replace initiatives with a newer, lighterweight process

[nikomatsakis]

This PR proposes a lighterweight initiative process. The summary is this:

• RFCs required for every major change.
• Small changes that fit in a PR, have narrow impact, and are uncontroversial can skip the RFC process.
• If you have a lang-team champion and an experienced implementor, you can start experimenting by just adding a feature gate, but you'll still need an RFC later.

I removed the old initiative pages and redirect them to the new summary.

I've uploaded a preview to http://smallcultfollowing.com/lang-team-2022-09-20-preview/

[nikomatsakis]

@rust-lang/lang I updated some of the pages based on the meeting by adding FAQs and the like, hopefully capturing the spirit of what we were saying!

In particular I expanded the experimentation page to capture the idea of the two roles we see:

• Experimentor (person doing the work)
• Champion (from lang team, basically a liaison)

I said that these can be the same person, but in that case somebody else should second the PR that adds the feature gate.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@nikomatsakis during the meeting you had a diagram, but I don't see it here. Maybe you forgot to add it to the commit? (Edit: never mind, I totally managed to a review a small subset of the changes... somehow).

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Is this a regular FCP (i.e., rfcbot)? Or the new process we're thinking about?

(Or the not-actually-full-team checkbox kind of partially existing MCP FCP where it isn't tracked by automation)?

[nikomatsakis]

I was imagining this as using the new bot, but since that's not available, we should discuss how to achieve it. I would be fine with an interim process of "just use rfcbot", or of "just use rfcbot, but you can check all the boxes".

[nikomatsakis]

Pushed various updates, taking into account @Mark-Simulacrum's suggestions (thanks!).

[nikomatsakis]

@rfcbot fcp merge

I'd like to get folks to review this and agree to it. We discussed it some in the meeting, and I don't think I really deviated from that, but nonetheless.

[rfcbot]

Team member @nikomatsakis has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @cramertj
• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @pnkfelix
• @scottmcm

No concerns currently listed.

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.

[scottmcm]

Thanks for working all this out! The simplifications look like a good match for what often happens, and I like the emphasis on getting RFCs a bit more often than we have recently.

@rfcbot reviewed

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[pnkfelix]

The current diagram sort of makes it confusing about whom the two boxes on the right side apply to. (Or, alternatively, it makes it confusing to whom the box on top, about "experienced contributor", is being directed at: Is it aimed at everyone, including people proposing small tweaks to existing features, or is it solely aimed at people proposing new features or other large changes?)

Maybe consider revising the diagram so that the "new feature, or complex change" box now has a "yes" arc that flows into the "experienced contributor" question box, and a "no" arc that flows into the "okay, this must be a small addition or tweak to existing feature box."

(The biggest reason I suggest this: the current diagram has that "experienced contributor" box at the top, and its easy for people to see that, and start there, without even noticing the other boxes on the side. This means experienced contributors may well overlook the fact that they need not open a tracking issue if they're talking about a minor change. Obviously if they read the text itself, they would see the alternative path you describe there, but I suspect many people may consult the diagram without looking much at the text.)

---

Having said that, I'm not registering this as a formal concern; its just a nitpick.

[nikomatsakis]

I've pushed up some edits and resolved the concerns. I'm going to go ahead and merge this although the FCP has not expired, because I want to be able to link to it as I go through issues and do housekeeping.