From 4cc8a484bec68722a3989da7a6630db00b492233 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Wood Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:47:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] compiler team: trusted contributor Signed-off-by: David Wood --- ...ompiler-team-trusted-contrib-maintainer.md | 389 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 389 insertions(+) create mode 100644 text/0000-compiler-team-trusted-contrib-maintainer.md diff --git a/text/0000-compiler-team-trusted-contrib-maintainer.md b/text/0000-compiler-team-trusted-contrib-maintainer.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..7cffc6d4a90 --- /dev/null +++ b/text/0000-compiler-team-trusted-contrib-maintainer.md @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ +- Feature Name: N/A +- Start Date: 2024-01-19 +- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#3599](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3599) +- Rust Issue: N/A + +Summary +======= +[summary]: #summary + +Re-organise the compiler team: + +- Re-define and rename the tiers of membership +- Change how team members and contributors are promoted +- Document expectations of team members +- Establish mechanism for scaling additional responsibilities that team members + take on and recognising these contributions + +Motivation +========== +[motivation]: #motivation + +Compiler team contributors were introduced [in 2019 with RFC 2689][rfc2689], +the last significant change to the compiler team's structure. A lot has changed +in the project and compiler team since that time: we receive [approximiately +twice as many pull requests each week][review_queue_analysis], there are more +responsibilities that team members choose to take on, and many members of the +team are now employed to work on the project. + +Given these increased demands on the team, it is important that the compiler +team's structure can grow while maintaining high-quality output and remaining +sustainable for team members. Ensuring that team members aren't assigned +an untenable number of reviews each week requires that the team onboard new +contributors and team members at a rate which keeps pace with project growth. + +Furthermore, the day-to-day operations of the team are composed of more varied +tasks than was the case when RFC 2689 was drafted, now including prioritisation +and issue triage, performance triage, meeting agenda preparation, and review of +major change proposals. Team members who choose to contribute to these efforts +should have those additional responsibilities recognised. + +As the team gets larger, our processes need to remain efficient. Final comment +periods (FCPs) have traditionally required sign-off from all team members, +which can become onerous with more team members. As the number of compiler team +members has grown from ~10 to ~15 since RFC 2689, the team has already noticed +scaling issues with our FCP process. + +Processes which scale poorly with team size have acted as a unconscious +disincentive to promote compiler team contributors to compiler team members. +Similarly, the team has found that nominations being the primary mechanism for +promotion to compiler team contributor or member tends to result in contributors +falling through the cracks and being considered team members in the minds of the +team but not actually having been nominated for promotion. + +Since RFC 2689, the compiler team contributor role's purpose has become +confused. It is often beneficial to be able to grant the infrastructure +and merge permissions to trusted contributors quickly so they can work more +efficiently. However, it is also desirable for the compiler team contributor +role to act as recognition for those contributors who have shown staying power +and that the team would like to recognise. These goals are in tension, adding +new contributors early and regularly improves the efficiency of the compiler +team while watering down the recognition and sense of achievement that the role +would ideally confer. + +In addition, as compiler team contributors and members increasingly leverage +their contributions to gain employment/contracts to contribute to the project +full-time (or otherwise), the naming of the compiler team contributor role can +be confusing. An employer unfamiliar with the project may not realise that a +compiler team contributor is a role within the project which recognises regular +contribution and trust rather than just having made a handful of contributions +and thus being a contributor. + +[rfc2689]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2689-compiler-team-contributors.html +[review_queue_analysis]: https://borrowed.dev/p/on-the-compiler-teams-review-queue + +Definitions +----------- +[definitions]: #definitions + +There are various permissions/privileges/responsibilities which will be +referenced in later sections of this RFC, defined here: + +- **r+** + - Contributors with *r+* privilege are able to approve pull requests to be + merged by *bors*. Contributors should not merge their own pull requests (with + the exception of re-approving their own work on behalf of another contributor + after a rebase or similarly trivial change). *r+* permissions apply to the + whole repository, but [it is expected][expectations] that contributors limit + themselves to only those parts of the *rust-lang/rust* repository that are under + the purview of the compiler team (unless granted *r+* from other teams too), and + for subsystems/pull requests that they are confident reviewing. +- **try** + - Contributors with *try* permissions are able to trigger complete toolchain + builds for a pull request or commit, which are then used by *rustc-perf* and + *crater*. *try* permissions aren't available to everyone because try builds + can pose a security risk: try builds have access to secrets and the resulting + builds are hosted on `static.rust-lang.org` where we would never want + malicious code. +- **review rotation** + - Contributors on the review rotation will be randomly assigned to new pull + requests submitted to the compiler. Being on the review rotation is one of the + best ways for contributors to help the compiler team and learn new parts of + the compiler. Review capacity is one of the most important resources that the + team has, as it enables our progress in the compiler's continued development + and maintenance. +- **organization membership** + - Contributors that are added to the *rust-lang/compiler* team in the GitHub + organisation can be assigned to issues/pull requests, modify labels, receive + group mentions and receive a "Member" badge next to their name. +- **rustc-perf** + - Contributors with permissions to use *rustc-perf* can request benchmarking + of their pull requests (and pull requests they are reviewing). *rustc-perf* + permissions are useful for regular contributors as it is common to need to + request benchmarks from contributors with permissions. *rustc-perf* permissions + only make sense alongside *try* permissions. +- **crater** + - Contributors with permissions to *crater* can request crater runs to check + whether their code breaks any public ecosystem code. *crater* permissions only + make sense alongside *try* permissions. +- **dev desktops** + - Contributors with access to developer desktops are able to connect to shared + development servers that they can do their contributions from. +- **triagebot** + - [triagebot][triagebot] is a GitHub bot that can perform helpful tasks on issues + and pull requests. Many of its functions are available to everyone, such as issue + claiming, but some functions may restricted to project/team members. + +[expectations]: https://forge.rust-lang.org/compiler/reviews.html#expectations-for-r +[triagebot]: https://forge.rust-lang.org/triagebot/index.html + +Guide-level explanation +======================= +[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation + +Contributors start without any particular privileges, permissions or +responsibilities and can contribute whatever they'd like. Contributors can +progress to [Trusted Contributors][trusted-contributors] and then +[Team Members][team-members]. + +Trusted Contributors +-------------------- +[trusted-contributors]: #trusted-contributors + +Being able to grant permissions to trusted contributors quickly is beneficial to +enable them to contribute to the project more efficiently and review and approve +work of their collaborators. + +Any contributor can request to become a trusted contributor by contacting the +compiler team's leads, or current team members and trusted contributors can +nominate a contributor. Team leads will check for a reasonable contribution +history, and will check if the current team have any serious concerns related to +contributor conduct (waiting approximately one week). + +When evaluating a candidate's contribution history, length of time and +consistency of contributions and interactions with other contributors and team +members will be taken into account. It is important to note that many kinds +of contributions will be considered such as code contributions, helping with +issue triage and bisection, running meetings and creating minutes, documentation +contributions for rustc internals or the [Compiler Development Guide], etc. + +Trusted contributor is a mix of RFC 2689's "working group participant" and +"compiler team contributor" roles. It is explicitly intended to be granted more +liberally to contributors who have demonstrated competence and trustworthiness, +for whom they would be able to work more effectively with these permissions and +can be trusted to use them responsibly. Trusted contributors do not need to +have experience with most of the compiler, and can be specialised to specific +subsystems of the compiler. + +Trusted contributors are granted *r+*, *try*, *triagebot*, *rustc-perf*, and +*crater* permissions; *organisation membership*; and *dev desktop* access. +Trusted contributors are considered members of the Rust project as a whole, and +are automatically eligible for any benefits that incurs (e.g. invitations to +meetups of project members). As representatives of the Rust project, trusted +contributors are expected to obey not just the letter of the +[Code of Conduct][coc] but its spirit. + +Trusted contributors can choose to take on additional responsibilities, such as +those listed in the [responsibilities][responsibilities] section. Participating +in the team's review rotation is encouraged. + +If a trusted contributor becomes inactive (the contributor's prior contributions +and other interactions with the project cease) for longer than a year, the +trusted contributor will be moved into alumni status. At any point in the +future, they can ask to be re-instated at the trusted contributor level if they +desire. + +[Compiler Development Guide]: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/ + +Team Members +------------ +[team-members]: #team-members + +Trusted contributors are eligible to become team members after they have +continued to contribute actively for a year. Trusted contributors can contact +team leads or will be contacted by team leads to enquire about promotion to team +membership. Trusted contributors who are eligible for team membership do not +have to become team members. + +Unlike trusted contributors, team members are expected to consider themselves +as *maintainers* of the compiler - put otherwise, to be invested in the quality +of the compiler codebase and overall health of the compiler team, independent +of their own projects. Team membership is primarily intended to recognise and +encourage participation in activities which are vital to the success of the +compiler team and broader project. + +Team members are expected to participate in the ongoing maintenance tasks +that the compiler team is responsible for (with all of the expected caveats +for vacation time, mental health breaks, etc) - listed as +[responsibilities][responsibilities] below. However, not all contributors need +to participate in these responsibilities to an equal degree. Contributors should +participate in these tasks to the degree that they are able - volunteers are not +expected to participate as much as those employed to work on the compiler, for +example. It is the responsibility of the compiler team leads to ensure that the +ongoing maintenance tasks of the team can be completed sustainably. + +Team members have all of the same permissions and access as trusted +contributors. Like trusted contributors, team members are considered members of +the Rust project as a whole and are expected to follow the spirit of the [Code +of Conduct][coc]. + +Like trusted contributors, after inactivity for longer than a year, a +contributor will be moved to alumni status. Members who are no longer able to +help maintain the compiler but otherwise wish to continue contributing to the +compiler can also be moved to alumni status and retain their trusted contributor +status. Alumni can ask to be reinstated in the future. + +[coc]: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct + +Responsibilities +---------------- +[responsibilities]: #responsibilities + +There are various responsibilities that a team member could take on to help the +team. All team members must participate in at least one activity. + +Team members can get involved in any of these by contacting the team leads, by +asking team members currently involved in these responsibilities, or by asking +in any venue where these responsibilities are conducted (e.g. a Zulip stream). + +- Final comment period (FCP) reviewer + - Final comment periods are the process by which the team signs-off on a + change before it is made, like stabilizing a feature. + + FCPs have always required whole team to sign-off, but this doesn't scale + as the team grows. As described above, this acts as a disincentive for the + team to grow. Furthermore, not all FCPs are relevant to all team members and a + diffusion of responsibility means that most team members just sanity-check and + then sign-off. This isn't ideal, as it doesn't guarantee that someone on the + team has thoroughly considered a FCP. + + Instead, have FCPs require sign-off from team members who opt-in to being + an "FCP reviewer", with the expectation that they will spend time reviewing + an FCP thoroughly. FCP reviewers should also consider reaching out to relevant + domain experts and soliciting their opinions whenever possible. Any team or + project member can raise concerns with an FCP, which will be considered by the + FCP reviewers. + + To function effectively, it is recommended that there be 4 - 8 FCP + reviewers at any time. If less than 4 FCP reviewers are available, the compiler + team co-leads will act as FCP reviewers until the reviewers can be found. + +- Performance triage + - There is a rotation of team members and other project members who check + all of the interesting performance benchmarks from the last week to produce a + report summarizing the improvements and regressions. This is valuable to keep + track of the compiler's performance over time and make sure that regressions are + being addressed. + +- Issue prioritisation + - The compiler team has a prioritisation procedure and policy to identify + and label issues according to their importance. These labels feed into the + backport procedure (what's worth being backported) and work priorities of team + members. + +- Backport reviews + - On a regular basis, some team members participate a review of pull + requests which have been nominated for backporting to the beta or stable + release. This involves a judgement call on the risk of backporting a + particular fix versus the severity of the issue being addressed. + + Once those team members interested in backport reviews are identified, + this function could be performed in a separate meeting or asynchronously, + allowing the triage meeting to be streamlined and focused on nominated issues or + other tasks requiring broader discussion. + + To establish a reasonable quorum of triage members, it is recommended that + at least 4 members participate in triage meetings. In the event there are not + enough triage members, the compiler team co-leads will act as triage members + until additional members are found. + +- Review rotation + - Every week, lots of pull requests are submitted to the compiler which need + to be reviewed. Being on the review rotation is one of the primary ways that + team members can help keep the wheels turning in the compiler team. + + It is **strongly** encouraged that all team members be a part of the + review rotation. + + +- Operations + - There are various *operations* tasks like agenda preparation and taking + meeting notes which are very useful for the team. + + This list isn't exhaustive, and this RFC shouldn't be considered the canonical + list of these responsibilities. Similarly, this RFC isn't intended to define how + these responsibilities are conducted (in meetings or asynchronously, etc), that + should be decided and documented by those involved in each. + +While this RFC doesn't aim to be authoritative with respect to how team members +who take on additional responsibilities are recognised, one way would be for +team members who take on additional responsibilities to record this in the +*rust-lang/team* metadata (using the `roles` key), e.g. + +```toml +[people] +members = [ + { github = "davidtwco", roles = ["compiler-backport"] } +] + +[[roles]] +id = "compiler-backport" +description = "Backport Reviewer" +``` + +By tracking responsibility participation in the team repository, it is easier +for the team leads to have visibility into the participation in each to ensure +that it is sustainable. Participants will be recognised for the additional +responsibilities they participate in on the compiler team's page on the Rust +website. + +Drawbacks +========= +[drawbacks]: #drawbacks + +- Granting permissions earlier may be a risk + - We haven't had any issues with contributors having staying power to the + extent that we would trust them with permissions and then having those be used + inappropriately. We can always revert changes if necessary. +- Expectations of team members + - This RFC formally establishes expectations which come with team + membership. Some team members already assume that these expectations are there, + but this wasn't made explicit when current team members were made team members. + +Rationale and alternatives +========================== +[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives + +- Get better at doing nominations + - A lot of this proposal's simplification of the way that promotions are + granted is based on the premise that our current system doesn't work well for us + - but we could just try and do the current system better. +- Only change review responsibilities + - We could instead try to increase the number of reviewers on the review + queue by just amending the current compiler team membership policy to include + review rotation duty. This does not improve our ability to correctly promote + contributors or recognize the ways individuals contribute to the maintenance + of the compiler but could be reasonable if implementing all of the changes + described here will take too long. + +Prior art +========= +[prior-art]: #prior-art + +- [Responsibilities][responsibilities] are similar to [an unsubmitted proposal + by Niko Matsakis in December 2020 to have "elected officers"][officers] within + the compiler team responsible for different team functions. This RFC shares + many of the goals of Niko's earlier proposal, but is slightly less formal - + responsibilities are loosely-defined groups of contributors rather than elected + positions, and there is no rotations or term limits. + + In this RFC's proposal, it is expected that responsibilities are shared + amongst a group of team members, and that team members do less of other + responsibilities so that their workload is sustainable, but this isn't enforced. + Team leads are instead responsible for ensuring that the team is large enough to + perform each responsibility sustainably. + +[officers]: https://hackmd.io/S9xqmwJbSI-a9mFdK9yQBA + +Unresolved questions +==================== +[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions + +None! + +Future possibilities +==================== +[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities + +Responsibilities could be formalized further - see references in +[Prior art][prior-art].