[launching-pad] Find a home for the Book Team

[jamesmunns]

This is a tracking issue for finding a long-term home for the Book team.

Leads:

• @carols10cents
• @chriskrycho

This issue is a sub-issue of #118

[jamesmunns]

Hey there @carols10cents and @chriskrycho - as part of #118, I'm starting the triage process of trying to find permanent homes for teams under the launching pad.

In this first pass, I'm making tracking issues for each of the teams, starting the discussion on whether y'all think there is a reasonable team you think would make sense to move under, and in general checking whether the members of these teams are still actively working on things (I believe you two are, so probably ✅ on that!).

If you don't have any strong opinions (today) - no worries! I'll likely check back in after the first pass looking for "clearly inactive" groups. But I'm open to capture any thoughts here if you have them already!

[traviscross]

This would make sense to be adopted by lang-docs. On lang-docs we already maintain a number of different books.

[jamesmunns]

Hi @carols10cents and @chriskrycho, does the proposal to move the book team under the lang-docs team seem generally agreeable to you?

I've started the discussion in #139 to also move "Rust By Example" under this team, but wanted to get feedback from you before proposing this to the lang-docs team.

[chriskrycho]

At first blush, that seems reasonable enough as a proposal. That said, I think we should probably make sure we’re all on the same page about what that ends up meaning in practice, as The Book has a fair number of contraints on it because of its relationship to the print version that simply do not apply to other Rust documentation materials, and accordingly also has a more structured notion of “authorship” and is a bit more restrictive in what we do and do not merge.

[N.b. I will be away and not working on this project until Jan. 6, but wanted to reply so you knew I had seen it!]

[chriskrycho]

Now that we’re back from our holidays, @carols10cents and I chatted about this today and wanted to follow up on the above.

We’re totally fine with the book becoming part of lang-docs in principle, with the following caveats, all of which come down to the aforementioned differences between The Rust Programming Language book and other docs materials (like Rust by Example) for the project (this is a book which goes to print and has discrete/named authors and a specific voice, to name the most salient ones):

1. Other folks on the team should not be making changes to the infra or the content without getting reviews from us.

   The exception: if rust-lang/book is breaking rust-lang/rust, people should feel entirely empowered to do whatever is necessary to unbreak rust-lang/rust, regardless of whether we’re around.

2. We do not need to get approvals from other folks on the team to ship our own work on it. (Neither of us gates on each other, either, to be clear!)

3. Neither of us needs to add a new meeting to our calendar. 😅

To be extra clear, we don’t expect any of that to be an issue or anything, just want to be clear so we are all on the same page about whether moving it into lang-docs is the right move or whether we should come up with something else. If it still makes sense to all of you given those caveats and contraints, then let’s do it!

[traviscross]

Thanks for following up. Yes, that'll all be OK. In fact, the precise idea here is to adopt the book team as a subteam of lang-docs, not to absorb it. I'd still expect it'll operate as it has been.

The PR is up:

• Adopt the book team as a subteam of lang-docs team#1636

[chriskrycho]

Ah, that seems perfect, then! 👍🏼

[traviscross]

For anyone seeking further context on the PR, please see rust-lang/team#1636 (comment).