Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Add RFC to discuss RustConf 2024 Steering Committee #3549

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Add RFC to discuss RustConf 2024 Steering Committee #3549

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ae28e73
Create rustconf-steering-committee
graciegregory Dec 27, 2023
d05c7f3
Rename rustconf-steering-committee to rustconf-steering-committee.md
graciegregory Dec 28, 2023
1f68931
Update rustconf-steering-committee.md
graciegregory Jan 11, 2024
5b5f001
Update rustconf-steering-committee.md
graciegregory Jan 12, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
45 changes: 24 additions & 21 deletions text/rustconf-steering-committee.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -5,46 +5,49 @@

# Summary

This RFC proposes creating a RustConf steering committee to represent the Rust Project’s perspectives and priorities throughout the RustConf 2024 planning process.
This RFC proposes creating an advisory Rust Steering Committee for RustConf to represent Rust Project and community perspectives and priorities throughout the RustConf 2024 planning process.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this RFC is purposefully limited just to the 2024 RustConf than I'm not sure an RFC is appropriate.

My initial impression of what this document would be was a document for establishing how RustConf would be run at a high-level. Such a document would clearly layout who has authority over which decisions. For example, I imagined that the RFC would have said something like:

Areas of Responsibility

The following groups are responsible for the following areas. More detail on the nature and limits of the responsibility can be found below:

  • The Rust Foundation Staff: logistical operation of the event itself, coordinating sponsor relations, ...
  • The Steering Committee: all programming aspects of the event (e.g., program committee, MC selection, format of talks, whether to include workshops, inclusion of an UnConf day(s) or other supplementary events, etc.)


# Proposal

The Rust Foundation staff team would like to propose that a RustConf steering committee composed of ~5 Rust Project members be formed with an agreed-upon process of member appointment and scope established.
# Definitions

A Rust Project steering committee for RustConf could be defined as:
- "Steering Committee": A group of advisors that present recommendations to an organizing group (in this case, the "organizing group" being the Rust Foundation as the organizer of RustConf 2024). Often, a steering committee will be in place to represent the interests of a specific group (in this case, the Rust Project and community)
- "Program Committee": The group responsible for selecting speakers/talks to appear on the RustConf agenda/"program". The Program Committee for RustConf has historically been independent of the organizer and composed largely of members of the Rust Project. The Foundation intends to maintain this tradition in 2024 but will provide oversight and facilitation.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The Foundation intends to maintain this tradition in 2024

Is there a reason to not commit more to this in the RFC? It seems like this would be an appropriate time to layout how the program committee and is formed and what rules they must abide by.

If there is a worry that the Program Committee won't take the feedback of the Staff into consideration (which does seem very important given that the Staff has the responsibility of orgnanizing conference logistics), why not make a Staff member a member of the steering committee?

- "CFP": Stands for "Call for Proposals". This is the period and process during which we will solicit talk submissions for RustConf. The Program Committee will select submissions from the CFP to appear on the program and might also advocate for inviting several speakers who did not submit a talk.

# Proposal

A group of ~5 volunteers from within the Leadership Council and the Project Directors responsible for providing input and direction to the Rust Foundation staff team regarding RustConf 2024. The Rust Foundation will lean on the steering committee to advocate for areas of desired involvement besides the traditional UnConference Day and Program Committee.
The Rust Foundation staff team is proposing the formation of a RustConf Steering Committee with the following parameters:
- Members: 4 total members from the Rust Project -- one leadership council member, one Project Director member, and two members from the wider Rust community. We feel that an even split between leadership members and community members makes sense as the former positions can provide context and Project authority while the latter can advocate for those who are not necessarily in a position of power within the Project. We will lean on the Leadership Council as a whole to select this group based on a process of self-nomination initiated by the Foundation and promoted by the Leadership Council.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The split between Project and wider community makes sense to me, but I'm unsure why we're being so prescriptive about who represents the Project. What is the advantage of this over 2 members who represent the Project as selected by the Leadership Council? Requiring that the members be Leadership Council members or Project Directors seems like a good way to artificially limit the pool of who can participate without much benefit.

We will lean on the Leadership Council as a whole to select this group based on a process of self-nomination initiated by the Foundation and promoted by the Leadership Council.

Nit: the way this is worded seems odd to me. I think we can phrase it much directly:

The Leadership Council is responsible for establishing the process by which the members of the Steering Committee are selected.

With that being said, are we sure we really want to leave it up to the Leadership Council to establish their own rules which are not subject to wider review? It might make sense for this RFC to lay out some base rules

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

how about this?

Suggested change
- Members: 4 total members from the Rust Project -- one leadership council member, one Project Director member, and two members from the wider Rust community. We feel that an even split between leadership members and community members makes sense as the former positions can provide context and Project authority while the latter can advocate for those who are not necessarily in a position of power within the Project. We will lean on the Leadership Council as a whole to select this group based on a process of self-nomination initiated by the Foundation and promoted by the Leadership Council.
- Members: 4 total members from the Rust Project -- e.g. one leadership council member, one Project Director member, and two members from the wider Rust community. The Leadership Council is responsible for establishing the process by which the members of the Steering Committee are selected.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's fine with me - my only nit is that "wider Rust community" would indicate to me people who are explicitly not members of the Rust Project which sort of contradicts what you stated previously.

- Scope: The Foundation would like the Steering Committee's involvement in the following areas:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: I doesn't strike me as normal for an RFC to talk about the desires of the author unless that information is relevant for justifying why the authors have chosen a certain way between tradeoffs or if the authors would like to throw in a "nice-to-have" loose requirement. For more foundational information, a more direct wording is preferred:

Suggested change
- Scope: The Foundation would like the Steering Committee's involvement in the following areas:
- Scope: The Steering Committee's involvement will be in the following areas:

> - **Program Committee:** The Steering Committee should establish the structure, personnel, and processes of the Program Committee with oversight and collaboration from the Rust Foundation. The Foundation will take this plan from the Steering Committee to formally set up the Program Committee which will select talks after the closure of the call for talk proposals. Steering Committee members will not be on the Program Committee or be involved in selecting talks, although they can advise the Program Committee on key priorities as talks are being selected. To stay on schedule, the Foundation will likely need to open the CFP earlier than these two committees are in place, however, we will share our intentions for talk tracks/suggested topics with the Leadership Council in advance for feedback.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

with oversight and collaboration from the Rust Foundation

What are the limits to this oversight and collaboration. Is the Foundation allowed to disband the Steering Committee? Is the Steering Committee making proposals that the Foundation Staff ultimately has the right to give their approval or disapproval of?

> - **UnConf Day:** The Foundation would be pleased to offer an UnConf Day again in 2024, but would lean on the Steering Committee to decide this. If they decide there should be an UnConf Day after RustConf, the Foundation would like the Steering Committee to provide us with a basic plan including content and identification of people from the Project we should be logistically coordinating with ("UnConf Day Organizers") to ensure proper supplies and resources are available to UnConf organizers and attendees. The Foundation would welcome the Steering Committee's participation in planning and running the UnConf alongside the Organizers they identify.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Again, this is written too much from the author's perspective. Try to avoid an us/them framing and talk about all groups in the third person.

Suggested change
> - **UnConf Day:** The Foundation would be pleased to offer an UnConf Day again in 2024, but would lean on the Steering Committee to decide this. If they decide there should be an UnConf Day after RustConf, the Foundation would like the Steering Committee to provide us with a basic plan including content and identification of people from the Project we should be logistically coordinating with ("UnConf Day Organizers") to ensure proper supplies and resources are available to UnConf organizers and attendees. The Foundation would welcome the Steering Committee's participation in planning and running the UnConf alongside the Organizers they identify.
> - **UnConf Day:** The Steering Committee is in charge of deciding whether to include an Unconf style event in the programming. If they decide there should be an UnConf Day after RustConf, the Steering Committee is required to provide the Foundation with a basic plan including content and identification of people from the Project that should be involved in coordinating logistics.

> - **Other considerations:** The Foundation would also like to lean on the Steering Committee to understand if there are any other areas of the event they would like to be involved in on behalf of the Rust Project. The Rust Foundation needs to operate independently on major event decisions (like co-located events and conference activities, tickets/access, general event experience, and sponsorship experience) but will welcome feedback from the Steering Committee along the way.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The Foundation would also like to lean on the Steering Committee to understand if there are any other areas of the event they would like to be involved in on behalf of the Rust Project.

This seems wishy-washy in a way that is unhelpful. I think what you're trying to say is that the various groups should make a best effort to involve input from other groups in their areas of responsibility. I think we should state that.

All responsible groups should make an active effort to involve the input of other groups in their areas of responsibility. For example, the Foundation Staff should coordinate with the steering committee on event location before making their ultimate decision. Likewise, the Steering Committee should involve Foundation Staff in discussions on supplementary events even before they make a final decisions to minimize difficulties with logistics planning.

he Rust Foundation needs to operate independently on major event decisions (like co-located events and conference activities, tickets/access, general event experience, and sponsorship experience)

You've stated this mater of factly, but I'm not sure I agree that the Staff must be able to act independently in all of these areas in order to effectively organize RustConf. While logisical concerns like Sponsorship experience and tickets/access seem to fall squarely in the "operations" bucket (and thus appropriate for the Staff to be charged with executing on them more or less independently), "co-located events", "conference activities", and "general event experience" seem to be much more of a programming concern, and thus I would have imagined they would have falled squarely in the responsibility of the Steering Committee.


Once a steering committee has been formed, we can establish a regular process of communication between the Rust Foundation, the steering committee, and other groups from within the Project as identified by the steering committee.
- **Communication:** The Rust Foundation will share monthly asynchronous updates with the Steering Committee as the RustConf planning process develops. These updates will be used to share advanced notice of key event milestones (i.e. CFP open/close date, registration details, major planning changes/developments). The steering committee can use an agreed-upon communication channel to ask questions/provide feedback about the details shared.


# Motivation

While the Rust Foundation has served as a Diamond-level sponsor of RustConf since our inception in 2021, we have sought approval to use our staff and financial resources towards planning and managing RustConf in a larger way in 2024. We have gotten approval from our board and received [encouragement](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/335408-foundation/topic/RustConf.202024.20next.20steps/near/403266679) from the Project and Leadership Council to proceed in Q4.
Since it was approved by the board and leadership council for the Rust Foundation to play a larger role in managing RustConf, we have intended to facilitate an UnConf Day and for the Program Committee to remain independent (with management and facilitation provided by the Foundation). We also understand that there may be additional expectations around Rust Project involvement and feel that clearer parameters around the Rust Project's role in RustConf would be helpful.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Since it was approved by the board and leadership council for the Rust Foundation to play a larger role in managing RustConf, we have intended to facilitate an UnConf Day and for the Program Committee to remain independent (with management and facilitation provided by the Foundation). We also understand that there may be additional expectations around Rust Project involvement and feel that clearer parameters around the Rust Project's role in RustConf would be helpful.
Since it was approved by the Rust Foundation Board and leadership council for the Rust Foundation to play a larger role in managing RustConf, we have intended to facilitate an UnConf Day and for the Program Committee to remain independent (with management and facilitation provided by the Foundation). We also understand that there may be additional expectations around Rust Project involvement and feel that clearer parameters around the Rust Project's role in RustConf would be helpful.


Although we have always intended for the Program Committee to remain independent (with management and facilitation provided by the Foundation), Ryan Levick commented that additional Project input throughout the planning process is desired. The staff team discussed this internally and decided that a steering committee would be the right vehicle to identify and drive the type of Rust Project input requested.
The Foundation's senior management team discussed this internally and decided that a Rust Project Steering Committee for RustConf would be the right vehicle to identify and drive further Rust Project input. We feel this is the right approach due to the nature of event planning -- many decisions need to be made quickly to deliver a high-quality event for the community. We will be working with many, many vendors, sponsors, and stakeholders and need as clear a project management process as possible. An open thread on Zulip, a closed thread on Zulip without clarity on deadlines or decision-makers, or an ill-defined process of collaboration will not enable the Foundation to plan a satisfactory event.

When the Rust Foundation staff team raised this idea to our Project Directors during our biweekly meeting, we were asked to outline our idea in an RFC.
When the Rust Foundation staff team raised the idea of a Steering Committee to our Project Directors during our biweekly meeting, we were asked to outline our idea in an RFC.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this is really necessary to say personally.

Suggested change
When the Rust Foundation staff team raised the idea of a Steering Committee to our Project Directors during our biweekly meeting, we were asked to outline our idea in an RFC.



# Practicalities

Once this proposal is accepted, the Rust Foundation team can work with the Leadership Council and the Project Directors to carry out a volunteering process to form the steering committee.
# Alternatives

Once the steering committee is staffed, we can agree upon a channel and cadence of communication. From there, we will be asking the steering committee to share a clear set of expectations about their preferred involvement in RustConf planning (if there are requests outside of Program Committee and UnConf involvement). We can discuss these desires and expectations in Zulip.
## Foundation-Leadership Council Collaboration

Next, we can establish a practice of the Rust Foundation sharing timeline updates and next steps with the steering committee and field any questions or comments that might arise from these memos. The Foundation and steering committee can collaboratively identify practices around public communication of progress and advocacy efforts.
If desired, the Rust Foundation could work directly with the Leadership Council instead of forming a steering committee. However, we will still require an agreed-upon set of priorities and a more detailed process of communication about RustConf than currently exists between the Rust Foundation and the Leadership Council.

If the Leadership Council is in favor of this idea, we would like for the steering committee to be in place and active by the end of February 2024.
## Additional Consideration

# Alternatives
The Foundation would like to advocate for the promotion of the two community seats on the Steering Committee to a more global audience. We are in touch with several community organizers of global meetup groups (for example: Rust Nigeria and Rust India) who could surface the community seat opportunity to their members for self-nomination. We feel it would be valuable to spread awareness about this kind of opportunity to Rustaceans who may not be active in Zulip.

## Foundation-Leadership Council Collaboration
## Timeline
The Steering Committee should be in place and active by the end of February 2024 with the Program Committee in place by early March.

If desired, the Rust Foundation could work directly with the Leadership Council instead of forming a steering committee. However, we will still require an agreed-upon set of priorities and a more detailed process of communication about RustConf than currently exists between the Rust Foundation and the Leadership Council.

## Definition of Done

A decision from the Leadership Council on forming a RustConf 2024 steering committee with an agreed-upon structure, scope, and member appointment process.