4 ms·

I mean while I absolutely understand the latter situation, the former doesn't feel as understandable because the team could just...make an rfc for it. If you c

I mean while I absolutely understand the latter situation, the former doesn't feel as understandable because the team could just...make an rfc for it. If you community is clamoring about something, but no one has stepped up to make an RFC for the situation, you have to do two things: 1. Make an RFC for the clamor 2. Figure out why no one has done this already As you know, the lack of response is as much a response as any response.

steveklabnik 6y ago
"Make an RFC" means coming up with a comprehensive plan for implementing the feature. If the team says "hey we're not sure we've ever seen a plan that addresses our problems," then it's not really their job to figure out how to address those problems, it's the people who actually want the feature. That may be the team, of course, if they think that it is important enough to pursue. There are people who actively do not want it too, and you can't forget about them. The way you've written this sorta suggests that everyone but the team wants this thing, but the team is ignoring them, but that is very much not the case. It's just a contentious issue with tons of people on every possible side. There are more than two! Also, characterizing it as "no response" is not accurate, as I said, people have not come up with proposals that addressed concerns. It hasn't been ignored. Just not every person has the ability to comment on every thread in every forum. And there have been some people who have put forward proposals. There's an open RFC I linked downthread about a related problem, "crate name transfer," and there was an RFC that was opened two weeks ago, but the person closed it rather than respond to the team's feedback. That there haven't been successful proposals is different than "there have been no proposals." Personally, I think that we haven't had movement because it is an incredibly complicated space, with a ton of overlapping desires, and a lot of complexity, and a lot of angry, low-signal discourse. That nobody wants to wade through all of it isn't surprising. I'm glad this blog post was created; it's the exact kind of work that needs to be done to get things moving in a positive direction.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > "Make an RFC" means coming up with a comprehensive plan for implementing the feature. That directly contradicts your previous comment (that RFCs are the contexts that the teams are supposed to evaluate). Either: 1: non-comprehensive discussions are appropriate for a RFC, and random forum threads are the wrong place for that, in which case your previous comment is absolutely correct that it's unnecessary and likely counterproductive for the crates.io team to weigh in on said threads, but that still leaves the question of why they [edit: the crates.io team] haven't made such a RFC [edit: and told people commenting on the forum threads to instead comment on the RFC, where the crates.io team can evaluate] yet. Or: 2: non-comprehensive discussions are not appropriate for a RFC, and should take place elsewhere (ie random forum threads), in which case it's completely reasonable to expect normative (but obviously not binding) feedback on what would be necessary to produce a RFC-quality proposal in the first place. Personally I weakly favor the former view, on the basis that RFC literally stands for "Requests For Comment", but either one would be a sensible position, as long as one doesn't try to assert the negation simultaneously.
  - steveklabnik 6y ago
    1 is correct, sorta. Comments on an RFC are absolutely fine. That is their purpose. Random forum threads aren't the wrong place for that, like, you can discuss ideas for RFCs on forum threads, but you can't expect the team to always weigh in on threads. Their only responsibility is to the RFC process itself. If you're trying to get a proposal accepted, it's the wrong place. If you're trying to work on a proposal and get early feedback from other people, even if they aren't team members, then it's the right place. > that still leaves the question of why they haven't made such a RFC yet. Yes. I speculated a bit in my last paragraph.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > > that still leaves the question of why they haven't made such a RFC yet. > Yes. I speculated a bit in my last paragraph. Sorry, I phrased that poorly; see edit.
      - 6y ago

steveklabnik 6y ago

"Make an RFC" means coming up with a comprehensive plan for implementing the feature. If the team says "hey we're not sure we've ever seen a plan that addresses our problems," then it's not really their job to figure out how to address those problems, it's the people who actually want the feature. That may be the team, of course, if they think that it is important enough to pursue. There are people who actively do not want it too, and you can't forget about them. The way you've written this sorta suggests that everyone but the team wants this thing, but the team is ignoring them, but that is very much not the case. It's just a contentious issue with tons of people on every possible side. There are more than two! Also, characterizing it as "no response" is not accurate, as I said, people have not come up with proposals that addressed concerns. It hasn't been ignored. Just not every person has the ability to comment on every thread in every forum. And there have been some people who have put forward proposals. There's an open RFC I linked downthread about a related problem, "crate name transfer," and there was an RFC that was opened two weeks ago, but the person closed it rather than respond to the team's feedback. That there haven't been successful proposals is different than "there have been no proposals." Personally, I think that we haven't had movement because it is an incredibly complicated space, with a ton of overlapping desires, and a lot of complexity, and a lot of angry, low-signal discourse. That nobody wants to wade through all of it isn't surprising. I'm glad this blog post was created; it's the exact kind of work that needs to be done to get things moving in a positive direction.

a1369209993 6y ago
> "Make an RFC" means coming up with a comprehensive plan for implementing the feature. That directly contradicts your previous comment (that RFCs are the contexts that the teams are supposed to evaluate). Either: 1: non-comprehensive discussions are appropriate for a RFC, and random forum threads are the wrong place for that, in which case your previous comment is absolutely correct that it's unnecessary and likely counterproductive for the crates.io team to weigh in on said threads, but that still leaves the question of why they [edit: the crates.io team] haven't made such a RFC [edit: and told people commenting on the forum threads to instead comment on the RFC, where the crates.io team can evaluate] yet. Or: 2: non-comprehensive discussions are not appropriate for a RFC, and should take place elsewhere (ie random forum threads), in which case it's completely reasonable to expect normative (but obviously not binding) feedback on what would be necessary to produce a RFC-quality proposal in the first place. Personally I weakly favor the former view, on the basis that RFC literally stands for "Requests For Comment", but either one would be a sensible position, as long as one doesn't try to assert the negation simultaneously.
- steveklabnik 6y ago
  1 is correct, sorta. Comments on an RFC are absolutely fine. That is their purpose. Random forum threads aren't the wrong place for that, like, you can discuss ideas for RFCs on forum threads, but you can't expect the team to always weigh in on threads. Their only responsibility is to the RFC process itself. If you're trying to get a proposal accepted, it's the wrong place. If you're trying to work on a proposal and get early feedback from other people, even if they aren't team members, then it's the right place. > that still leaves the question of why they haven't made such a RFC yet. Yes. I speculated a bit in my last paragraph.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > > that still leaves the question of why they haven't made such a RFC yet. > Yes. I speculated a bit in my last paragraph. Sorry, I phrased that poorly; see edit.
    - 6y ago