Archive Docs and Docs subteams #298
Conversation
|
So, the reference and RBE teams should really be converted to wgs. The email address thing shouldn't be a big deal, they're never used. |
|
@steveklabnik Ok, should they have a parent team? |
|
It is not clear to me, to be honest. Do we always require wgs to have a parent team? |
|
If they don't have a parent team they'll show up as top-level teams in the website. |
XAMPPRocky
force-pushed
the
docs-archival
branch
from
823cc9b to
f31ca6b
Compare
XAMPPRocky
force-pushed
the
docs-archival
branch
from
f31ca6b to
43cf56a
Compare
|
@steveklabnik we have the security response WG as toplevel already. I think it's fine. We need to fix up the domain vs normal WG distinction, but as previously discussed we're reevaluating domain WGs anyway (rust-lang/wg-governance#46) |
|
Well the reference team has been migrated to be a lang subteam, and I think we should figure out the current state of "Rust By Example" group, and if this team is still active, before moving forward with the PR. |
|
cc @marioidival Just looking at rust-by-example repo it seems you're still actively maintaining the project. |
|
What is the real plan for RBE, will there be no more maintenance? |
|
No, it still needs a ton of work! It should just be a WG. |
|
@steveklabnik What team would an RBE WG fall under though? It wouldn't be the docs team, since the whole point is that it no longer exists :) |
|
Historically, I don't think there's been a parent team requirement. Many WGs don't have them. |
^ is this an issue though |
|
I'm fired from Docs/RBE? 😅 |
|
I think we're going to create an RBE working group. |
This PR archives the docs team and it's sub teams, adding any members not on other teams to alumni.
As with the previous archival it should be noted that this will mean that mailing lists associated with these teams will stop working, as we do not have a bounce list set up. Someone on the team will have to weigh in on whether that should be a blocker.
r? @steveklabnik