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

Created an initial list of work items #31

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

DevQps
Copy link
Contributor

@DevQps DevQps commented Mar 17, 2019

Description

This is the list I managed to digest from the issues in our repository.
But to be really honest, I feel like it is a bit messy somehow...
Like it's a list of random things belonging to a certain area or something.

Maybe expressing the our goals as questions and sub-questions would make things more clear?

@DevQps
Copy link
Contributor Author

DevQps commented Mar 17, 2019

Forgive me for the random mix of capitals. I will fix that once we reach consensus.

@tarcieri
Copy link
Member

tarcieri commented Mar 17, 2019

The 2019 goals label tracks the present year's goals. Perhaps that should be linked from the README, but otherwise I think it accomplishes what you're describing here, and is a bit more dynamic than itemizing them in the README.

@DevQps
Copy link
Contributor Author

DevQps commented Mar 18, 2019

@tarcieri I think you are right. Right now it feels a bit off somehow. I can change it to a link to the issue tracker.

I do however think it would be a good idea to list the questions that we aim to solve in our workgroup. Our mission statement contains a few hints but it doesn't provide the concrete problems that we current face in Rust. The 2019 goals aim to solve those more concrete problems, but for newcomers I can imagine that it is not immediatly clear which goals we're trying to solve with our work items.

What do you think about this?

@DevQps
Copy link
Contributor Author

DevQps commented Apr 21, 2019

@Shnatsel @tarcieri What do you think about this?

@Shnatsel
Copy link
Member

I think this is a good way to improve visibility of the work items. Well, the WG repo itself doesn't have much visibility right now either, but that's a different problem. I'm inclined to merge this as-is and then iterate on it later. @tarcieri thoughts?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants