Merge pull request #52 from nikomatsakis/compiler-team-contributors

RFC: Compiler team contributors

Author: nikomatsakis

working-groups/meta/rfc-drafts/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+This direction contains drafts of "Meta WG"-related RFCs. These are
+RFCs that pertain to compiler team process and which are being jointly
+written as part of the Meta working group.

working-groups/meta/rfc-drafts/compiler-team-contributors.md

@@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
+- Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, `my_awesome_feature`)
+- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Introduce an intermediate level of member for the compiler team, the
+**compiler team contributor**.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+This proposal is part of a larger effort to introduce more structure
+into the compiler team's makeup. This structure should make it easier
+to become a part of the compiler team, by laying out a clear path to
+membership and by offering more official roles.
+
+## Background: Access to infrastructure
+
+In addition to recognition, the levels in this document control access
+to other bits of our infrastructure. It is worth spending some time
+reviewing those bits of infrastructure.
+
+### bot privileges (including bors r+)
+
+The bors bot has a central list of folks that have "r+" privileges.
+These are people who can leave comments instructing bors to land a PR.
+Similarly, we have other bots (e.g., perf-timer and so forth) that
+require authorization to use.
+
+While the bors permissions are very crude (you either have privileges
+or you don't), we have historically asked people to use their
+permissions in specific ways (self-policed).
+
+One reason that it is convenient to have r+ privileges is a purely
+administrative one: they allow you to re-approve PRs after they have
+been rebased, which is a common need. (Typically this is done by
+writing `@bors r=username`, where `username` is the name of the
+original reviewer.)
+
+Apart from these administrative re-reviews, the expectation is that
+people with r+ privileges will begin by reviewing only simple PRs from
+parts of the compiler that they understand well. As their knowledge
+grows, they can approve more and more complex PRs. 
+
+### highfive queue
+
+One great way to help move the compiler along and to gain experience
+in its internals is to be added to the highfive queue. People on this
+queue are automatically assigned to do reviews for fresh
+PRs. Obviously, it only makes sense to be added to the queue if you
+have r+ privileges.
+
+Often, it makes sense to be added to the queue *even if* you are not
+that familiar with the compiler. This is because it lets you do
+initial reviews of PRs, thus gaining experience with lots of parts of
+the compiler. If you don't feel like you fully understood the PR, then
+-- after your initial review -- you can then re-assign the PR to
+someone more senior. (The "expert map" is a good way to find such folks.)
+
+### rust-lang org membership
+
+There are a number of things that you can't do in GitHub unless you
+are a member of the GitHub organization. Typically, one becomes a
+member of the organization by being added to a team, and these teams
+in turn are granted privileges to repositories in the organization.
+Most notably:
+
+- you cannot be assigned to issues unless you have at least *read* access to a repository;
+- you cannot modify labels without *write* access;
+- you cannot be a member of a *team*, which means you cannot be addressed via some
+  alias like `@rust-lang/compiler-team`;
+- you do not get the little "member" badge appearing next to your name when you comment.
+
+The last point is potentially important: by being made a member of the
+org, you are to some extent representing that org, as you are
+visibility identified as a member.  These can be important in terms of
+the code of conduct, as we wish for representatives of rust-lang to
+take extra care in their public interaction. In particular, this
+implies we might not want to allow **anyone** to make themselves a
+member of the org.
+
+### triagebot
+
+The triagebot is an "upcoming" piece of infrastructure that should allow any GitHub user
+to make some changes to issues on rust-lang repositories. In particular, one would be
+able to instruct the triagebot to do the following:
+
+- adjust labels on issues
+- assign oneself to the issue
+
+Because the triagebot can be used by anyone, and not just org members, assigning
+works as follows:
+
+- the issue is *officially* assigned to the triagebot (as far as
+  Github is concerned, that is)
+- the issue header is edited to indicate that it is assigned to the
+  user in question
+
+This is a bit less good than being assigned to the issue as an org
+member, since it means that your username and picture do not appear
+next to the issue, but it's still pretty decent and should suffice for
+most purposes.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+## The path to membership
+
+People will typically start as a **working group participant,** which
+is basically somebody who has come to work on something for the first
+time. They don't know much about the compiler yet and have no
+particular privileges. They are assigned to issues using the triagebot
+and (typically) work with a mentor or mentoring instructions.
+
+### Compiler team contributors
+  
+Once a working group participant has been contributing regularly for
+some time, they can be promoted to the level of a **compiler team
+contributor** (see the section on [how decisions are made][hdam]
+below). This title indicates that they are someone who contributes
+regularly.
+
+It is hard to define the precise conditions when such a promotion is
+appropriate. Being promoted to contributor is not just a function of
+checking various boxes. But the general sense is that someone is ready
+when they have demonstrated three things:
+
+- "Staying power" -- the person should be contributing on a regular
+  basis in some way. This might for example mean that they have
+  completed a few projects.
+- "Independence and familiarity" -- they should be acting somewhat
+  independently when taking on tasks, at least within the scope of the
+  working group. They should plausibly be able to mentor others on simple
+  PRs.
+- "Cordiality" -- contributors will be members of the organization and
+  are held to a higher standard with respect to the [Code of
+  Conduct][CoC]. They should not only obey the letter of the CoC but
+  also its spirit.
+  
+[CoC]: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct  
+
+Being promoted to contributor implies a number of privileges:
+
+- Contributors have r+ privileges and can do reviews (they are
+  expected to use those powers appropriately, as discussed
+  previously). They also have access to control perf/rustc-timer and
+  other similar bots.
+- Contributors are members of the organization so they can modify
+  labels and be assigned to issues.
+- Contributors will be listed on the [compiler expert map](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/blob/9d8c387ddbd01ced14eaab480cddb00c2d723f36/experts/MAP.md),
+  which lists folks who are familiar with each area of the compiler.
+- Contributors are listed on the rust-lang.org web page and invited to
+  the Rust All Hands.
+  
+It also implies some obligations (in some cases, optional obligations):
+
+- Contributors will be asked if they wish to be added to highfive rotation.
+- Contributors are held to a higher standard than ordinary folk when
+  it comes to the [Code of Conduct][CoC].
+
+### Compiler team members
+  
+As a contributor gains in experience, they may be asked to become a
+**compiler team member**. This implies that they are not only a
+regular contributor, but are actively helping to shape the direction
+of the team or some part of the compiler (or multiple parts).
+
+- Compiler team members are the ones who select when people should be
+  promoted to compiler team contributor or to the level of member.
+- Compiler team members are consulted on FCP decisions (which, in the
+  compiler team, are relatively rare).
+- Working groups must always include at least one compiler team member
+  as a lead (though groups may have other leads who are not yet full
+  members).
+  
+### How promotion decisions are made
+[hdam]: #how-promotion-decisions-are-made
+
+Promotion decisions (from participant to contributor, and from
+contributor to member) are made by having an active team member send
+an e-mail to the alias `[email protected]`. This e-mail
+should include:
+
+- the name of the person to be promoted
+- a draft of the public announcement that will be made
+
+Compiler-team members should send e-mail giving their explicit assent,
+or with objections. Objections should always be resolved before the
+decision is made final. E-mails can also include edits or additions for the
+public announcement.
+
+To make the final decision:
+
+- All objections must be resolved.
+- There should be a "sufficient number" (see below) of explicit
+  e-mails in favor of addition (including the team lead).
+- The nominator (or some member of the team) should reach out to the person
+  in question and check that they wish to join.
+  
+We do not require all team members to send e-mail, as historically
+these decisions are not particularly controversial. For promotion to a
+contributor, the only requirement is that the compiler team lead
+agrees. For promotion to a full member, more explicit mails in favor
+are recommended.
+
+Once we have decided to promote, then the announcement can be posted
+to internals, and the person added to the team repository.
+
+### Not just code
+
+It is worth emphasizing that becoming a contributor or member of the
+compiler team does not necessarily imply writing PRs. There are a wide
+variety of tasks that need to be done to support the compiler and
+which should make one eligible for membership. Such tasks would
+include organizing meetings, participating in meetings, bisecting and
+triaging issues, writing documentation, working on the
+rustc-guide. The most important criteria for elevation to contributor,
+in particular, is **regular and consistent** participation. The most
+important criteria for elevation to member is **actively shaping the
+direction of the team or compiler**.
+
+## Alumni status
+
+If at any time a current contributor or member wishes to take a break
+from participating, they can opt to put themselves into alumni status.
+When in alumni status, they will be removed from Github aliases and
+the like, so that they need not be bothered with pings and messages.
+They will also not have r+ privileges. **Alumni members will however
+still remain members of the GitHub org overall.**
+
+People in alumni status can ask to return to "active" status at any
+time. This request would ordinarily be granted automatically barring
+extraordinary circumstances.
+
+People in alumni status are still members of the team at the level
+they previously attained and they may publicly indicate that, though
+they should indicate the time period for which they were active as
+well.
+
+### Changing back to contributor
+
+If desired, a team member may also ask to move back to contributor
+status. This would indicate a continued desire to be involved in
+rustc, but that they do not wish to be involved in some of the
+weightier decisions, such as who to add to the team. Like full alumni,
+people who were once full team members but who went back to
+contributor status may ask to return to full team member status. This
+request would ordinarily be granted automatically barring
+extraordinary circumstances.
+
+### Automatic alumni status after 6 months of inactivity
+
+If a contributor or a member has been inactive in the compiler for 6
+months, then we will ask them if they would like to go to alumni
+status. If they respond yes or do not respond, they can be placed on
+alumni status.  If they would prefer to remain active, that is also
+fine, but they will get asked again periodically if they continue to
+be inactive.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+Why should we *not* do this?
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+This RFC represents, effectively, the smallest extension to our structure
+that could possibly work. One could imagine more elaborate structures along a few dimensions.
+
+**More senior levels of membership.** One concern is that the set of
+**members** of the compiler team may grow too large for things like
+FCP (where each person must check their box) to be feasible. This
+could be resolved by moving away from FCP-based decision making (which
+is rarely used in the compiler anyhow), but it may also be worth
+considering another level of membership (e.g., a **senior
+member"). Senior members could be used for FCP-level decisions, which
+would presumably be relatively rare. At present there is a kind of
+implicit amount of "seniority" amongst members, where the opinions of
+people who have been around for longer are obviously given great
+weight, but formalizing this could have value.
+
+**Specialists and organizers.** Right now, we don't draw a distinction
+between people who write code and those who (for example) perform more
+organizational roles (as of the time of this writing, we don't have
+any members who perform more organizational roles exclusively, but
+that is a likely future development). There will definitely be
+contributors who would rather not participate in the more
+organizational aspects of running the team, but would prefer to simply
+write code. As the team gets more and more organized, it seems likely
+that we may want to recognize this distinction, just to avoid things
+like pinging folks with organizational questions when they are not
+interested in that. But we could also address this by growing more
+kinds of groups within the set of members, such that one rarely pings
+the full set of members.
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+The compiler team has always drawn a distinction between r+
+privileges, which were granted relatively easily, and full team
+membership. However, the rules and expectations were not formally
+written out as they are here. Many other projects seem to operate in a
+similarly informal fashion (e.g., @goldfirere indicates that GHC tends
+to give privileges ["when someone starts contributing a
+lot"](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/pull/52#discussion_r274750230)).
+
+Here is a brief survey (by no means complete) of the process used in a few other
+open source communities:
+
+- Mozilla: [gaining commit access requires a small number of "module
+  owners or peers" to vouch for
+  you](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/commit/access-policy/)
+  (the precise amount depends on the code). However, gaining the ability to
+  review code (known as becoming a "peer" for the module) is [done at the
+  discretion of the module owner](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/module-ownership/).
+- Python: Becoming a core developer tyipically starts when a core
+  developer offers you the chain to gain commit privilege and spends
+  some time monitoring your commits to make sure you understand the
+  development process. If other core developers agree that you should
+  gain commit privileges, then you are extended an official offer
+  (paraphrased from [this section of the Python Developer's
+  guide](https://devguide.python.org/coredev/#how-to-become-a-core-developer)).
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+**Are "contributor" and "member" the best names to use?** The term
+"member" is used pretty universally amongst subteams to refer to
+"decision makers", so I wanted to stick to it, but I was tempted by
+other terms like "member" and "senior member".
+
+**What set of privileges should be retained in alumni status?** For
+example, should you still have r+ privileges? I'm inclined to say no.
+
+**What level of inactivity merits one for alumni status?** The RFC
+presently says 6 months, but that number was pulled out of a
+(metaphorical) hat.
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+In the future, it would be good to add an "active mentorship" plan for
+helping people move from contributor to full member. This idea is
+presently filed as [rust-lang/compiler-team#56][].
+
+[rust-lang/compiler-team#56]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/56
+
+To make more explicit room for non-coding contributors, we should
+consider allowing contributors and members to set a "subtitle"
+describing their role in the project. This idea is presently filed as
+[rust-lang/compiler-team#64][].
+
+[rust-lang/compiler-team#64]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/64
+
+We may want to refine the notion of alumni. In particular, members may
+wish to drop back to contributor level without becoming full alumni,
+and this RFC doesn't account for that (but it also doesn't preclude
+it).