Open oli-obk opened 1 year ago
rustbot
commented
1 year ago This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.
cc @rust-lang/compiler @rust-lang/compiler-contributors
compiler-errors
commented
1 year ago @rfcbot fcp merge
rfcbot
commented
1 year ago Team member @compiler-errors 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.
compiler-errors
commented
1 year ago Per comment above, I'll mark a concern that this is waiting on unanimous approval.
@rfcbot concern unanimous-approval
compiler-errors
commented
1 year ago adding another concern:
We preferably want to have automatic sync between zulip and folks joining/leaving T-compiler{,-contributors} to make sure these things like membership conversations remain private and also we don't accidentally exclude folks. I've noted in the past that we're not super great at making sure this stays in sync.
@rfcbot concern automatic-sync
pnkfelix
commented
1 year ago @rfcbot concern single-point-of-failure-via-stream-archival
As I noted in Zulip, I'm a little nervous about the semi-destructive nature of Zulip's archive command. It might be good for us to have some backup mechanism for streams that are used to capture long-term decisions. (I feel email is fundamentally different here due to its distributed nature, in that we all sort of have a "shared backup", collectively...)
(I'm still torn about whether to treat this as a formal concern, i.e. something that should block progress here, or just as a warniing that all archive actions need to be done with care, at least until/unless zulip adds an "undo" for archive commands...)
compiler-errors
commented
11 months ago @rfcbot resolve unanimous-approval
apiraino
commented
4 months ago Closing MCP, probably stale. See MCP process.
If the topic of discussion in this MCP should be reignited, feel free to reopen this proposal or a new one.
rustbot
commented
4 months ago This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.
Concerns or objections to the proposal should be discussed on Zulip and formally registered here by adding a comment with the following syntax:
@rustbot concern reason-for-concern
<description of the concern> Concerns can be lifted with:
@rustbot resolve reason-for-concern See documentation at https://forge.rust-lang.org
cc @rust-lang/compiler @rust-lang/compiler-contributors
pnkfelix
commented
4 months ago (my intent in filing my concern was to raise awareness of a danger; I had not anticipated progress being stalled to the point where the MCP would just be closed. That was not be intent.)
I'm going to withdraw my concern.
pnkfelix
commented
4 months ago @rustbot resolve single-point-of-failure-via-stream-archival
withdrawing my concern; I've tried to raise awareness of a potential problem. but I do not want that to actually cause this MCP to not occur.
apiraino
commented
4 months ago @rfcbot resolve single-point-of-failure-via-stream-archival
Proposal
We already have a private zulip stream. I propose to use it for discussing things like moving a compiler contributor to the compiler team, or adding a new compiler contributor. Similar to how one can reply privately to compiler team leads on email, people should send private zulip DMs to them in case they don't want their comments visible to the entire compiler team and the compiler contributors.
Mentors or Reviewers
N/A
Process
This MCP will not get seconded, but FCPed. Unlike other FCPs, this one requires unanimous approval.
Comments
This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.