Status of the `rustwasm` organization and status as a working group

[jamesmunns]

Hi there!

I'm James, the Launching Pad representative for the Rust Leadership Council.

We recently archived the WASM Working Group (in rust-lang/team#1489), as there were no remaining members on the team.

However, it was pointed out to me that at least the website still refers to the "WebAssembly Domain Working Group". I would appreciate if you could bring this up to date!

It isn't necessary to rename the organization, as long as it is clear that this organization (and the repos/crates inside of it) aren't specifically an "official" Rust project (and rather "WASM with Rust".

It may be good to make a pass over the crates, websites, and docs in this organization to update them with currently active members, and to remove or update any references regarding the working group status.

If there is anything I can help with, or if you have any questions, feel free to let me know, or reach out on Zulip in the t-launching-pad channel.

[jamesmunns]

From a top level organization search, there are quite a few other references:

https://github.com/search?q=org%3Arustwasm%20Working%20Group&type=code

Tagging a couple of active committers from this repo, who might know who can help get this sorted out:

• @ranile
• @drager
• @guybedford
• @fitzgen

[ranile]

I don't have any permissions besides gloo and wasm-bindgen repos. @daxpedda has been working on the wasm-bidgen project, while I tend to gloo as much as I can.

I don't have the time currently to go through and update all the references in the Gloo repo, but I will be happy to look at/merge any PRs doing the update and cut a release

[daxpedda]

Same here, I'm happy to review a PR making the necessary adjustments.

[drager]

I don't have permission except for wasm-pack and some other crate in this org. The ones with permissions for the full org is @fitzgen, @alexcrichton and @ashleygwilliams I believe.

[ashleygwilliams]

I can help with this transition, let me know the best way for me to do that.

[jamesmunns]

Thank you @ashleygwilliams!

There's no specific policy for what needs to change, but IMO we should:

• Remove the mentions (or at least updating the language to make it clear it is past tense) of being an official working group in code and docs and web pages
• If possible, publish the websites/crates to include the updated language

The GH search above IMO is a good starting point for finding the mentions, I can start chewing through opening PRs later this week (if nobody within the org is available to), if someone can approve + merge + release as necessary.

It might be good to consider moving still-active repos to new homes, and archiving the remaining repos (and the org if that is possible?) if this GH org isn't a coherent group at the moment, but I also understand that might be harder to organize than the various docs PRs, and my goal isn't to cause any unnecessary disruption.

Happy to discuss if any of my requests seem unreasonable.

[ashleygwilliams]

i can start chipping away at that this week, if there's stuff you'd like me to focus on, please at-me.

It might be good to consider moving still-active repos to new homes, and archiving the remaining repos (and the org if that is possible?) if this GH org isn't a coherent group at the moment, but I also understand that might be harder to organize than the various docs PRs, and my goal isn't to cause any unnecessary disruption.

i've attempted similar suggestions in the past but there was some pushback for a variety of reasons that's not worth rehashing. previously i had recommended spinning wasm-pack out into its own org. if other projects wanted to join and/or form a group of some sort i'd be happy to help with some of that migration, organization, and governance setup (i dont have the bandwidth to commit to longterm maintenance atm but i care about these projects and would like to help if it's desired/appropriate.)

[drager]

i can start chipping away at that this week, if there's stuff you'd like me to focus on, please at-me.

It might be good to consider moving still-active repos to new homes, and archiving the remaining repos (and the org if that is possible?) if this GH org isn't a coherent group at the moment, but I also understand that might be harder to organize than the various docs PRs, and my goal isn't to cause any unnecessary disruption.

i've attempted similar suggestions in the past but there was some pushback for a variety of reasons that's not worth rehashing. previously i had recommended spinning wasm-pack out into its own org. if other projects wanted to join and/or form a group of some sort i'd be happy to help with some of that migration, organization, and governance setup (i dont have the bandwidth to commit to longterm maintenance atm but i care about these projects and would like to help if it's desired/appropriate.)

I'm open to moving wasm-pack and binary-install (since I manage those today) to a new org and continue there and also move other packages to that new org if others want that as well. If not moving to a new org I'm fine with moving it to your private account, Ashley or mine for that matter, what ever fits the best, as long as wasm-pack lives on.

[ashleygwilliams]

any thoughts on a name for a new org? i'm happy to set it up but have been a bit blocked on names 😅

[ranile]

any thoughts on a name for a new org? i'm happy to set it up but have been a bit blocked on names 😅

I would much rather not rename it. rustwasm doesn't signify working group in any way and rename would mean changing the URL of wasm-bindgen repo, which is linked a lot

[ashleygwilliams]

i hear you on the links and would be willing to set up a redirect to help make that happen. what is not clear to me is if we can keep the name rustwasm - i do not disagree that it doesn't formally designate a working group, but it does carry that historical connotation and it's hard to know how much we'd run afoul of that and/or any rust trademark shenanigans (i mention out of an abundance of caution, i'd be shocked if this was something that actually got enforced on us).

my main issue is that there is no clear governance structure on how to manage the permissions in the group and my sense is that there is not enough engagement with the current folks to enable that governance to change. i have permission to do administrative things but i definitely feel less than confident about taking actions like removing inactive folks, etc. a new org would eliminate that concern and that is partially why i am interested in it.