Closing issues relevant to T-lang on this repo

[workingjubilee]

My understanding is that T-lang is not interested in following discussion on the RFCs repo that is not actual RFC. Various proposals seem interesting but are unfortunately in the form of issues instead of RFCs. If someone wanted to pursue them as an RFC, they should open it as a PR (following the template where useful, as usual).

@rust-lang/lang I would like to ask that you formally FCP that

• the language team is not going to (formally) take suggestions from GitHub issues on the RFCs repo
• thus T-lang will not act on these GitHub issues as change proposals
• thus that all GitHub issues that are relevant to T-lang on this repo can simply be closed, with a directive to open an RFC or to pursue some other process, as appropriate

[joshtriplett]

FCPing this.

T-lang, do we have consensus that we don't want to have issues on the rfcs repo used to report feature requests? (There are enough other places for feature requests that we actually look at; this isn't one that gets any attention, so we shouldn't give people the impression that it will be effective.)

@rfcbot merge

[rfcbot]

Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @scottmcm
• @tmandry
• @traviscross

Concerns:

• want-to-discuss-nuance resolved by Closing issues relevant to T-lang on this repo #3756 (comment)

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[nikomatsakis]

I agree with 1 and 2. I don't 3 follows just from those 2. I do however agree with it... specifically the current situation is misleading for people and can create a blessed forum for acrimonious debate, which I'm not a fan of. Put another way, we know github issue threads are not a great forum or technology for discussion, and yet that is the purpose of these issues

@rfcbot resolved

[traviscross]

Here's the version I'd agree with:

Issues on the RFC repo are not the place to propose specific changes to the language. That's what PRs to this repo are for. The lang team is never going to review a change proposal submitted as an issue, and such issues can be closed. At the same time, it's fine to use issues in the RFC repo for other reasons. As an example, if someone wanted to create an issue to describe the problem (not the solution) of the orphan rule preventing useful patterns, and use that issue as a place to summarize feedback in preparation for filing an RFC that would then fix that issue, that seems OK, and we'd not want to close that sort of thing.

As an example, I don't really want to see this policy close #3582. The author and those commenting on that issue are not confused about how things work, and it seems fine to read that one as an "ask" for an RFC that fills in the details needed to fully specify this.

There's some gray here, and I'd like a bit more nuance in this policy.

[traviscross]

@rfcbot concern want-to-discuss-nuance

I'm going to file a concern as a reminder to discuss this and see if we can either state a consensus on this with a touch of added nuance or agree through discussion that a blanket auto-close policy is right even in light of seemingly-reasonable ones like #3582.

[Jules-Bertholet]

There is a lot of redundancy between this repo’s issues and https://internals.rust-lang.org. This can lead to confusion. Perhaps we should settle on one or the other?