Criteria for Carbon to go public #63
Conversation
brycelelbach
commented
Jun 10, 2020
•
- Google Doc
- Ideas
- RFC
- Decision announcement
|
I can't seem to add labels. @chandlerc mentioned that's probably a permissions issue and I should remind him on a telecon. |
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| It is important for us to distinguish between minor leaks which do not warrant | ||
| going public and major leaks which do. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Minor Leak |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copyedit: "Minor Leaks"
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Minor leaks should not force us to prematurely go public. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Major Leak |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copyedit: "Minor Leaks"
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ | |||
| # Criterion for Carbon to go Public | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's late so I inverted "criteria" (the plural) with "criterion" (the singular) throughout this entire document.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| Additionally, there are costs associated with going public. | ||
| Greater participation brings great administrative and logistical overheads. | ||
|
|
||
| We propose that we should only go public when: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it an "all of" or "any of"?
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| We must make every effort to not create a hostile relationship between the Carbon | ||
| and C++ community. | ||
| One step that we take to avoid that is to ensure that we clearly acknowledge and | ||
| thank the C++ community and language designers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| thank the C++ community and language designers | |
| thank the C++ community and language designers. |
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| ### Criteria: Ready to Make Long Term Investments | ||
|
|
||
| The community will not distinguish between a plan and promise. | ||
| The community will not distinguish between a exploration and a long term |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The community will not distinguish between a exploration and a long term | |
| The community will not distinguish between an exploration and a long term |
|
@brycelelbach Were you going to continue with this proposal? Would you like help getting it ready for core team review? |
|
Yah; that would be good. I've been a bit busy the last few weeks with my day job. |
|
I've done a pass on this at: @chandlerc It may also help to have you in particular look at this and wording. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was trying to decide the best way to handle updating to the PR, and I thought I'd try this approach of pushing changes to the branch. @brycelelbach please let me know if you have concerns about me proceeding this way.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| Additionally, there are costs associated with going public. | ||
| Greater participation brings great administrative and logistical overheads. | ||
|
|
||
| We propose that we should only go public when: |
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ | |||
| # Criterion for Carbon to go Public | |||
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| We must make every effort to not create a hostile relationship between the Carbon | ||
| and C++ community. | ||
| One step that we take to avoid that is to ensure that we clearly acknowledge and | ||
| thank the C++ community and language designers |
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Minor leaks should not force us to prematurely go public. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Major Leak |
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| It is important for us to distinguish between minor leaks which do not warrant | ||
| going public and major leaks which do. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Minor Leak |
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| ### Criteria: Ready to Make Long Term Investments | ||
|
|
||
| The community will not distinguish between a plan and promise. | ||
| The community will not distinguish between a exploration and a long term |
|
Sounds good to me |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Finally posting these, sorry for the last hour.
I'm generally happy with the approach being taken and the structure. But I think the wording and some of the details still needs work. In some cases, we can potentially just defer details for follow-ups, but in others may need to get the wording right on this iteration.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| Once Carbon goes public, it will be infeasible to guarantee that everyone | ||
| understands Carbon to be an idea for an experiment, rather than a promise with a | ||
| long-term commitment. If we end up abandoning the Carbon experiment, some users | ||
| will inevitably view the experience in a highly negative manner. Even with a | ||
| private community, we must consider the balance of where the experiment needs | ||
| long-term commitments to continue advancing. | ||
|
|
||
| Carbon should only go public when the core team is fully confident that there | ||
| are sufficient community members ready to make a long-term commitment to Carbon. | ||
| To gain such confidence, community members will need evidence for themselves and | ||
| their organizations that Carbon delivers on its goals. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This section feels too strongly worded to me, and seems in contradiction with other points....
How can we have folks with a long-term commitment to Carbon when we still need broader field experience?
I would focus on the cost and difficulty of communicating about it being an experiment, rather than in terms of absolutes...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rephrasing and merging sections.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| ### Long-term commitments from multiple organizations and individuals | ||
|
|
||
| We have a desire to make Carbon a collaboration of multiple organizations and | ||
| individuals to ensure the longevity and broad applicability of Carbon. However, | ||
| Carbon initially began as a project within a single organization. Thus, we can | ||
| expect that in Carbon's infancy the vast majority of contributions will come | ||
| from the initial contributing organization. | ||
|
|
||
| When Carbon goes public, we do not want it to be perceived as an initiative of a | ||
| single organization. Therefore, we should consider the diversity of | ||
| participation and the number of organizations willing to make long-term | ||
| commitments in Carbon before going public. | ||
|
|
||
| Some individuals must be ready to contribute to Carbon's design and | ||
| implementation, but that's not the only kind of long-term commitment that we | ||
| need. Adoption of Carbon also offers a way to build crucial field experience and | ||
| generate feedback. | ||
|
|
||
| If the diversity is insufficient, then we will work to increase it by inviting | ||
| additional parties to participate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this section somewhat overstates the current situation.
I would suggest simplifying it to just talk about the necessity for committed interest from multiple individuals and organizations.
I'd also focus more on committed interest than the duration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not clear what you mean by this. Maybe you mean to delete the paragraph about needing both design/implementation and field experience intent? I've done that.
Similarly, I'm guessing by "duration" you mean the phrase "long-term". That's been removed as part of the larger switch to just "intent".
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Demonstration of potential | ||
|
|
||
| Carbon should only go public once it can be proven that it can deliver on its |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wouldn't say "proven"?
It also reads like it has to be all of them which seems infeasible. The rest of the section actually reads great, so I think it is just this sentence.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| We don't expect to offer training courses at this point, as the Carbon prototype | ||
| is still expected to be relatively immature. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd just skip this...
| We don't expect to offer training courses at this point, as the Carbon prototype | |
| is still expected to be relatively immature. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@KateGregory requested training courses be addressed, on the doc. Is it problematic to keep? Is there a rephrasing that you'd be okay with?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On further thought, I've added a risk of "Over-evangelizing" and I'm moving the example there.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| ### Launch event | ||
|
|
||
| We should have a compelling launch event when we go public. We should be ready | ||
| with: | ||
|
|
||
| - Technical talks from multiple speakers and organizations. This could be at a | ||
| conference or in our own remote or physical event. | ||
| - A website. | ||
| - A social media game plan. | ||
| - Tech press lined up. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wolffg here as he and I have chatted a bit about this as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've talked with him a bit about this. I've rephrased slightly ("We should be ready with" to "For example") but I think the real answer here is we'll need to plan for go-public separately from this doc.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| It is possible that Carbon will be perceived as a competitor to C++. Some may | ||
| view Carbon as an indictment of C++ and those who have dedicated their career to | ||
| developing C++. Those who work on Carbon, especially those who also currently or | ||
| previously work on C++, may be perceived in a negative light by the C++ | ||
| community. | ||
|
|
||
| We must make every effort to not create a hostile relationship between the | ||
| Carbon and C++ communities. One step that we will take to avoid that is to | ||
| ensure that launch announcements clearly acknowledge and thank the C++ community | ||
| and language designers. After all, much of the experience that is driving the | ||
| creation of Carbon comes from C++ and an appreciation of its advantages over | ||
| other programming languages. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While I agree with the intent here, I think the wording of this section runs the risk of exacerbating the problem it describes.
I wouldn't go into as much detail about all of the things and/or ways this could go wrong, and I would focus more on what we should do rather than what we shouldn't.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| Carbon may be perceived as being owned and pushed by a single organization. This | ||
| may lead to a variety of different claims of nefarious intent in the development | ||
| of Carbon. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar to the above, rather than speculate on how bad it may be, I would re-focus this on the positive reasons we want to avoid this. The second paragraph I think does a good job of focusing on the positive things we will do.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| For example: | ||
|
|
||
| - A tech press site learns about Carbon and decides to publish a news article | ||
| about it. | ||
| - If a reporter has rumors, email leaks, or documentation leaks, community | ||
| members should not offer comments. We want to avoid having comments | ||
| accidentally substantiate rumors and result in an article. | ||
| - Someone aware of Carbon discloses information about it on social media and | ||
| draws substantial attention. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar to above, I'd reduce the speculation about what might go wrong.
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| ### Declared intent to use Carbon from multiple organizations and individuals | ||
|
|
||
| We should ensure there is at least an _intent_ to continue with Carbon, even if | ||
| circumstances later shift. This intent should come from multiple organizations | ||
| and individuals. It's important that Carbon be a collaboration in order to | ||
| ensure its longevity and broad applicability. Even if most of Carbon's early | ||
| contributions come from one organization, it's still crucial that others have | ||
| sufficient interest to contribute to its ecosystem. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ### Declared intent to use Carbon from multiple organizations and individuals | |
| We should ensure there is at least an _intent_ to continue with Carbon, even if | |
| circumstances later shift. This intent should come from multiple organizations | |
| and individuals. It's important that Carbon be a collaboration in order to | |
| ensure its longevity and broad applicability. Even if most of Carbon's early | |
| contributions come from one organization, it's still crucial that others have | |
| sufficient interest to contribute to its ecosystem. | |
| ### Sustained interest to use Carbon from multiple organizations and individuals | |
| We should ensure there is at least an _sustained interest_ to continue with Carbon, even if | |
| circumstances later shift. This interest should come from multiple organizations | |
| and individuals. It's important that Carbon be a collaboration in order to | |
| ensure its longevity and broad applicability. Even if most of Carbon's early | |
| contributions come from one organization, it's still crucial that others have | |
| sufficient interest to contribute to its ecosystem. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did pretty much this same edit while we were talking. :)
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| Carbon may be perceived as being owned and pushed by a single organization. We | ||
| must take steps during the development of Carbon to ensure that multiple | ||
| organizations are involved. We will ensure that launch announcements clearly | ||
| acknowledge and thank the individuals and organizations which have been involved | ||
| during its private development. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Carbon may be perceived as being owned and pushed by a single organization. We | |
| must take steps during the development of Carbon to ensure that multiple | |
| organizations are involved. We will ensure that launch announcements clearly | |
| acknowledge and thank the individuals and organizations which have been involved | |
| during its private development. | |
| We | |
| must take steps during the development of Carbon to ensure that multiple | |
| organizations are involved. We will ensure that launch announcements clearly | |
| acknowledge and thank the individuals and organizations which have been involved | |
| during its private development. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done by hand due to overlapping edits
|
The proposal was accepted on 2020-11-03. As per the decision, updates that do not change the key substance of the proposal may be approved by code review. |
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me (with one editorial suggestion). Per the core team decision, this also needs approval from @chandlerc.
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <[email protected]>
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| conference or in our own remote or physical event. | ||
| - A website. | ||
| - A social media game plan. | ||
| - Tech press lined up. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd suggest omitting discussion of tech press at this stage... I think it is more likely to concern than reassure people.
| - Tech press lined up. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rephrased to "A game plan for social media and tech press." -- are you okay with that? I'm okay avoiding the "lined up" phrasing, but I think it's an obvious enough issue that it's awkward to just avoid discussing. (also, note tech press is mentioned below for major leaks)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the new wording is fine; we can iterate on this further after commit if needed.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
docs/project/going_public.md
Outdated
| conference or in our own remote or physical event. | ||
| - A website. | ||
| - A social media game plan. | ||
| - Tech press lined up. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rephrased to "A game plan for social media and tech press." -- are you okay with that? I'm okay avoiding the "lined up" phrasing, but I think it's an obvious enough issue that it's awkward to just avoid discussing. (also, note tech press is mentioned below for major leaks)
- [Google Doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uir4sc1HuT5pOzRrFDnbuClzSYBEwE2Unbabr28e8iw/edit) - [Ideas](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/going-public-doc/139) - [RFC](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/rfc-criteria-for-carbon-to-go-public/146) - [Decision announcement](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/accepted-criteria-for-carbon-to-go-public/167)