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.

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

Propose the docs team #1683

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Aug 10, 2016
Merged

Propose the docs team #1683

merged 4 commits into from
Aug 10, 2016

Conversation

steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

@steveklabnik steveklabnik commented Jul 21, 2016

This RFC proposes creating a new subteam for docs.

Rendered.

r? @rust-lang/core

@alilleybrinker
Copy link

Regarding whether rustdoc should be the responsibility of the docs team or the tools team: it seems to me that the docs team's focus is on the content of documentation itself, and so the team's involvement in rustdoc would be advisory, giving feedback from the perspective of experienced documentation authors.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

@AndrewBrinker: My position on it was that the html/css part would be handled by the doc team and the rest by the tool team. That's more or less the current situation anyway.

@nrc nrc added the T-core Relevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the RFC. label Jul 21, 2016
The main alternative is not having a team. This is the status quo, so the situation is well-understood.

It's possible that docs come under the purvew of "tools", and so maybe the docs team would be an expansion
of the tools team, rather than its own new team. Or some other subteam.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think so - I don't think the tools team have ever touched on a docs issue (other than the code of rustdoc).

@alilleybrinker
Copy link

@GuillaumeGomez, oh that sounds fine.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jul 21, 2016

lgtm

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Thanks for writing this up @steveklabnik, looks great to me!

@aturon
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Jul 22, 2016

@steveklabnik

This looks great to me, and I'm excited to codify what y'all have been doing into a formal team structure!

@AndrewBrinker

Regarding whether rustdoc should be the responsibility of the docs team or the tools team: it seems to me that the docs team's focus is on the content of documentation itself, and so the team's involvement in rustdoc would be advisory, giving feedback from the perspective of experienced documentation authors.

Maybe one way to formalize this is an expectation that RFCs or major discussions that affect the functionality or output of rustdoc should be tagged T-docs as well as T-tools (meaning both are needed to sign off).

@alilleybrinker
Copy link

@aturon, that seems like a reasonable expectation to me, although I'm not a team member so it's not really my place to accept extra work on their behalf.

* @steveklabnik, team lead
* @GuillaumeGomez
* @jonathandturner
* @peschkaj
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not that I object to the list, but I don’t remember seeing this person contributing to the rust documentation. Are they an intern?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this.

They are not, or at least, not that I'm aware of. They've been doing a lot of joint work with @jonathandturner , as well as doing stuff like organizing the Rust Doc Days, etc

@nagisa
Copy link
Member

nagisa commented Jul 23, 2016

I’m generally a proponent of this RFC, if only for ability to ping @rust-lang/docs.

to these areas of the Rust project:

* The standard library documentation
* The book and other long-form docs
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm assuming that "book" here is referring to TRPL and not rust-lang/book. Is that a correct assumption or do you see the docs team also contributing to the latter?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

rust-lang/book is the second version of TRPL, so they're really the same thing

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

I've removed the "unresolved questions" as it seems they're resolved, from this discussion 😄 Also addressed some of the nitpics.

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

Hear ye, hear ye! This RFC is now entering final comment period.

@steveklabnik steveklabnik added the final-comment-period Will be merged/postponed/closed in ~10 calendar days unless new substational objections are raised. label Aug 3, 2016
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

Hooray!!! After long, long, long last, the core team has decided to accept this RFC and create the docs team. Thank you everyone!

🎊 🎊 🎊 🎊 🎊 🎊 🎊

@steveklabnik steveklabnik merged commit 4139535 into rust-lang:master Aug 10, 2016
@steveklabnik steveklabnik deleted the docs-team branch August 10, 2016 22:15
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

I will create a PR for the website later this evening, if someone doesn't beat me to it 😄

@chriskrycho
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 times about a billion.

steveklabnik added a commit to steveklabnik/rust-www that referenced this pull request Aug 11, 2016
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

PR sent! rust-lang/prev.rust-lang.org#474

@Centril Centril added the A-governance Proposals relating to how Rust is governed. label Nov 23, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-governance Proposals relating to how Rust is governed. final-comment-period Will be merged/postponed/closed in ~10 calendar days unless new substational objections are raised. T-core Relevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the RFC.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.