The Rust community is growing, and the RFC process is starting to feel some growing pains. It’s becoming more and more difficult for people to get involved in the deliberation part of the RFC process without feeling overwhelmed with content. We’re missing out on feedback from folks who look at a recently posted RFC, see that it already has 50, 100, 200 comments, and close the tab (I have done this).
On a tooling perspective, I agree with what @repax said:
I think that the linear format of the discussion forum is a major problem: all sub topics get mixed together and it can become overwhelming to read the whole lot of it.
I think a linear forum is probably not the most ideal place to try to have public discussion of this kind. Even reddit has a tree structure to comments.
But even more fundamentally, I think a major issue to consider is “Can we scalably decide every language/tooling change in a public forum?” For example, from what I understand about C++ and Python (python-dev) language development is that typically smaller groups of individuals (the committees, core team, etc) primarily have discussions and make decisions in small groups. Given how popular Python is, if the python-dev mailing list could be commented on (easily) by anyone, and they truly asked everyone in the community to join and give feedback, I think it would be chaotic.
So my point, I think Rust’s goals are very laudable to “include anyone and everyone” in these very important discussions, but has any other language ever successfully done this at scale? If so, what can Rust learn from how they succeeded? If not, should we consider changing our goals?
I personally worry a little that the core team members (who have done amazing work!) could get exhausted trying to genuinely incorporate feedback from every Rust developer at every step. I really don’t want them to get burned out.