
|
@joshtriplett Thank you very much for the review, I have applied your suggestions. (I don't think fcpbot allows me to resolve your concerns, but I don't think it is strictly necessary since they are just applying your suggestions.) I'm going to go ahead and merge. Thank you everyone for the review. If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to comment, open a new PR or issue, ask on Zulip, or direct message me. The intent going forward is that any significant changes to this document should go through an FCP (minor clarifications, or editorial changes don't require that). This first version was intended to be a starting baseline where we can then update when we identify things that would be helpful. @bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
rfcbot
removed
proposed-final-comment-period
Update cargo 8 commits in 13413c64ff88dd6c2824e9eb9374fc5f10895d28..09276c703a473ab33daaeb94917232e80eefd628 2023-05-10 13:46:18 +0000 to 2023-05-16 21:43:35 +0000 - docs: Clarify that crates.io doesn't link to docs.rs right away. (rust-lang/cargo#12146) - docs(ref): Clarify MSRV is generally minor (rust-lang/cargo#12122) - Fix `check_for_file_and_add`'s check for conflict file (rust-lang/cargo#12135) - Fixes: Incorrect document link (rust-lang/cargo#12143) - doc: intra-doc links and doc comments for build script (rust-lang/cargo#12133) - Add Cargo team charter. (rust-lang/cargo#12010) - Remove useless drop of copy type (rust-lang/cargo#12136) - Fix dep/feat syntax with hidden implicit optional dependencies (rust-lang/cargo#12130) r? ghost
This adds a document explaining what the Cargo team is and how it operates.
This is based on a document I prepared a couple years ago during the efforts to have charters for all teams. That effort has stalled, but I wanted to capture these ideas and make it clearer what is involved with being a member and how to join. The only section that is significantly new is the "Decision process" section.
In terms of detail, I wanted to strike a balance between providing the important information (the "scaffolding" so to speak), versus an exhaustive legal document. For example, this doesn't have specific requirements on what "involvement" means, team limits, term limits, specific vacation policy, accountability, consensus and conflict resolution, non-requirements (things not expected of members), specific deliverables or outcomes, measurements of "success", complete listing of the code and systems the team is responsible for, cross-team relationships, sub-team and working-group creation, roadmap management, ...etc.
For similar information, see: