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

Propose an RFC process based on Rust's but lighter weight #1

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 18, 2018
Merged

Propose an RFC process based on Rust's but lighter weight #1

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 18, 2018

Conversation

fitzgen
Copy link
Member

@fitzgen fitzgen commented Jun 28, 2018

@fitzgen fitzgen mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2018
Closed
@fitzgen
Copy link
Member Author

fitzgen commented Jun 28, 2018

I just thought of another way we could potentially speed up our lighter-weight version of Rust's RFC process: make voting on an RFC happen in parallel with waiting on N days of FCP before merging, rather than waiting on votes and then sequentially starting N days of FCP.

----------------------------- time ------------------------------>

                    Rust's RFC Process
                    ==================

    |-------- FCP proposal --------|------- FCP ----------|
    ^                              ^                      ^
    |                              |                      |
    |                              |                      |
Team member                     All team                N days of FCP
proposes FCP                    members sign            have passed, so RFC
                                off                     is merged/closed

                    Lighter-weight RFC Process?
                    ===========================

                                       N days of FCP occur
                                       concurrently with team
                                       voting yay or nay on
                                       the RFC
                                           |
                                           V
    |------------------- FCP --------------|
    |-------- Team Voting ---------|
    ^                              ^
    |                              |
    |                              |
Team member                     All team
proposes vote                   members sign
                                off, but we
                                still have to
                                wait for N
                                days of FCP to
                                complete

@mgattozzi
Copy link

What if a team member says we shouldn't move to FCP then? We'd already be in the middle of it. My understanding was that the team voting initiates FCP

mgattozzi
mgattozzi reviewed Jun 29, 2018
View reviewed changes
text/001-the-rfc-process.md
[detailed-explanation]: #detailed-explanation

Right now, governance for repositories within the `rustwasm` organization
[follow these rules][repo-governance] describing policy for merging pull
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe this should be permalinked to the current commit for posterity sake

text/001-the-rfc-process.md
full depth.
- The FCP lasts seven calendar days. It is also advertised widely, e.g. in an
issue of ["This Week in Rust and WebAssembly" on the Rust and WebAssembly
blog](https://rustwasm.github.io/). This way all stakeholders have a chance to
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we can also bring it up on ThisWeekInRust

text/001-the-rfc-process.md Outdated
painstaking detail as Rust RFCs sometimes do (perhaps excluding *this* RFC).

The phases of RFC development and post-RFC implementation are largely the same
as the Rust RFC process. I found that the motivations for nearly every phase of
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It might be better to remove uses of I in an RFC as it also serves as a reference if accepted. So it should be a bit more impersonal in nature.

text/001-the-rfc-process.md Outdated
[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions

- Will we use [`@rfcbot`][rfcbot]? I expect that if we can, we should, but this
can be decided separately from whether to accept this RFC.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This would be cool

@fitzgen
Copy link
Member Author

fitzgen commented Jun 29, 2018

What if a team member says we shouldn't move to FCP then? We'd already be in the middle of it. My understanding was that the team voting initiates FCP

I was imagining that it would cancel the FCP and we would go back to development, the same way new concerns raised during FCP can send the RFC back to development. Open to other suggestions as well, or also keeping the serialized voting and then FCP.

@fitzgen
Copy link
Member Author

fitzgen commented Jun 29, 2018

Apparently getting @rfcbot setup is pretty much a PR for https://github.com/anp/rfcbot-rs/blob/master/rfcbot.toml and https://github.com/anp/rfcbot-rs/blob/fd4e44f531e6127ed122921c16387dff5e7ac522/src/config.rs#L7 plus some permissions and webhooks stuff for this GH org.

@fitzgen fitzgen mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2018
Closed
@fitzgen
Copy link
Member Author

fitzgen commented Jul 9, 2018

During our last WG meeting, @ashleygwilliams suggested adding some sort of "here is the outreach I've done to outside stakeholders" section to the template. I'll add something like that and then probably propose FCP (without the concurrent FCP and signing off discussed above).

@fitzgen
Copy link
Member Author

fitzgen commented Jul 9, 2018 •
edited by ashleygwilliams
Loading

I am proposing we enter Final Comment Period for this RFC that establishes our RFC process! :)

Disposition: merge

@rustwasm/core members to sign off:

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Contributor

👍 Looks great to me!

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Member

very excited for this. thanks for the effort @fitzgen

@fitzgen fitzgen added the final-comment-period This RFC is in Final Comment Period (FCP) label Jul 10, 2018
@fitzgen
Copy link
Member Author

fitzgen commented Jul 10, 2018

Enter the first ✨ Final Comment Period! \o/

@fitzgen fitzgen merged commit ec5fdd7 into master Jul 18, 2018
@fitzgen
Copy link
Member Author

fitzgen commented Jul 18, 2018

FCP complete! The dawn of a new era! 🎉

@fitzgen fitzgen deleted the 001-the-rfc-process branch July 18, 2018 20:08
fitzgen added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2019
@fitzgen
Merge pull request #1 from kellytk/patch-1
35a0ab0 
Correct grammar
eggyal added a commit to eggyal/rfcs that referenced this pull request Sep 2, 2019
@eggyal
Drawback rustwasm#1 ?
fe3978f
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mgattozzi mgattozzi mgattozzi left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
final-comment-period This RFC is in Final Comment Period (FCP)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@fitzgen @mgattozzi @alexcrichton @ashleygwilliams